Determination of Resistance to Abrasion at Ambient

Temperature - in Order to Establish Better Comparability

ln order to gain a deeper understanding how highly accelerated particles

afíect the surface of a refractory material during service, two test methods,

ASTM C 704 and EN lso 16282 were established. ln the past imprecise

data obtained by these methods lead to unjustified complaints of the re-

fractory user industry when a third party laboratory cross checked the spe-

cified values for the abrasion resistance. The economtc impact for the re-

fractory producers as well as for the consumers is tremendous and painful.

ln order to enhance the reproducibility of this test, the latest revisions of

ASTM C 704 in 2009 and 2012 result in a more rigid definition of the test-

ing device. However the authors propose a different rpute to perform blast

abrasion tests which generate highly reproducible abrasion values even if

the tests are performed in different laboratories.The key to obtarn rigid test

values is that prior to the test the pressure supply for blast gun has to be

adjusted till the abrasion volume Íor a standard float 9lass sample yields

the exact value of 9,3 cm3 + 0,3 %. The properties of the standard float

glass plates are defined in ASTM C 704-12. As a consequence it is pro-

posed that the standard air pressure should no longer be defined at 4,5 bar

but shall be adjustable í'The effectiveness oÍ this measure was constrained by a round robin test

that was performed in accordance to ls0 5725 in 2012. ln this test 10 la-

boratories were involved and 6 different refractory materials were tested.

Ct . tests were performed according to ASTM C 704-09 with a standard air

pressure of 4,5 bar. A second test series was conducted in which the test

conditions were modified that way that the air pressure was adjusted till

the abrasion result for a standard float glass sample yields the exact value

of 9,3 cm3 + 0,3 %. The results of both test runs were compared with

each orher and with the precision date published in ASTM c 704-09 and

ASTM C 104-12 (late$ revision).

The major outcome of the round robin test is that the precision of results

can be significantly enhanced if the air pressure is calibrated prior to the

test by using a standard float glass sample. Due to the wear inside the ven-

turi system it is necessary to readjust the air pressure with float glass sam-

ples frequently. lt is recommended to do this every 20 tests. lf the air pres-

sure is adjusted properly the detailed layout of the apparatus dimension

has no significant influence on the precision of the results.

The gained results are robust enough to recommend a revision of the

,,,trl t-'ta trttt

refractories woRLDFoRUM s (2013) [2]

Between Laboratories, Existing Standards Have to Be Revised

o. Krause, G. Urbanek, H. Körber1 lntroduction

The resistance of refractory materials

agalnst particle abrasion is a key issue for

many industrial furnaces where particle-

loaded gas jets aÍe expected in the process.

They occur e.g. in furnaces of the petro-

chemical industry, waste incineration, coal-

fired power plants and pusher Íurnaces for

the second heat of steel.

ln the past two test methods for the evalu-

ation of the abrasion resistance have been

established, namely ASTIV C 704-12 firstly

published in 1912 and EN lS0 16282

published in 2008. More PreciselY

EN lso 16282 is derived Írom the older

ASTM C 704-01 with minor editorial and

technical chanqes. Both methods describe

almost the same test procedure that leads

to reliable and comparable results within a

single laboratory. Howeve1. iÍ values are

compared between different laboratories lt

turns obvious that the obtained values

0laf Krause

Hochschule Koblenz

5bluJ H0nr-brenznauSen

Germany

Gerhard Urbanek

RHI AG

8700 Leoben

AUstría

Hartnut Körber

DlfK GmbH

5bl0J H0nr-brenznausen

Germany

Corresponding aulhot: 0. Krause

E-mail: krause@Íbwgk.Íh_koblenz.de

Keywords: b|ast abrasion, reíractoÍy Wear,

inteÍlaboratoÍy comparison, round robin

test results

59

show significant and systematic deviations. scrrbed in detarr in ASTM c 704 since the ther an arternative material (Boc) was used

Thrs context is envisaged rn iuu. z tnsrrv standard was revised in 2009. Howevel as as nozzre tube The preliminary tests were

c704 standard method), wtrere the relative rong as RsTM c 704 rs established, a sim- per{ormed in two different laboratories'

*jxt*li*nirlÍ[;;k* :[.:J'..'.Ti';1.ilff:'i;::,','.T::j 2'1 lmpticationof theair

terial. To counter the said imprecision, the The blaí gun as'iiis speclfied:^T]::'iI pressure

ASTM committee c08 revised ASTM C 704- abre in Euiope. Moreover since 200g ASTM rn this preliminary test, borosilicate glass

O1 and published ASTM c )o+-og. rn tt,i, stated the jescrlbed blait gun as the only samp|es oÍ a European producer with a

issue the dimension oÍ the blast gun and one which is permitted' density oÍ 7'77 gtcm} were abraded at pre_

the venturi sy'tem WaS o.tin.j in .o,. ,ltt.r tr'.e paitl.les are accelerated in the defined air pressuÍes between 3 and 6 bar'

detair and a new clause w.s aoa.a wnicn venturr chamber, they have to pass a grass All other parameters were kept constant

describes known Íactors tt,ui utt.a ti.,. '..- tube witÁ stria'y'deÍined dimenjons and in accordance to the de-'initlons as de_

sults, The findings ln tt.tis .taus. nare on a (length and diameter) Due to di{ferent sur- scrlbed in ASTM C 704'

ruggedness test using froat glass sampres. face roughness other materiars to manufac- Fig l shows that the volume loss is indi-

Statistically significant eÍfecti are repoíted ture the ,un. n,,uy cause diÍferent friction cated by a linear ascending correlation over

if the nozzre tube inside diameter and'the and may d.,.r."* the sic grains di{ferent- the measured range with increasing air

air pressure are not precisely ad]usted as |y durin9 tireir passage thÁugh the tube. pressure. However the measurements from

deÍined in the standard. rr,.. Lt.rt ,*irion Some factors known-to afÍec{ the results both laboratories show a difÍerent slope'

ofASTM 704 dates in the year 201Z and are already listed in ASTM_c 7O4 since This indicates a slightly diÍferent setup of

was published in 2O,13. tn tnís veríon again 2008 but *irhou, uny quantiflcation. the testing devices' lf the nominal value of

a preclsion of apparatus setup Was deÍined. ln ,u''u,,y ,h. uurá of art is that existing 7,4 cm: should be obtained the air pressure

supplementary ,.qui,.'.nlr''io,- t,iql.,ty ,tunau,aít.no to define the test conditions has io be adjusted individually to appr.X

abrasion resistant *ut.ri.t, *.r. uaj.j. .no tr'.,. .pp.,.tr' set_up more and more 5,50 for LaboratoryA and 4'56 bar Íor La-

Themajortaskofthisclauseistodefinestrictlyinordert0getabetterinteÍ-IaboÍa.boratoryB.more precise resting conditions thar are as- tory reproducibility' 0n the *ntt n:::,1:

2.2 lmplication of the anount of

certained e.g. by mountinq additional pres- turns more difÍicult to keep the measure- - : , --"id and the nozzle

sure gauges. lt is obvious itu, ,n. or* ment device in the predeÍined condrtion !r:;:';:I:;i,o.n.rlu.-. CO8 is heading toward a more and the method turns more error-prone'

rigid definition oí ttre appíatus dimensions rt-,ereto,e tLis paper envisages un ul,.rnu- ln this preliminary test float glass samples

especially the particle u,..t.,ui on ,yu.*' tlve sotution that is much easier to handle of a European producer and standard Íloat

The material ros, typicatty carcuratei as vor- una t.ua, to highly reliable results. rt is pro- grass sampres as recommended by ASTM

ume loss, baslcally ls oepenJent on the im- poruo to d.r.g-ulate the defined apparatus C 704 were abraded With diÍÍeÍent amounts

pactenergythatisdischargedwhenhighlysetupanddeflneaprelimlnarysteptoad'oÍSiC(800to1200g).Twosetsoftestaccelerated SiC particles tiiit . ,u,,u.á oi just the abrasion volume by measurement Were perÍormed, one with the conventional

the sample. lt is proportionar to the particre of a standard sample. Froat grass speci- grass nozzle tube and one with a BoC noz-

velocity and the weight (grarn size) of the m-ens, described as caribration standaid in ite tube. Each test was repeated two times'

particIe. ThereÍo.. only íu',o* SiC grain nyvr i jo+, qualiíies as vaIuable standard All other parameters were kept constant

dlstributions are suitable íor the test' lt i5 as thls mateiiai is aIready broadly ln use for and in accordance to the deíinitions as de-

even necessary to examine the graln size .rinr.tion_ pu,poses' Thjs mateiia1 is par scribed in ASTM c 704' The predeÍined air

distributlon within one batch if disintegra- ti,ura,ry ruit.lr., because it ls highly homo- preSsuÍe therefore was 4'5 bar' All tests

tion eíÍects are obvious. ln {urther the par- 9rnour. ro obtaln a vaIue of 9,3 cm3 Ícr this were performed on a single abrasion tester'

ticle surÍace plays a role. The particles material, the standard air pressure is FirstoÍallitcanbestatedthattheabrasion

shourd have angular, jagged edged surfaces altered in disagreement to the standards. ln ross correrates strictly linear over the meas-

and therefore should be used only once. The principle it tu,íed out that after the said ad- ured ran9e with the amount of SiC used in

bulk wei9ht of the grains provides a possi_ justment the detailed apparatus setup is oÍ the test run (Fig 2)' ThereÍore the amount

bility to check the grain shape in

'eneral. ,..ondury i'portance. The results oí the oí SiC can aIso be used for the adjustment

Many íactors ur.a tr,.u iu'.ti.t. u.to.it1, ,ound ,.oáin test as described below clearly of the abrasion tester' ln this case the mass

during the acceleration. of major impori- show that the said measures are suitable to of siC has to be corrected till the measured

ance is the standard air pressure provided provide reliabre data {or the brast wear of varue meets the standard value of 9'3cm3

for the venturi ,yu.*' ao,r-l stanjards fix reÍractory materials. as certified in ASTM C 704 for the reference

íloat glass plates'

the value at 4,5 bar' However, t|: acceler1- 2 Preliminary examination' the linear correlation oí the amount of SiC

::i :l,f,.o!j::ffi,'Tlt:Ji'r:ll::'tJil prior to rhe round robin tesr investisarions in use and the abrasion values encourases

arso on the dimension of the chamber in- *.r. unJ.,tuk.n to understand hoil vari- proposing that materials with a low abra-

side the blast 9un uno it''" distinct dimen- able air pressurös and different amounts of sion resistance (>20 cm3) may be tested

sion of the venturi nozzle. The latter is de- ub,uriu. 'ut.,iul

afÍect the results' ln fur- with an alternative amount of 5ic (e'g'

60ref ractories woRLDFoRUM s (2013) [2]

Eooo6

.96!s

10,0

9,0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

45air pressur€ (bar)

y=2.1255x-2,2325R'= 0,99439

Y=1,5113x-0,8143R'? = 0,98207

Fig. 1 Dependence oÍ Volume loss [cml} and air pressure [bar] Fig' 2 Dependence of volurne loss [cm:] and the amount of ab_

on borosilicate glass plates. The results are derived in two rasive [g]. Two glass materials: the standard float glass sample

independent laboratories; the different signatures (A) and a borosilicate glass (E) were tested. The blue lines

measurements in two diÍferent laboratories represent measuÍements with the standard glass nozzle

(diamonds) and the red lines were derived with BoC nozzles

(boxes). All conditions were measured twice; the replication

measurements derived with BoC nozzles plot very close together

thus only a single regression line is visible

5OO g instead of 1000 g). This will in any

case reduce the danger to blast through the

sample. The abrasion values obtained by us-

inq a different amount of SiC could be eas-

ily recalculated to values that stand for the

abrasion when 1000 g 5iC are used.

ln íurther Fig' 2 clearly shows that the

measured VaIues change iÍ alternative noz-

zle tube material is used. BoC nozzles typic-

ally lead to higher abrasion loss than the

conVentional glass nozzles. However iÍ is

also evident that BoC nozzles lead to a

closer correlation oÍ the single measure_

ments. ln Fig. 2 they plot along the same

linear regression. The results obtained by

using the glass tubes show variatlons up to

7 %'Ihe higher abrasion íesistance of the

BoC nozzle tubes obviously lead to a higher

correlation oí resu|ts. In contrast conven-

tional glass tubes already show remarkable

erosion afteÍ a sinqle test and therefore

change their performance already during

the test and have to be changed every test.

BoC nozzles have the advantage that they

can be used about l00times because the

erosion rate is very low. The air pressure oÍ

coarse has to be adjusted to a difíerent

value as for the glass tubes.

lf the eroslon pits are observed after the

test, it became visible that the blast iet is

slightly difíerent' BoC nozzles typicaliy de-

liver deeper pits with a smaller eroded area

at the surface. The blast jet appears to be

better focussed. However the slopes of all

tests are very similar Therefore it can be

stated that the nature oí the blasgjet is of

minor importance for the reproducibility of

the method iÍ it is permitted to adjust the

air pressure.

3 Interlaboratory study(round robin test)

As previous|y described, the períormance

and the reproducibility of the standard test

method according to AST[,4 C 7 04 or

lS0 16282 is virtually dependent on the

particle size and velocity beíore they hit the

sample surface. lt ls very difficult to provide

precise test conditions as they are defined

in ASTM C 704. The preliminary tests clear-

ly show that the abrasion loss is signiflcant-

ly and systematically controlled by the air

pre55Ure, which is provided Íor the SiC par_

tic|e acce|eration in the Venturí system. The

aim oí the round robin test WaS to show the

reproducibility oí the test when performed

according to ASTN/ C 704-09 and how the

reproducibility is affected if air pressure is

adjusted to an abrasion value oÍ 9,3 g/cm3

which is certified for the standard ASTM

float qlass samples.

3.1 5et-up of the round robintest

For this round robin test 6 diíferently

shaped and monolithic refractories were

examined ln 10 laboratories. The materials

were selected with the aim to cover a wide

+s1A ---.-s2A '-+.'s4E --+"'ssE---r*N1A -f-N2A --+'N4E --*'

12,0

1'1 ,0

10,0

E 9,0oJJo anf u'v

6c 7.0.9og 6,06

5,0

4,011 00

:'-::"-:t::": " '

Tab. 1 overview of the reÍractory materials considered for the interlaboratory test

Sample Density Ig/cm3] Type of ReÍractory Product Abrasion [cm:]

A 2,15 Íireclay brick FC40 30

B 3,00 Alumina-chromia product type ACr80/5 15

C_D 3,'t 5 Magnesia-chromite product type MCr50 7

E 3,00 Fired brick, based on sintermagnesia 15

t 2,20 Ref ractory concrete, conventional 8

G 2,80 Ultra low cement castabLe (ULCC) 5

refractories woRLDFoRUM s (2013) [2] 61

ÍL

:tpoEocaoco

CDEbricklabel as defined in Tab. 1

Fig. 3 Box plot Íor the dynamic Youngs modulus derived Írom

impulse excitation vibration technique. The results are shown Íor

the six difÍerent refÍactoÍy materials

Fig.4 Linear dependence of the abrasion loss to the

sonic velocity for sample A

range of abrasion values (30 to 5 cmr).

Tab. 1 envisages the set of materials which

was tested.

Prior to the round robín test all materials

were prepared by moulding and cutting in

order to meet the regulations defined in

ASTN/ C 704 and lS0 16282. ln order to

screen the homogeneity oÍ the selected

sample specimens, they were examined by

IEVT (impulse excitation vibration tech-

nique) and ultra sonic measurements ln all

three dimensions of the sample specimens.

Fig' 3 document5 the re5ults oÍ this prelim_

inary test calculated as dynamic Youngs

modu|us. The results gained íor the abra-

sion resistance are virtually dependent on

the homogeneity o{ the provided sample

specimens. As exemplified by sample series

A in Fig. 4 the abrasion resistance is strong-

ly dependent on the sonic velocity. A scatter

of > 10 % in sonic velocity was regarded as

admissible {or the round robin test.

As a preliminary result it may already be

stated at this point of investigation that

supplementary determination oÍ the sonic

velocity may be a powerful backing to

evaluate the results oí the abrasion resist_

ance within a single refractory material, e.g.

material A (Tab. 1).

Every laboratory was instructed to Íollow

the same procedure. A first test run was

performed with the standard ASTM float

glass plates by applying the test condition

as deÍined in ASTM c 704-09. The meas_

urements were repeated twice with two

glass specimens. The obtained results are

62

importgnt to evaluate the interlaboratory

reprodlcibility at the state of art. ln a sec-

ond step, the laboratories were advised to

run a first set of refractory material as they

are reported in Tab. '1 . The tests were per-

íormed under standard test condition5 at

íixed air pre55Ure of 4,5 bar' Two measure_

ments should be performed under the said

conditions. The results are considered in the

round robin test as values derived by the

standard test conditions.

A second set of samples as shown in Tab. l

were distributed among the laboratorles

to perform two further tests for alI six dií-

Íerent re{ractory materiaIs. But prior to the

test the adjustmert oí the pressure air was

scheduled whereas the ASTM standard

glass samples were used to calibrate the air

pressure to attain an abrasion value of

9,3 cm3 + 0,3 %.

Finally 10 laboratories submitted 14 abra-

sion tests under standard conditions and

l4tests with adjusted air pressure. ln fur-

ther the standard glass plates were tested

at least 4 tlmes. Typically Íhree glass plates

were necessary to adjust the air pressure

withln the range of tolerance.

For the evaluation of the results the Soft-

ware prolab plus (Quodata DresdenrDE)

was used.

4 Results of the interlaboratorystudy (round robin test)

The results for the standard glass samples

are reported first. The purpose for this study

is to evaluate the impact on results if the air

plessure is adjusted, After that the results

for six reíractory materia|5 are pÍesented'

Two sets of results were determined where

one set was measured with predefined and

a second set with adjusted air pressure.

4.1 Results for standard glasssamples after standard testprocedure and adjusted

Fig. 5 shows the results for the standard

ASTM float glass material. The mean value

was fixed Ío 9,294 empirlcaIly and the to|er-

ance limit was fixed to 8,620 and 9,992 cm:

which corresponds to a Zu-value of <2,00.

With a single exception, only vaIues aíter ad_

justment fall within the tolerance limit. With-

in a single laboratory, the scatter of results

are indicated by boxes. Laboratory 5 shows

the broadest scatter. After cause analysis it

turned out that this laboratory has distinct

problems with a homogenous pressure air

supply and could be solved by the installa-

tion of a pressure vessel.

ln summary Fig. 6 clearly shows that that

the adjustment of the air pressure signifi-

cantly reduces the scatter of results.

4.2 Results for the refractorymaterials after standard testprocedure and adjusted

Tab. 2 summarises the results of the round

robin test. lt can be clearly shown that

the adjustment procedure described in this

paper only slightly enhances the repeatabil-

ity (5r) within Iaboratories, but signiíicantly

enhances the standard deviation between

A

{

\

3200

I sroo

;-oo 3000e.9cB zgoo

2800

26 28 30 32abrasion value Icm3]

refractories woRLDFoRUM s (2013) [2]

E

of,i6É.9o!o

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L2 L1 L3L1OL5 L9 L7 L8 L9 L7st st st ad ad ad ad ad ad ad st ad ad ad st st

Laboratory

Fig. 5 Evaluation of the precision Íor the standard glass samples.

The figure shows results for a Íixed air pressure (st) and adjust-

ed air pressure (ad). All values derived after adjustment fall

within the tolerance threshold

Fig. 6 Box plot for all standard glass sample measurements.

The standard deviation can be significantly reduced iÍ the

air pressure is adjusted

laboratories (5R). Over all tested samples

the average relative standard deviation be-

tween laboratories could be more than

halved from 31,48 to 14,81 o/o. Sr is almost

constant (8,19 to 7 ,54 '/").lt clearly shows

that the abrasion testers are capable to pro-

duce rellable and consistent results. How-

ever, marginal differences in the dimension-

al setup, especially of the venturi design,

lead to a poor accuracy of the results.

lf only the results of the standard glass

plates are considered the enhancement of

the method by adjusting the ai' pressure

even gets clearer. While the relative stand-

ard deviation between laboratories is im-

proved by a factor 2, the glass plates really

show room for improvement, because the

glass samples are highly homogenous. Thus

SR is decreased from 28,25 ro 1,72 o/o,

which denotes an improvement by a factor

oí almost 20. This clearly lndicates that the

adjustment method has a much higher pre-

cision than necessaÍy if the heterogeneity of

typical refractory material is considered,

However a much higher repeatability is attainable if more test runs for a single mater-

ial are performed, Sr is improved by n-trz,

where n is the number oí measurements.

ln comparison to the round robin test

that is published in the ASTM C 704, the

adjustment method, as reported here, is

in advantage if the average relative stand-

ard deviation between laboratories

(SR,qsrv = 22,51 o/o) is considered. With

16,27 o/o as it is reported in ASTM C 704 SR

is still 10 times higher than íor the im'

proved method reported here.

5 Conclusions

The presented round robin test results

cover a broad range of shaped and un-

shaped materials with diverse blast abra-

sion resistances (from 5 to tO.t:1 The

major outcome oí this work is that it ls bet-

ter to adjust the air pressure of the Venturi

system instead oÍ defining more rigid regu-

lations for the apparatus setup as recom-

mended by ASTM C 704 12. lf the air pres-

sure is frequently adjusted by standard float

rEoo,6CoN!N

12

12

10

9

I

7

standard ad]usted

method (standard and adjusted

Tab. 2 Results of the round robin test. The detailed sample identiÍication is listed in Tab. 1

Abrasion-resistanceadjusted (ad)

Sample Average [cm3] sR t%l 5r [%] R t%l r [%]

A 33,9I 1 1,05 2,52 19,14 1,06

B 12,812 23.31 73,31 65,21 65,21

c 7,72 9,45 6,57 26,46 18,4

D 6,93 I 9,86 1,82 55,6 5,08

E 12,841 9,18 5,47 25,71 15,32

t Í\iotD 8,56 22,01 7,94 61,63 22,24

G_]VOLD 5,304 23,85 4,31 66,78 12,06

6LASS 9,266 1.72 1,51 4,82 4,4

AV 14,81 7,54 41,46 21,1

Abrasion-resistancestandard (st)

according toASTM C 704(fixed airpressure)

Sample Average [cm3] sR [%l 5r [%] R I%1 r l1ol

A 10,857 14,11 'I 1,9 39,5 1 57,3 I

B 14,51 8 26,72 26,72 7 4,81 7 4,81

c 7,902 62,65 7,96 175,42 l1 lo

D 1,62 34.9 2,48 97,12 6,93

E 1 3,859 31 .5 5,73 88,2 16,04

F MOLD 6,284 28,25 19,1

G I\iOLD s,054 30,7 4 86,06

GLASS 8,998 28,25 1,81 19,1 5,24

AV 3 t,48 8, 19 88,1 5 ll ol

refractories woRLDFoRUM s (2013) t2l 63

glass samples the standard deviation be-

tween laboratories is reduced by the factor

2 if real refractory material is tested (SR de-

creases írom 31 ,48% to 14,81 %) and by

the Íactor 20 (SR decreases from 28,25 to

1,72) if only the results o{ the standard

glass samples are considered. The poorer

precision of the refractory material can be

delimited by the heterogeneity as typical for

refractory materials. Son ic velocity measure-

ments prior to the abrasion can help to

identify outlier samples and SR can be posi-

tively affected by multiple measurements

due to an enhancement of the repeatability.

0ver the measured range, the abrasion loss

oÍ reíractory materials correlates lineár with

the air pressure and the amount oÍ abrasive

that Was used. Thereíore these parameters

can be adjusted in a broad range without a

significant drop of the precislon of the

method.

However it is important to note that the air

pressure supply should be checked careful-

ly. Temporary pressure fluctuations caused

by an insufÍiclent air supply wlIl cause a

poor repeatability and deliver in most cases

lower values. Therefore it is necessary to

confirm the pressure supply to be constant

during the test.

The linear correlation of the amount of SiC

in use and the abrasion values encourages

to propose that materials with a low abra-

sion resistance (>20 cm3) may be tested

with an alternative amount oÍ 5iC (e.g.

500 g instead of 1000 g). This will in any

case reduce the danger to blast through the

sample and will avoid unintended swirling

of the SiC-particles in deeper holes. The

abrasion vaIues obtained by uslng a diífer_

ent amount of 5iC could easily be recalcu-

lated to values that stand for the abrasion

with 1000 g SiC.

ln further it turned out that abrasion resist-

ant material5 íor the design of the Venturi

nozzle is beneficíal for constant working

conditions during the test. lf the air pres-

sure is adjusted all materials that are high-

ly abrasion resistanÍ can be taken in consid_

eration. Nozzles made oí BoC can be high|y

recommended.

The Íindings of this study wiIl be progressed

íor discussion to the national and inter-

national standardization boards. Changes

to the current version of lS0 16282 will be

proposed and discussed in lSOiTC 33 and

CEN/TC 187 during the outstanding meet-

ings this year.

iUNITECR'13 features Remco de Jong, Vice President and General Manage|,Refractory Minerals Division, lMERYS as the keynote speaker; and Tom Verí

General Manager Primary Manufacturing, ArcelorMittal Dofasco and Charlr

.semler; President/Consultant, Semler Materials Services as Plenary Speake

Topics include

- Advanced Testing of Refractorres

-Advanced lnstallation Techniques & Equipment

- Monolithic Refractories

- lron & Steel N/aking Refractories

- Raw Materals Developments & Global Raw

Material lssues

- Refractories for Glass_ Cement & Lime ReÍractories

- Modelling and Srmulation of Refractories

- Petrochemical

- Refractories for Waste-to-Energy Processing &

Power

- Energy Savings through Refractory Design

- Nonoxide Refractory Systems

- Refractories for Chemical Processes

- Developments tn Basic Refractories

- Global Education in Refractories_ ReÍractories for Nonferrous |\letallurgy_ SaÍety, Environmental lssues & Recycling

Solutions for Refractories

www.unitecr2013.org