Szczegóły publikacji
Opis bibliograficzny
Comparison of cupola furnace and blast furnace slags with respect to possibilities of their utilization / A. Pribulová, P. Futáš, J. Petrík, M. Pokusová, M. BRZEZIŃSKI, J. JAKUBSKI // Archives of Metallurgy and Materials / Polish Academy of Sciences. Committee of Metallurgy. Institute of Metallurgy and Materials Science ; ISSN 1733-3490. — 2018 — vol. 63 iss. 4, s. 1865–1873. — Bibliogr. s. 1873
Autorzy (6)
- Pribulová Alena
- Futas Peter
- Petrík Jozef
- Pokusová M.
- AGHBrzeziński Marcin
- AGHJakubski Jarosław
Słowa kluczowe
Dane bibliometryczne
| ID BaDAP | 119176 |
|---|---|
| Data dodania do BaDAP | 2019-01-11 |
| Tekst źródłowy | URL |
| DOI | 10.24425/amm.2018.125117 |
| Rok publikacji | 2018 |
| Typ publikacji | artykuł w czasopiśmie |
| Otwarty dostęp |  |
| Creative Commons | |
| Czasopismo/seria | Archives of Metallurgy and Materials |
Abstract
Blast furnace and cupola furnace are furnace aggregates used for pig iron and cast iron production. Both furnace aggregates work on very similar principles: they use coke as the fuel, charge goes from the top to down, the gases flow against it, etc. Their construction is very similar (cupola furnace is usually much smaller) and the structures of pig iron and cast iron are very similar too. Small differences between cast iron and pig iron are only in carbon and silicon content. The slags from blast furnace and cupola furnace are very similar in chemical composition, but blast furnace slag has a very widespread use in civil engineering, primarily in road construction, concrete and cement production, and in other industries, but the cupola furnace slag utilization is minimal. The contribution analyzes identical and different properties of both kinds of slags, and attempts to explain the differences in their uses. They are compared by the contribution of the blast furnace slag cooled in water and on air, and cupola furnace slag cooled on air and granulated in water. Their chemical composition, basicity, hydraulicity, melting temperature and surface were compared to explain the differences in their utilization.
