The document discusses utilizing steel plant waste through optimizing binder proportions using design of experiments (DOE). Three steel plant waste samples were collected and analyzed. A 2x3 orthogonal array experiment was conducted varying starch and molasses binder levels. Results showed the combination of 2.5% starch and 5% molasses provided the maximum strength of 1196.82 N/pellet and minimum shatter index of 0.18. A 3x3 orthogonal array experiment is being conducted varying binder levels and raw material composition to further optimize pellet properties.

1. UTILIZATION OF STEEL PLANT
WASTE BY OPTIMIZING
BINDER PROPORTION USING
DOE

2. Highlights of the Presentation
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Experimental Work
 Results

3. INTRODUCTION
 Steel industry in general, produces large amounts of solid wastes while
processing materials through its various processes which have many valuable
products and can be reused if recovered economically.
 India’s crude steel production of year 2014 is 83.2 million tones(Mt) which
National steel policy (NSP) estimates target to achieve 180 MTPA steel
production till 2019-20.
 A recent estimate puts it around 1.2 tonnes of wastes for each tonne of steel
produced.

4.  Why RECYCLE of waste ?
• Poor Technological support to achieve 100% Iron from
the Ore.
• Environmental and Economic Issues, as Steel
industries generate wastes up to 50%
• Benefits of waste recycling
I. It will reduce the depletion of the earth’s limited
natural resources
II. It will reduce pollution produced by discharging
untreated waste
III. Energy saving.

5. Waste Generation
sites in Integrated
Steel Plant
HSM CRM
Billet Caster
CoalIron ore Fluxes
Coke oven
Converter LHF, RH Slab Caster
Sintering
HMPT
Pelletization
Beneficiation
Corex Blast furnace
Lumpore
Lumpore
Wire Rod / Re Bar Mill
: Scale: Dust : Sludge
: IM Slag : Steel Slag
3

6. BF slag
43%
Ferro
sludge
5%
Refractori
es
4%
SMS Slag
17%
Mill
Scale
3%
Fly
Ash
12%
Flue Dust
2% Other
14%
Recycle
d
21%
Dumped
63%
Sold
16%
Avg. Solid waste generation in
SAIL
Scenario of solid waste in SAIL

7. FLOWCHART OF PROJECT WORK
Procurement of Raw Materials
Size Analysis and Chemical Analysis
Sample Preparation (Ball Mill -100 mesh)
Appropriate Beneficiation Methods to be selected

8. Cyclone Classifier (Underflow)
Tabling (Wilfley Table) Conc.+ Middling
Pellet Making Process
Finalization of Binder

9. Experimentation of 2x3 carried out for Binder optimization
Analysis of the output as strength and Shatter index
using Minitab 15
Experimentation of 3x3 carried out for Binder optimization
Analysis of the output as strength and Shatter index
using Minitab 15 (In process)

10. PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS
 Sample 1
Dust from Jindal Steel Works, Bellary
 Sample 2
Sludge from Vizag Steel plant,
Vishakhapatnam
 Sample 3
Sludge from Jindal Steel Works, Bellary

11. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
1. SIEVE ANALYSIS OF AS RECIEVED SAMPLE
 Sludge obtained was associated with moisture and size was not homogeneous.
 Sieve analysis is carried out to separate particulate particles on the basis of their
sizes.
 Here 100 gm of each sample are taken and then sieve analyzed.
 Results are shown in following tables :
Particle Size in
μm
Wt % retained Cum. % retained Cum. % passing
180 81.7 81.7 18.3
150 6.5 88.2 11.8
106 7.0 95.2 4.8
75 2.3 97.5 2.5
PAN 2.5 100.0
Size analysis of sample 1

12. Size analysis of sample 2
Particle Size in
μm
Wt % retained Cum. % retained Cum. % passing
180 54.8 54.8 45.2
150 11.6 66.4 33.6
106 17.5 83.9 16.1
75 8.2 92.1 7.9
PAN 7.9 100.0
Size analysis of sample 3
Particle Size in
μm
Wt % retained Cum. % retained Cum. % passing
180 65.4 65.4 34.6
150 11.1 76.5 23.5
106 13.4 89.9 10.1
75 5.1 95.0 5.0
PAN 5.0 100.0

13. 2. Chemical Analysis Of As Received Samples
 Mineralogical and chemical compositions of the samples were determined by X-
ray fluorescent spectrometer (XRF).
The Chemical Analyses Of The Samples
SAMPLE Fe(T) % Fe2O3 % CaO % SiO2 %
Sample 1
38.77 55.39 35.84 5.57
Sample 2
49.49 70.69 23.29 1.65
Sample 3
51.64 73.77 20.69 2.51

14. CYCLONE CLASSIFICATION
 Method of separating mixtures of minerals
into two or more products.
 The separation is usually done by size but
sometime it may also be done by other
particle properties such as density.
 Particles introduced into the sorting column
either sink or rise according to whether the
terminal velocities are greater or less than
the upward velocity of the fluid.

15. TABLING
The Tabling works on the principle of
gravity separation technique.
Shaking Table
 When a flowing film of water flows over a flat,
inclined surface the water closed to the surface
is retarded by the friction of water absorbed on
the surface; the velocity increases towards the
water surface.
 If mineral particles are introduced into the film,
small particles will not move as rapidly as large
particles, since they will be submerged in the
slower moving portion of the film.
 Particles of high specific gravity will move
more slowly than lighter particles, and so a
lateral displacement of material will be
produced.
Laboratory model table (1016X457mm
Denver Wilfley Table).

16. Pellet Making Process
 Use of Co2 gas is optional depending upon the binder used.
Hyperlink
DISC
PELLETIZ
ER

17. Mechanism of pellet formation
1. Moisture Content (10%-15%)
• < critical amt (dry)
• > critical amt (plasticity
increase)
2. Stages
A. Seed formation (or) nucleation
B. Growth
• By layering (pick up mat.)
• By assimilation
(coalescence)

18.  Binder
 Inorganic
• Lime & silica
• Ca(OH)2
• Lime & Ca(OH)2
 Organic
• Dextrin
• Molasses
 Combine (Inorganic +
Organic)

19. Strength Analysis
8 10 7
11 9 8
44
85
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
5%Fly
Ash+5%Lime
7.5%Fly
Ash+5%Lime
5%Fly
Ash+5%
Slacked
Lime
7.5%Fly
Ash+5%
Slacked
Lime
10%Fly
Ash+5%
Slacked
Lime
5% Starch 10% Starch 10%
Molasses
Strength Kg/pellet

20. Shatter Index
22.592
9.84
5.53
7.17
16.23
22.01
0.52 0.31
5%Fly
Ash+5%Lime
7.5%Fly
Ash+5%Lime
5%Fly Ash+5%
Slacked Lime
7.5%Fly
Ash+5%
Slacked Lime
10%Fly Ash+5%
Slacked Lime
5% Starch 10% Starch 10% Molasses
Shatter Index

21. Experimentation Results for 2*3 orthogonal array
Experiment Run Starch % levels Molasses % levels
Strength
(N/briquette)
Shatter Index
1. 2.5 2.5 451.26 0.84
2. 2.5 5 1196.82 0.18
3. 2.5 7.5 853.47 0.4
4. 5 2.5 794.61 0.53
5. 5 5 1059.48 0.84
6. 5 7.5 784.8 0.86
7. 7.5 2.5 1010.43 0.87
8. 7.5 5 1167.39 0.4
9. 7.5 7.5 873.09 0.35
21

22. Analysis for 2*3 orthogonal array
 From plots of data means, individually 7.5% starch and 5% molasses are giving maximum
strength while individually 2.5% starch and 5% molasses gives minimum shatter index
22
Fig Individual plot for Pellet strength Fig Individual plot for shatter index

23. Contd..
 From interaction plot of data means, 5% Molasses individually gives lower shatter index
irrespective of Starch percentage. Similarly, 2.5% Starch individually gives lower shatter
index as well. Additionally, combination of 2.5% starch and 5% molasses gives maximum
strength and minimum shatter index.
23
Fig (Combined interaction plot for Pellet strength) Fig (Combined interaction plot for Shatter index)

24. Contd..
 From plots of SN ratios, individually 7.5% starch and 5% molasses are giving maximum
strength while individually 2.5% starch and 5% molasses gives minimum shatter index.
24
Fig Individual plot of SN ratio for Strength Fig Individual plot of SN ratio for Shatter index

25. Contd..
 From interaction plot of S/N ratios, 5% Molasses individually gives lower shatter index
irrespective of Starch percentage. Similarly, 2.5% Starch individually gives lower shatter
index as well. Additionally, combination of 2.5% starch and 5% molasses gives maximum
strength and minimum shatter index.
25
Fig Interaction plot of S/N Ratio for Pellet strength Fig Interaction plot of S/N Ratio for Shatter index

26. Contd..
 From the ranking table if only strength is priority as the response parameter, the best
combination of binder is 2.5% starch and 5% molasses with 1196.82 N/pellet.
26
Rank Experiment Run
Starch %
levels
Molasses %
levels
Strength
(N/briquette)
Shatter Index
1 2 2.5 5 1196.82 0.18
2 8 7.5 5 1167.39 0.4
3 5 5 5 1059.48 0.84
4 7 7.5 2.5 1010.43 0.87
5 9 7.5 7.5 873.09 0.35
6 3 2.5 7.5 853.47 0.4
7 4 5 2.5 794.61 0.53
8 6 5 7.5 784.8 0.86
9 1 2.5 2.5 451.26 0.84
Table: Ranking order considering Strength as priority

27. Contd..
 From the ranking table if only shatter index is priority as the response parameter, the
best combination of binder is 2.5% starch and 5% molasses with 0.18.
27
Rank Experiment Run Starch % levels
Molasses %
levels
Strength
(N/briquette)
Shatter Index
1 2 2.5 5 1196.82 0.18
2 9 7.5 7.5 873.09 0.35
3 3 2.5 7.5 853.47 0.4
4 8 7.5 5 1167.39 0.4
5 4 5 2.5 794.61 0.53
6 1 2.5 2.5 451.26 0.84
7 5 5 5 1059.48 0.84
8 6 5 7.5 784.8 0.86
9 7 7.5 2.5 1010.43 0.87
Table: Ranking order considering Shatter index as priority

28. Contd..
 From the final ranking table, if both the response parameters are considered equally, then also
the combination of binder 2.5% starch and 5% molasses is the most optimum one.
28
Rank Experiment Run Starch % levels
Molasses %
levels
Strength
(N/briquette)
Shatter Index
1 2 2.5 5 1196.82 0.18
2 8 7.5 5 1167.39 0.4
3 9 7.5 7.5 873.09 0.35
4 3 2.5 7.5 853.47 0.4
5 5 5 5 1059.48 0.84
6 7 7.5 2.5 1010.43 0.87
7 4 5 2.5 794.61 0.53
8 6 5 7.5 784.8 0.86
9 1 2.5 2.5 451.26 0.84
Table: Ranking order considering effect of both outputs

29. Raw material Composition for 3*3
Orthogonal Matrix
 Raw Material 1: Jindal Steel Works Dust
 Raw Material 2: Jindal Steel Works Sludge
 Raw Material 3: VIZAG Sludge
29

30. Table: L9 3*3 orthogonal array for Binder and
different material with output
Experiment Run Starch Molasses Raw Material Strength N/pellet Shatter Index
1 2.5% 2.5% 1 451.26 0.84
2 2.5% 5% 2
539 2.096
3 2.5% 7.5% 3
960.4 0.636
4 5% 2.5% 2
1435.7 1.488
5 5% 5% 3
759.5 0.529
6 5% 7.5% 1 784.8 0.86
7 7.5% 2.5% 3
1063.3 0.358
8 7.5% 5% 1 1167.39 0.4
9 7.5% 7.5% 2
1014.3 0.064
30

31. Any Query ?????

32. Thank You…!