Case Studies · Iron & Steel

Aluminium Furnace High Emissivity Coating: Third-Party Audit Confirms 9% Less Dross and $645,000 More Output

Melting-holding furnace·Confidential aluminium producer

A confidential aluminium producer commissioned an independent audit comparing an Emisshield MT-7-coated melting-holding furnace (Furnace 2) with an uncoated control (Furnace 1) over six months of production data. The coated furnace generated about 9% less dross, ran a 12°C higher melt temperature despite a heavier charge, cycled slightly faster, and delivered $645,000 more casting throughput over four months.

Talk with an Expert Case Study Library

Third-party audit, six months of production data
: ~9% dross reduction (459.4 to 418.87 MT)
: $645,000 production gain over four months
: Melt +12°C

The Challenge

Quantify, independently, the performance improvements attributable to the coating: dross generation, casting throughput, melt temperature, cycle time, and refractory condition.

What Was Applied

Emisshield MT-7 on Furnace 2; Furnace 1 uncoated. Dross and casting tonnages recorded monthly with melt temperature, cycle time, and refractory wear.

Ladle charging molten iron in a steel plant

Why It Worked

A high emissivity lining returns more radiant energy to the bath, holding a hotter, steadier melt surface that forms less dross and melts a heavier charge in less time. See Test Data & Validation.

Summary of Results

Metric	Uncoated furnace	Coated furnace
Dross generated (audit period)	459.4 MT	418.87 MT (~−9%)
Dross reduction range		6 to 10%
Casting throughput	Baseline	+$645,000 over four months
Melt temperature	Baseline	+12°C despite higher charge
Cycle time	Baseline	Slightly shorter
Refractory life		Improvement anticipated, not yet quantified

Next step

Operating the Same Asset?

Want an audited comparison on your own furnace? Send us the furnace data and we design the baseline. We project the result from comparable documented installations.

Talk with an Expert Request a Quote