This article was downloaded by:

On: 6 February 2011

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597284

Genetic Algorithm-Based Multicriteria Optimization of Ironmaking in the

Blast Furnace
Frank Petterssona; Henrik Saxéna; Kalyanmoy Debbc
a
Heat Engineering Laboratory, Åbo Akademi, Åbo, Finland b Department of Business Technology,
Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland c Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India

To cite this Article Pettersson, Frank , Saxén, Henrik and Deb, Kalyanmoy(2009) 'Genetic Algorithm-Based Multicriteria
Optimization of Ironmaking in the Blast Furnace', Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 24: 3, 343 — 349
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10426910802679485
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10426910802679485

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 24: 343–349, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1042-6914 print/1532-2475 online
DOI: 10.1080/10426910802679485

Genetic Algorithm-Based Multicriteria Optimization

of Ironmaking in the Blast Furnace
Frank Pettersson1 , Henrik Saxén1 , and Kalyanmoy Deb2
3
1
Heat Engineering Laboratory, Åbo Akademi, Åbo, Finland
2
Department of Business Technology, Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India

A method has been developed for optimizing ironmaking in the blast furnace with the aim to minimize costs and CO2 emissions. These two
goals are pursued by a genetic algorithm yielding states of operation on a Pareto-optimal front with nondominated solutions. The blast furnace
process is described mathematically by a thermodynamic simulation model, where realistic operational constraints are imposed. The states on the
Pareto-optimal fronts evolved are analyzed in more detail, considering the constraints of the process. The solutions are found to give rise to clearly
different specific emissions but very similar specific costs as long as the production stays within the limits of the granted CO2 emissions allowances
of the plant. However, this also implies that the costs of ironmaking may rise considerably along with increased prices of the allowances or reduced
emission rights. The findings of the work are expected to be valuable in the strategic evaluation of future ironmaking options.

Keywords Cost minimization; CO2 emission; Genetic algorithms; Ironmaking; Multicriterion optimization; Pareto-optimal solutions.

Introduction emissions are formulated, and an evolutionary algorithm is

Downloaded At: 17:03 6 February 2011

In spite of new emerging technologies, the blast furnace
has still remained competitive against other alternative
processes for production of iron for primary steelmaking.
One reason is that it has been developed and optimized
during many centuries. Mathematical optimization
techniques have been used more than 50 years, starting
with the development of linear programming techniques,
and production planning and optimization methods in the
steel industry have also been studied during decades [1–4].
However, the unit processes have been modelled in a rather
simplified way to allow for optimization of the whole plant,
so the operation of the blast furnace has been described by
strongly simplified equations, and the “internal” operation
constraints have often been neglected or considered as
equality rather than inequality constraints. Only more
recently, attempts have been made to more rigorously
optimize the ironmaking in the blast furnace under realistic
operation conditions and constraints [5–7].
The fact that steelmaking is extremely energy intensive
and accounts for about 7% of the fossil CO2 emissions
in the world calls for special attention with respect to the
emissions. Production concepts which suppress energy use
and emissions will have a clear impact on the economy
of ironmaking. This article presents a method by which
the ironmaking in the blast furnace can be optimized
with respect to different goals, including economy and
emissions. The method is based on a blast furnace model,
which is used to predict the performance variables of the
process under different operational conditions. Objectives
for the operation, such as minimum specific costs and CO2
Received August 25, 2008; Accepted November 1, 2008
Address correspondence to Henrik Saxén, Heat Engineering
Laboratory, Åbo Akademi University, Biskopsg. 8, FI-20500 Åbo,
Finland; E-mail: hsaxen@abo.fi
343
used to optimize the goals. This multiobjective optimization
yields a Pareto-optimal front with nondominating solutions,
among which a solution can be selected. The model is
described in the next section, followed by a presentation of
the optimization method. Some results of the study are then
presented, and finally some conclusions and made.
Blast furnace model and blast heating
The basis of the work is formed by a thermodynamic
first-principles model of the blast furnace inspired by the
concepts introduced by Rist et al. [8]. The model [6, 9]
is based on a division of the process into two main parts,
where thermal and chemical equilibrium are approached
on the boundary between the control volumes, where
a chemically and thermally inactive zone occurs. This
approach makes it possible to apply a sequential solution
procedure, briefly outlined in what follows. After specifying
the blast parameters and specific injection rate of auxiliary
reductants (also assuming the temperature of coke at the
tuyere level), the model calculates the energy input through
the tuyeres as well as the adiabatic flame temperature in and
bosh gas volume from the raceways under the assumption
that neither CO2 nor H2 O exist due to the strongly reducing
atmosphere in the furnace. With this information, material
and energy balance equations for the lower main control
volume (elaboration zone) yield the pig iron production rate
and the coke rate, as well as the amount and composition
of the gas at the thermal/chemical reserve zone, where
the temperature and fractional approach to equilibrium are
user-specified parameters. Finally, with this information,
the equations for the upper control volume (preparation
zone) yield the amount of top gas, its temperature, and
composition.
In order to make the calculation efficient, which is
motivated by the fact that a large number of function
 344 F. PETTERSSON ET AL.

Table 1.—Output variables predicted by the blast furnace model (Eq. (1)). where G is the heat conductance of the stove system and
Tln is the logarithmic mean of the temperature difference
Variable Symbol Unit Range
from the “hot” to the “cold” side, defined as
Production rate ṁhm t hm/h 120–160
Specific coke rate mcoke kg/t hm


– Tln =  T1 − T2 / ln T1 / T2 
(3)
Flame temperature Tfl C 2000–2300


Top gas temperature Ttg C 100–250
Bosh gas volume V̇bg km3 n/h 170–195 where T1 = Tg1 − Ta1 and T2 = Tg2 − Ta2 refer to the
Residence time of solids  h 6.5–8.0 temperature differences at the two ends of the hot stoves
Slag basicity, (CaO)/(SiO2 ) B – 1.05–1.2 (a = air
g = gas). The air + oxygen inlet temperature is
Slag rate mslag kg/t hm – given by the output temperature from the compressor,
Top gas volume V̇tg km3 n/h – the top gas combustion temperature depends on the top
Top gas CO content yCO vol-% –
Top gas CO2 content yCO2 vol-% – gas composition and the air ratio (
), while the outgoing
Top gas H2 content yH2 vol-% – temperatures and the heat flow are solved for from the energy
Heating value of top gas Qtg MJ/m3 n – balance equations on the air and gas “side” and the transport
Eq. (2). The share of top gas, , needed for the combustion
is determined so as to reach the desired blast temperature,
Tbl , of the air/oxygen mixture, considering the present
evaluations will be required in the optimization, this model composition (i.e., heating value) of the blast furnace top gas.
was linearized to express thirteen central process “outputs”, Naturally, the assumption of continuous steady-state
Y , as function of six “inputs.” The latter are the volumetric operation of the hot stoves is a simplification but it yields a
flow rates of air X1 = V̇air , and oxygen X2 = V̇O2 , model of suitable complexity for the computation at hand.
the specific oil rate X3 = moil , the blast temperature The heat conductivity (G) of the stove system was adjusted
X4 = Tbl , and the specific rates of pellets X5 = mpel  and to yield an over-all performance of the model in agreement
limestone X6 = mlime . In what follows, the abbreviations with observed values for the plant used as reference in
“t hm” and “km3 n” are used for “ton hot metal” and “kilo
Downloaded At: 17:03 6 February 2011

the study, quantified in terms of hot blast and off-gas

normal cubic meter”, respectively. The outputs presented in temperatures.
Table 1 are the production rate, the specific coke rate, the
flame temperature, the top gas temperature, the bosh gas Objective functions and constraints
volume, the residence time of the burden, the (simple) slag The economy of ironmaking in the blast furnace can
basicity, the slag rate, the top gas volume, the (dry) top be expressed in terms of specific costs of hot metal by
gas composition, as well as its calorific heating value. The considering the costs of the raw materials, including their
model equations for Yi
i = 1
  
13 are written in Eq. (1). preparation. The economic objective function is
Like the approach in Ref. [6], the hot metal production rate
was thought to have a fixed value within the interval of

F1 ṁcoke,int ccoke,int ṁcoke,ext ccoke,ext ṁ
interest, ṁmin max
hm
ṁhm . = · + · + oil

/t hm t/h
/t t/h
/t t/h
V̇air V̇O moil coil ṁ c ṁpel cpel ṁ c
Yi = Ki
0 + Ki
1 + Ki
2 3 2 + Ki
3 × + sin · sin + · + lime · lime
3
km n/h km n/h kg/t hm
/t t/h
/t t/h
/t t/h
/t
Tbl mpel mlime V̇O2 cO2
Pbl cel
+ Ki
4
+ Ki
5 + Ki
6 (1) + · ·+
C kg/t hm kg/t hm km3 n/h
/km3 n
MW
/MWh
  
The specific sinter rate was not included as an input
because it is implicitly given by the iron balance equation
due to the fact that sinter and pellets are the only iron-
containing inputs.
Models for the blast compression and heating in the stoves
were also included. In the former (the oxygen enriched) blast
was assumed to be an ideal gas, first calculating the ideal
(isentropic) compression from ambient conditions (T0
p0 )
to the blast pressure (pbl ). Assuming an efficiency factor of
the compression, , the true energy requirement and the gas
temperature after compression, T1 can be determined. As for
the hot stoves, the treatment was based on the simplification
max ṁhm F2 − E/8760 h · 
0 cCO2
+ ·
t/h
/t
ṁhm

(4)
t hm/h
where ṁi and V̇i are the main mass and volume flow rates,
respectively, and ci are corresponding specific or volumetric
cost terms, and subscripts “int” and “ext” denote internal
(own) and external (“bought”) coke. Note that neither
investment nor other fixed costs have been considered. The
last term in the parentheses expresses the cost of the CO2
emission allowances (cf. Eq. (2)) and includes the yearly
that the stoves operate as a continuous counter current
heat exchanger in steady state. Neglecting heat losses, the
heat transferred can be written as
Q̇ = G Tln

uptime of the plant, 8760 h , and the yearly emission
rights, E.
The CO2 emissions can be estimated on the basis of the
top gas flow, the share () of it burned in the hot stoves,
(2) and the emissions caused in the preparation of the raw
 GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION 345

Table 2.—Minimum and maximum values of the inputs. residence time for solids, and slag basicity. The flow of
blast is calculated from the condition
Variable Minimum Maximum

Blast volume (km3 n/h)
Blast oxygen (vol%)
Oil rate (kg/t hm)
Blast temperature (
C)
Pellets (%)
Limestone (kg/t hm)
, cf. Fig. 1) was added to the blast
materials, such as sinter and coke-making. This objective is
also expressed in specific terms
100 140 V̇bl = V̇air + V̇O2
(6)
21 49
0 200
950 1100 where the oxygen content of the air that goes through
20 40 the hot stoves is limited to avoid the risk of explosion.
0 60 At higher blast oxygen contents the excess (cold) oxygen
(expressed as a fraction,
flow after the hot stoves, or injected in the tuyeres through
lances. This constraint influences the highest possible blast
temperature achieved from the hot stoves.

Multiobjective optimization method

F2 ṁcoke,int ṁ 44 V̇tg
= · ecoke + sin · esin + Since the two objectives in Eqs. (4) and (5), i.e., to
t/t hm t/h t/h 224 km3 n/h minimize the specific hot metal production cost (including
 the costs of CO2 emissions) and the amount of CO2
ṁhm
· yCO2 +  yCO 
(5) emissions, are conflicting, the problem at hand is a
t hm/h multiobjective optimization problem, and the solutions that
are nondominated can be represented as a Pareto-optimal
where ei express the specific emissions in producing one ton front [11]. To obtain the front, the trade off between the
of raw material i. Note that the emissions caused in producing objectives has to be resolved efficiently. Here, the Predator–
the external raw materials, here the purchased coke, pellets, Prey Genetic Algorithm [12] has been used. The predator–
and oxygen, have not been included in F2 . Note that since the prey algorithm has proven to possess good convergence
Downloaded At: 17:03 6 February 2011

power plant was not included within the balance boundary of
the study, no credit is given for the power and heat produced
in there, but also no penalty for the CO2 emissions (except the
contribution that directly stems from CO2 in the BF top gas).
In order to carry out a meaningful optimization, practical
operational constraints have to be considered [10]. Upper
limits for the flows of burden material (coke, sinter, and
pellets) as well as injected reductants and oxygen were
imposed (cf. Tables 1 and 2). In addition to these constraints,
internal limits were imposed on variables such as blast and
flame temperature, top gas temperature, bosh gas volume,
properties and also to maintain the set of solutions fairly
diverse along the Pareto-optimal front.
The main features of this algorithm (see [12, 13] for
details) are described next. The preys are initiated as
randomly generated solutions that constitute an initial
population in the usual genetic algorithm (GA) sense. Any
individual in the prey population is represented as a string
of six real numbered variables, here expressing the six input
variables X of the BF model. The predators are externally
induced entities whose role is to prune the prey population
based upon a fitness value, , which is related to the objective

Figure 1.—Blast furnace and hot stove systems considered within the balance boundary (dashed line): Cold blast is compressed and enters the hot stoves,
together with added oxygen, for heating. At high oxygen enrichment, part (
) of the oxygen is bypassed. A share () of the BF top gas is used for heating the
stoves, by burning the gas with air yielding waste gases (V̇g ), while the remaining part (1 − ) goes to the power plant.
 346
function values. The effective fitness of any prey i evaluated
by a predator j is given as a weighted sum of F1
i and F2
i
ij = j F1
i + 1 − j F2
i  0 ≤ j ≤ 1
(7)
where the weight value, j , is given by a uniform
random number, and Fk
i k = 1
2) denotes the objectives
(cf. Eqs. (4) and (5)) corresponding to the inputs represented
in prey i. Initially, the preys and the predators are randomly
introduced into a two-dimensional computational lattice,
where for any predator or prey, a neighborhood, given by
the adjacent elements in the lattice, plays an important
role in the algorithm. A predator is allowed to move one
step at a time, up to a maximum number of steps that is
dynamically adjusted at the end of a generation, and during
this movement it kills the weakest prey in its neighborhood
and takes its position. The weakest here means the prey that
performs worst in terms of its  value. If the neighborhood
is empty of preys, the predator makes one random move in
any direction, unless it has exhausted its allowed number
of moves. Initially, a target size of the prey population is
set and at the onset of any generation the allowed number
of moves for a predator is determined so as to satisfy this
target “on average.” When the killing stops, the survivors
Downloaded At: 17:03 6 February 2011
in the prey population are allowed to move randomly one
step at a time (up to a prescribed maximum number of
= 11) and the efficiency factor of
steps) to an empty position in the lattice. This establishes
a new neighborhood, where the preys are allowed to mate
(by crossover) and mutate. Each prey chooses a random
mate in its neighborhood, provided at least one more prey
> 0). As for the costs, the factors of Eq. (4)
resides there.
The crossover process applied is randomly selected,
F. PETTERSSON ET AL.
approach was made where a default set of values of the
input variables, X , was given for a certain production rate.
The initial preys were generated as random values with
a maximum deviation of 25% from the default vectors.
Although the preys thus are valid, it often happens that the
entities calculated using the linear equations violate some
constraints. Therefore, a corrective iterative procedure was
used to find new values of the variables that result in feasible
solutions, by formulating a linear least square minimization
problem and solving it with the aim of finding the set of
input variables that are as close as possible to the original
ones defined by the prey. This problem was solved any time
a violation of the constraints occurred during the search.
Some results
In the following, the optimization of the two goals is
exemplified using as the starting point data from a medium-
sized blast furnace. This furnace is charged with sinter,
pellets and coke, and uses heavy oil as auxiliary reductant. It
has a production rate of about 3500 t hm/d and a slag ratio of
200 kg/t hm. Upper limits applied for the mass flow rates of
own sinter and coke were 160 t/h and 45.7 t/h, respectively.
The other constraints are given in Tables 1 and 2. The
heat conductance of the hot stove system was assumed
to be G = 820 kW/K, the excess of air in the hot stove
combustion was 10% (
the blast compression was  = 80%. The maximum oxygen
content of the “blast” that is heated in the hot stoves was
set to 32%; at higher enrichment rates, part of the gas is by-
passed (i.e.,
are given the rather arbitrary values reported in Table 3. In
the calculations, it was assumed that the iron works had an
with an equal probability, between the one-point crossover
traditionally used in genetic algorithms and the approach
following the procedures of differential evolution [14],
where the variable is adjusted with a random value
multiplied with the difference between two other selected
preys. Next, the children are subjected to mutation where,
with a low probability, the variables are exchanged to a new
randomly drawn value within the allowed bounds.
Two children are produced as a result of a crossover
operation and the corresponding mutation, and are randomly
placed in any unoccupied location in the lattice: This
migration facilitates better mixing of the available gene
pool. The predators are not allowed to evolve, and
their number is kept constant. The objective function is
determined for all the preys in the population and ranking
them, where the rank of any individual, n, is given by

n = 1 + n (8)
uptime percentage of  = 98%, and CO2 emissions rights
of E = 12 Mt/a, so the cost on the last row of Table 3 only
applies for the part exceeding this limit.
The optimization was run under the constraints reported
in Tables 1 and 2 for a number of different production
rates, ṁhm ∈ 120
160 t hm/h. The target productions were
set at 120 t hm/h, 130 t hm/h, etc., and a 1% deviation was
allowed for in the optimization. It turned out that the
maximum production rate was approached in each run. The
left panel of Fig. 2 depicts the location of the arising Pareto-
optimal fronts in the two-dimensional goal space. For low
production rates (120–140 t hm/h) the specific production
costs increase slightly, but more dramatically after this
interval. This can be explained by the cost penalty in terms
Table 3.—Costs used in the economic
objective function (Eq. (4)).

Variable Unit c/

where n denotes the number of individuals dominating
n. Prey members worse than rank 50 were removed after Sinter t 120
every fifth ranking operation to prune a large number of Pellets t 140
Coke, own t 250
superfluous solutions. Once the preset upper limit of the Coke, bought t 300
number of generations is reached, the nondominating set of Oil t 150
rank 1 is accepted as the final Pareto-optimal solution. Limestone t 30
As the ironmaking process has a considerable number Oxygen km3 n 50
of restrictions and constraints, it might prove difficult to Electricity MWh 50
CO2 t 20
randomly generate a valid initial prey population. Here an
 GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION
Figure 2.—Left: Location of the five different Pareto-optimal fronts for cases with the target production capacities of ṁhm = 120
130
140
150, and 160 t hm/h.
Right: Pareto-optimal front for target production capacity of ṁhm = 140 t hm/h.
of CO2 allowances, which have to be purchased when
≈140 t hm/h (1.2 Mt/a) is exceeded.
The Pareto-optimal front for ṁhm = 140 t hm/h is
illustrated in the right part of Fig. 2. Even though the
variation in the objectives is small, a conflict between the
goals can be evinced. In terms of the over-all solutions,
> 0%).
however, the increases in costs and emissions go hand-
Downloaded At: 17:03 6 February 2011
by-hand, but the two variables are not linearly related (left
panel of Fig. 3). In the part of the steelworks studied here
(i.e., the blast furnace and its units for producing the charged
materials) every ton of hot metal gives rise to about one ton
of CO2 emissions. This low value is due to the fact that the
top gas CO, i.e., 1 − V̇tg yCO , sent to the power plant has
been excluded from the analysis. Likewise, a possible credit
for burning this gas has not been considered. The evolution of
the total costs and emissions with changes in the production
rate is depicted in the right panel of Fig. 3. Here, as expected,
there is a strong linear correlation between the variables.
It is interesting to analyze how the operation conditions
vary between the Pareto-optimal fronts evolved in Fig. 2.
Table 4 presents some key variables of the process in each
Pareto-optimal front. Since only small variations of the states
occur within each front, the values reported can be taken to
represent all solutions. If the states in the table are studied,
Figure 3.—Specific (left) and total (right) costs and emissions vs. the production rate, ṁs hm . Lines with asterisks correspond to hot metal cost (left ordinate),
and lines with circles to mass of CO2 emissions (right ordinate).
347
one may note that the higher production rate is achieved
through a simultaneous injection of oil and oxygen; the
coke rate is reduced from 391 kg/t hm to 283 kg/t hm. The
massive oil injection leads to the elimination of external
coke for the highest productivity, where part of the oxygen
enrichment has to be by-passed the hot stoves (
The high top gas heat value still makes the share () of top
gas required for blast heating decrease. Simultaneously, the
top gas temperature approaches its lower limit. The top gas
CO utilization degree stays almost constant (at 49%) but the
hydrogen (and water) content in the gas grows dramatically,
and along with this the iron ore reduction carried out
by hydrogen in the furnace. It should be observed that
the specific hot metal costs at the optimum states are
astonishingly constant, despite quite considerable changes
in the inputs. This can be ascribed to the efficiency of the
optimization method in finding ingenious combinations of
the flows of the available raw materials.
Finally, it may be interesting to compare the optimal
furnace states with the present state of operation of the
reference furnace. The last column of Table 4 presents
typical values of operation. Even though many of the values
are in line with the optimal results reported for a production
rate of 150–160 t hm/h, there are some differences: The
 348 F. PETTERSSON ET AL.

Table 4.—Solutions characterizing the five Pareto-optimal fronts of Fig. 2. The flows of own coke and sinter, blast
temperature, and burden residence time were maximum (45.6 t/h, 160 t/h, 1100
C, and 8.0 h, respectively) for all cases.
Variables at their limits are given in bold. The rightmost column reports typical values for the present operation of the
reference furnace.

Variable Optimized state Typical state

Production rate (t hm/h) 1212 1313 1414 1515 1616 160

Production costs (
/t hm) 2884 2887 2891 2908 2924
CO2 emissions (t/t hm) 0904 0936 0970 1016 104
Blast volume (km3 n/h) 1400 1400 1368 1261 1120 1254
Added oxygen (km3 n/h) 015 412 904 162 243 113
O2 in hot blast, yO2
bl (vol-%) 211 233 259 300 351 281
Oil rate (kg/t hm) 625 888 115 144 172 98
Pellet rate (kg/t hm) 230 325 410 473 535 411
Lime rate (kg/t hm) 000 015 552 134 216 0
Oxygen share, (%) 100 100 100 100 58
Top gas share,  (%) 55 47 39 31 25
Compressor power, P (MW) 768 767 750 681 558
Own coke (kg/t hm) 377 347 323 301 283 367
Purchased coke (kg/t hm) 14 16 15 7 0
Flame temperature (
C) 2098 2088 2099 2135 2192
Top gas temperature (
C) 217 213 197 162 115
Bosh gas volume (km3 n/h) 180 189 195 195 192
Slag basicity, B = CaO/SiO2  118 109 105 105 105 100
Slag rate (kg/t hm) 236 225 219 216 213 221
Top gas CO (vol%) 211 218 229 249 274 240
Top gas CO2 (vol%) 203 210 222 241 265 237
Top gas H2 content (vol%) 331 485 654 877 111 61
Downloaded At: 17:03 6 February 2011

Top gas heating value (MJ/m3 n) 312 343 381 438 502

principal discrepancy occurs for the oil rate. Since the oil
injection rate is limited by the ability to efficiently combust
the oil in the raceways, the maximum injection rate of oil is
limited to about 100–110 kg/t hm. This has implication for
the amount of injected oxygen and, naturally, also for the
coke rate. However, there is a general agreement between
the optimized and present rates of reducing agents. As for
the slag basicity, the aim value has been lowered due to a
decrease in the sulfur load.
Conclusions and discussion
This article has addressed the problem of optimization
of ironmaking in the blast furnace, using first-principles
models of the blast furnace and hot stoves. A multiobjective
formulation was used, where the specific costs and
CO2 emissions were simultaneously minimized, subject to
realistic boundary conditions. An evolutionary algorithm
was used in tackling the optimization problem, with a
predator–prey scheme for evolving a Pareto-optimal front
of solutions. The costs at the different production rates were
found to be comparable as long as the CO2 emissions stay
within the limits of the allowances granted, but if this limit
is exceeded there is a clear increase in the specific costs.
The specific emissions, in turn, were found to increase with
the production rate, even though the contributions from the
two external raw materials, bought coke and pellets, were
not included in the balance. In the future, the model will be
used to evaluate the optimal operation states under injection
of alternative reductants, such as natural gas, coke oven gas
or biomass [15, 16], or under modified states of operation,
such as top gas recycling to further suppress emissions.
References
1. Fabian, T. A Linear programming model of integrated iron and
steel production. Management Science 1958, 4, 415–449.
2. McCulloch, G.A.; Bandyopadhyay, R. Application of operational
research in production problems in the steel industry. Int. J. Prod.
Res. 1972, 10, 77–91.
3. Tay, W.H.; Szekely, J. Process Optimization; Wiley & Sons:
New York, 1973.
4. Deo, B.; Deb, K.; Jha, S.; Sudhakar, V.; Sridar, N.V. Optimal
operating conditions for the primary end of an integrated steel
plant: genetic adaptive search and classical techniques. ISIJ
International 1998, 38, 98–105.
5. Larsson, M. Process Integration in Steel Industry – Possibilities to
Analyse Energy Use and Environmental Impacts for an Integrated
Steel Mill. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå Technical University,
Luleå, Sweden, 2005.
6. Pettersson, F.; Saxén, H. Model for economic optimization of
iron production in the blast furnace. ISIJ International 2006, 46,
1297–1305.
7. Ryman, C.; Larsson, M. Reduction of CO2 emissions from
integrated steelmaking by optimised scrap strategies: Application
of process integration models on the BF-BOF system. ISIJ
International 2006, 46, 1752–1758.
8. Rist, A.; Meysson, N. A dual graphic representation of blast-
furnace mass and heat balances. Journal of Metals 1967, 19,
50–59.
9. Saxén, H.; Brämming, M.; Wikström, J.-O.; Wiklund, P.
Theoretical limits on operation under high oxygen enrichment
in the blast furnace. In Proc. 60th Ironmaking Conf., Baltimore,
MD, 2001; 721–733.
10. Diemer, P.; Killich, H.-J.; Knop, K.; Luengen, H.B.; Reinke,
M.; Schmöle, P. Potentials for utilisation of coke oven gas in
 GENETIC ALGORITHM-BASED MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION
integrated iron and steel works. Stahl und Eisen 2004, 124,
21–30.
11. Deb, K. Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary
Algorithms; John-Wiley: Chichester, 2001.
12. Li, X. A Real-Coded Predator-Prey Genetic Algorithm for
Multiobjective Optimization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
2632. Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J., Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele,
L. Eds.; 2003; 207–221.
13. Pettersson, F.; Chakraborti, N.; Saxén, H. A genetic algorithms
based multiobjective neural net applied to noisy blast furnace
data. Applied Soft Computing 2007, 7, 387–397.
Downloaded At: 17:03 6 February 2011
349
14. Price, K.; Storn, R. Differential evolution: numerical optimization
made easy. Dr Dobbs Journal 1997, 22, 18–24.
15. Ariyama, T.; Ueda, S. Evaluation of biomass injection into blast
furnace for reducing CO2 emissions. In 3rd Int. Conf. on Process
Development in Iron and Steelmaking (Scanmet III). Luleå,
Sweden, 2008; Vol. 2, 217–226.
16. Saxén, H.; Pettersson, F.; Söderman, J.; Helle, M.; Helle, H.
Optimization of biomass use as auxiliary reductant in the blast
furnace. In Int. Symp. on Recent Progress on Mathematical
Modeling in Ironmaking 2008. Tokyo, Japan, ISIJ, 2008;
95–100.