Talk:Blast furnace

Simpler Explanations?
Could someone please simplify this article a bit for sophomores who have research homework? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.251.144 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you ignore the history section, which boys and girls do not need to know about. Peterkingiron 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Environmental effects
It might be useful to include the effects blast furnaces have on the envrinment. Sban062 02:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some one has added a statement about steelmaking as a "major" source of greenhouse gases. Some one else tagged this with "fact" (asking for a citation).  I would not question that steelmaking is a significant source, but the greatest are certainly buring fossil fuels to generate electricity and power vehicles and machinery.  I have thus substituted the word "unavoidable".  I hope this is uncontroversal.  As CO2 is a major greenhouse gas and its production from the process is described earlier, I do not think any further citation is needed.  Peterkingiron 23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The revision is an improvement since it no longer asserts that steelmaking is "one of the major industrial contributors". There are many industrial sources (concrete for example - there's a lot more of it than steel) Tedickey 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Progress has been made since 2007 and it is no longer unavoidable - hope you and others can add more details to article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why data is given (granted I also added to this) for CO2 output per ton of steel when blast furnaces produce pig iron. I am aware of technical articles that have data on CO2 output per ton of iron, do you think adding this and then removing the stuff about steel would make more sense?Scirios (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Top Gas Pressure Recovery Turbine
One of the economical way of producing iron is Blast Furnace. To make the process more productive, several measures have evovled over the years. One of them being high top pressure operation. The high top pressure is maintained by a control mechanism on the offtake of the Blast Furnace that usually contains a venturi wherein the top gas is scrubbed (cooled & cleaned) as well as there is substantial pressure drop of the gas. Subsequently, dry type gas cleaning plant and Top Gas Pressure Recovery Turbine (TRT) have evolved. The dry type gas cleaning plant retains the sensible heat in the top gas for heat recovery and the TRT uses the high top gas pressure to deliver mechanical power to a generator which then produces power. With TRT, the specific power consumption now required by Blast Furnace to produce iron has come down significantly.

I was interested in preparing a complete list of Blast Furnace where high top pressure is more than 2 barg with and without TRT. The list would include the following 1. Blast Furnace identity (name / number, works location, company name & address with weblink & email id) 2. Blast Furnace specification (working volume, blast volume, blast pressure, oxygen enrichment of blast, top gas pressure, top gas temperature, type of gas cleaning plant (wet / dry), gas pressure & temperature after gas cleaning plant, TRT installed or not, power generation from TRT (if installed), specific power consumption of BF operation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.123.146 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moorcroft Wood
Moorcrooft Wood in Walsall was the site of Wilkinson's first experiments with top-fed blast furnaces using coal instead of coke. There are remains of the original slag on site. This was the first instance of the modern top-fed furnace. I see my reference to the only thing i can find about teh site on the web has been deleted -BUT this really is one of the most important sites in blast furnace history and yet is is almost totally unrecognised. The site and teh blast furnaces are clearly marked on the first series Ordnance Survey maps. 62.49.6.17 (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead


Blast furnaces used to be the main way secondary lead was smelted, however they have been replaced by rotary furnaces in most of the world except the United States; blast furnaces are still the most commonly used process for recycling lead in the US. Blast furnaces accept slag, dross, and residues as charge materials. The process uses coke for fuel. The result is a lead bullion that is high in antimony, as well as slag and matte. The bullion can either be processed into lead antimony alloys or refined further.

Blast furnaces are used today to smelt lead from its oxide, after it has been desilvered.

Zinc
A less commonly used method for smelting zinc uses a blast furnace.


 * Moved this section here until it can be beefed up to a reasonable size. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Manganese
The former main managnese production method. In France, last manganese blast furnaces only disappeared in 2003 History of ferromanganese production with blast furnace in France, from 1875 to 2003 Borvan53 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ferrosilicon
Ferrosilicon was historically produced with blast furnace. I don't have any ref, except A. Ledebur and T. Turner. Borvan53 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Largest blast furnaces?
Does anyone know a source for the largest blast furnaces around?

The largest should be in Japan as of my knowledge! http://www.nsc.co.jp/en/company/pdf/nscguide2011_e_065.pdf Lucien64 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dead link. Is it the the Oita No. 2 blast furnace (Nippon Steel Corporation) which has a hearth diameter of 15.6 meters and a production capacity of 13,500 tpd hot metal (volume 5,775 m3 (according to NSC) Borvan53 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Casual googling came up with some candidates:


 * Thyssen at Duisburg, "largest in the Western world"
 * Corus at Teesside (casual reference to "largest in Europe")
 * Severstal plant (giving 5580 cubic metres as the size)

but it feels like there should be a a "top ten" list somewhere out there, probably at some speciality site.... --Alvestrand ([[User talk:Alvestrand|t
 * Don't forget China : 5800 cubic metres Blast Furnace of Shagang Borvan53 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In 2014, the largest blast furnace in the world is operated by the korean company POSCO. It is the Gwangyang BF1 (6000 m3 inner volume, 16.1 m hearth diameter) for a yearly hot metal production of 5.3 mt/a. Borvan53 (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Walls?
What are the walls of blast furnaces made of? The inside is full of molten iron, what could the walls be made out of? I've seen steel mills in person and in pictures and many times the blast furnaces are rusting. Are the walls simply made of a higher-temperature alloy? If so, where are they made?RSido (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what period you are concerned with. Early furnaces were of stone.  Later ones of brick.  The charge is commonly contained using firebrick made of fireclay or other high-temperature ceramic materials.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What Blast furnace says is :The iron making blast furnace itself is built in the form of a tall chimney-like structure lined with refractory brick., so I guess the answer is refractory brick.  Velela  Velela Talk  5:27 am, Today (UTC−5)
 * Only since the 18th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The construction materials of the furnace I worked on in the 1960's are given in this image http://geoffjones.com/images/Blast_Furnace.jpg

Also the article should mention that blast furnaces are categorised by their hearth diameter. I —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofones (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Waste gases
please put some stuff about waste gases. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.199.212.78 (talk • contribs)

Revert of material based on Nef
While J. U. Nef was an important scholar in his time, his view that there was an industrial revolution in the period 1540-1640 is not now accepted by scholars. This is old academic writing, which has long since been superseded by the work of other scholars. I have therefore to revert the addition based on it. I have also reverted the rest of what has been added at the same time, which seemed to be a general comment, quite possibly be a non-specialist in the subject, and possibly in an inappropriate place in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the other source cited - G. Eggert, The Rise and Fall of Medieval Iron Technology], it is clear to me that this is a relatively shallow, derivative article, without any citations and not an adequate reliable source. The article is not necessarily wrong, but it skates over the subject without adding of substance. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Museum sites?
In recent times, it has become a trend - particularly in Europe - to preserve old, decommissioned blast furnaces as museum sites. There's currently four "open to the public" sites in Germany (the Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, the Henrichshütte in Hattingen, the Völklinger Hütte and the Altes Hüttenareal Neunkirchen), with two more sites (Phoenix-West in Dortmund and the Maxhütte in Sulzbach-Rosenberg) currently in the process of being reworked into museum sites. Spain has three museum sites, with the one in Sestao even serving as a header image for this article. Mexico has the Fundidora Park, also with a blast furnace as a museum site. I'm not sure what's going to happen with the place at Bethlehem Steel in the US.

Does this recent trend deserve a section in the article?--87.164.100.143 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this should not be added to the article, which is primarily about the technology, but that a separate article should be created, such as List of preserved historic blast furnaces. I would suggest that this should take the form of a table with columns such as Country; Name; period of use; status; reference.  The latter would cover issues, such as preserved in museum; standing in park; preserved and open by appointment; viewable from road or path; on private property (i.e. not accessible).  The reference column could be used for an external website link.  If you like to start such an article, I will probably add examples in UK.  There are also sites in Sweden, USA, Belgium etc.  They are sufficiently numerous for it to be inappropriate to put them in this article.  There is a precedent for this is lists of watermills: see List of watermills in the United Kingdom.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I observe that a section has now been added. I would caution against expanding this much, as it will unbalance the article, which did have GA-status, but this will now be lost as the new stecion is unreferenced.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some sources, mostly official websites for the German locations, which are in German (I hope this doesn't pose a problem). It's difficult to find official sources for some sites, even for Fundidora Park now its official website has closed. Does this article require academic sources that describe the existence and the properties of these locations, or do tourist photos that prove the places exist suffice?--87.164.111.177 (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally created an account. Started the list.--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think we need academic sources for the existence and locations of the sites, as long as the sources meet WP:RS. English language sites are preferable, since this is the English WP, but better still (probably) to cite a good German source as well as a less good English one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Patent invalid
The patent was found invalid by a court in 1841: Court of Exchequer 26 juni 1841, 151 E.R. 1266, Meeson and Welsby 806 (Neilson v. Harford), because it was found to relate to a mere "principle" rather than a true invention, thus pre-empting all applications of the principle, which could not be applid without "undue experimentation" though.

This court decision was cited more than once in landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court, that are still influential to the present day (because of the Anglo-Saxon system of binding precedents), notably U.S. Supreme Court 30 January 1854, 56 U.S. 62 (O'Reilly, et al. v. Morse) and U.S. Supreme Court 19 March 1888, 125 U.S. 136 (Tilghman v. Proctor). Especially the 8th claim in "Morse" is famous. It is believed to be the first software patent "avant la lettre". Rbakels (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please indicate what patent you mean. If it is hot blast, the fact that the patent was found invalid in terms of patent law does not mean that the introduction of hot blast was not a very importsant advance.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Blast furnace compared to other processes
"'Blast furnaces are to be contrasted with air furnaces (such as reverberatory furnaces), which were naturally aspirated, usually by the convection of hot gases in a chimney flue. According to this broad definition, bloomeries for iron, blowing houses for tin, and smelt mills for lead would be classified as blast furnaces.'"

It appears to me that a blast furnace differs from these other furnaces in that it is a countercurrent flow operation. It has similar characteristics to towers used in chemical engineering operations. The temperature rises as the charge descends the tower and the slag covered iron droplets that from have a high surface area, which allows the carbon monoxide to better diffuse into the iron. The different temperature zones and concentrations of CO lead to different reactions and equilibrium states.Phmoreno (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironmasters killed?
The last sentence of the section entiteled China" ends: "... where the ironmasters knowing the traditional skills or the scientific principles of the blast furnace process had been killed, the results were less than satisfactory".

This comes across as a somewhat indirect accusation. I'd prefer a direct statement, like: "in [X] regions, the production was impeded because the ironmasters who knew the traditional skills [etc...] had been killed by the maoists [or whoever]", followed by a citation.

I have no particular reason to doubt that something like this took place, but I feel this is serious enough to be well documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.203.251 (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes about Catalan forge and Stückofen
I corrected some obvious mistake about Catalan forge (see fr:Forge catalane) and. Both are bloomeries, but essential characteristics are very different. Translating corresponding articles from french is necessary to upgrade this article. Borvan53 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Blast furnace. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.madeinua.info/view.aspx?type=ja&lang=2&jaid=261
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.sea.siemens.com/NR/rdonlyres/FFA8AF1C-1791-46E8-AA09-917BB28D8701/0/038.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Speculation needs a source
Article currently reads in part ''In the nearer term, a technology that incorporates CCS into the blast furnace process itself and is called the Top-Gas Recycling Blast Furnace is under development, with a scale-up to a commercial size blast furnace under way. The technology should be fully demonstrated by the end of the 2010s, in line with the timeline set, for example, by the EU to cut emissions significantly. Broad deployment could take place from 2020 on.'' No citation is given.

Such speculation is probably encyclopedic if well sourced, but it definitely needs a source. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See to have information about the technology. This assertion is true but... the sentence "should be fully demonstrated by the end of the 2010s" is maybe optimistic. Borvan53 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blast furnace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205063947/http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/KoreanFe/KoreanFe.html to http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/KoreanFe/KoreanFe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding blast furnace history and the use of coke
The article makes a claim "The fuel used in these was invariably charcoal. The successful substitution of coke for charcoal is widely attributed to English inventor Abraham Darby in 1709.". If you go the the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_(fuel) you can clearly read "Historical sources dating to the 4th century describe the production of coke in ancient China.[2] The Chinese first used coke for heating and cooking no later than the ninth century.[citation needed] By the first decades of the eleventh century, Chinese ironworkers in the Yellow River valley began to fuel their furnaces with coke, solving their fuel problem in that tree-sparse region.[3]"

If the Chinese invented the blast furnace, and also were using coke with them in the 11th Century, why is this this article claiming that this guy named Abraham Darby came up with the idea of using coke, which was 500 years later? I also verified the sources in the Coke_(fuel) article, from the book McNeil, William H. The Pursuit of Power and it's all there.

I'm removing the line if anyone has questions about the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:C000:1ED0:1510:4591:7563:AEDE (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've reverted your edit. It has multiple problems as it stands:
 * You removed cited material. At the least you should retain the cited material and add the new information to the article
 * You left the citation, which made it look like your claims about China came from the existing source, which they do not
 * You didn't provide a citation to the source for the new material.
 * It would certainly be possible to add the information from the Coke (fuel) article, but it needs to be more carefully added, with one or more properly cited sources. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Coke (fuel) article says that ironworkers in China used coke, but says nothing about them using blast furnaces at that time, which is the subject of this article. Railfan23 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a minimum practical size (thermochemically) for a blast furnace?
I know there are minimum economic sizes, with considerations for fuel and maintenance costs, but from a thermal/chemical standpoint, there can be other considerations. For instance, you can't scale a bloomery furnace much below 30cm in inside diameter for reasons of fuel element size, air injection, and thermal loss through the (~10cm) clay walls. That means that in practice, the minimal size creates maximum bloom sizes between 2 and 20kg

I'm wondering if there are similar low-end constraints on a traditional (cast-iron-producing) coal-iron-ore(-lime) blast furnace. Anyone know?

Riventree (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See this chinese blast furnace which is pretty close to some african furnaces. I don't think there are smaller ones. Borvan53 (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)