Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I.
INTRODUCTION
II.
PREVIOUS WORK
III.
WATER-MODEL EXPERIMENTS
Parameters
Stopper opening
fraction
Nozzle port angle
Nozzle port area
Nozzle bore
diameter
Nozzle outer
diameter
SEN depth
Average port
velocity
Fluid ow rate
Casting speed
Mold width
Mold thickness
Domain width
Domain thickness
Domain length
Shell
Gas injection
quid
luid
qslag
Steel Caster
(Full Scale)
0.11
25 deg down
25 deg down
23.3 mm (width) 9 69.9 mm (width) 9
26.7 mm (height)
80.1 mm (height)
25 mm
75 mm
43 mm
129 mm
60 mm
0.512 m/s
180 mm
0.886 m/s
38.2 LPM
1.02 m/min
500 mm
75 mm
250 mm
37.5 mm
595.4 LPM
1.76 m/min
1500 mm
225 mm
750 mm
112.5 mm
(at the top)
3600 mm
yes (Fig. 19)
no
7020 kg/m3
(steel)
0.006 kg/m s
(steel)
3000 kg/m3
1200 mm
no
no
998.2 kg/m3
(water)
0.001003 kg/m s
(water)
IV.
COMPUTATIONAL MODEL
qVcasting A
V
1
qVcasting A
v
V
2
Fig. 4Isometric view of (a) well-bottom nozzle and (b) strand quarter domains and meshes.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
Fig. 5Mesh closeup of (a) stopper-rod head region, (b) bottom region of well-bottom nozzle, and (c) bottom region of mountain-bottom
nozzle.
V.
MODEL VALIDATION
Fig. 6(a) PIV measurement window in water model with well-bottom nozzle with (b) PIV measured velocity (time averaged over 6 min),
(c) model velocity and streamlines (second-order up-winding), and (d) model velocity and streamlines (rst-order up-winding).
Table II. Comparison of Predictions and Impeller Measurements (a) in Jet and (b) near Top Surface
Turbulent Kinetic Energy (m2/s2)
(910-3 )
Water Model
Left Side
(a) Jet Velocity (m/s)
Well bottom
0.687
Mountain bottom
0.957
(b) Horizontal-Surface Velocity (m/s)
Well bottom
0.103
Mountain bottom
0.148
VI.
Water Model
Right Side
Fluent
Left Side
Right Side
Fluent
0.685
0.944
0.69
0.92
0.0611
0.0216
0.0898
0.0087
22.3
20.1
0.115
0.166
0.11
0.18
0.31
2.23
0.38
3.14
COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
A. Nozzle Flow
Figure 7 gives the velocity contours and vectors near
the stopper-rod head and bottom region of both nozzles.
The maximum velocity is 3.8 m/s and is found in the
thinnest part of the annular region between the stopper
rod and the tundish bottom. Figure 8 compares
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
1.4
2.4
streamlines, and Table III quanties the jet characteristics[12] for both nozzles. The jet in the well-bottom
nozzle is more diusive and thicker with a smaller backow zone (27 pct vs 30 pct in mountain bottom). In the
mountain-bottom nozzle, ow goes straight along the
side of the mountain with a high velocity, producing a
thinner and less diusive jet with smaller horizontal
spread and vertical jet angles (Table IV).
VOLUME 39B, DECEMBER 2008875
Fig. 7Comparison of velocity in (a) stopper-rod head region, (b) bottom region of well-bottom nozzle, and (c) bottom region of mountainbottom nozzle.
Table III.
Fig. 8Comparison of streamlines in (a) well- and (b) mountainbottom nozzles of water model.
Well-Bottom
Nozzle
MountainBottom
Nozzle
0.75
0.48
0.065
0.040
0.92
0.52
0.076
0.018
2.11
0.64
32.8
0
5.0
29.3
0
4.7
0.89
27 pct
1.06
30 pct
Table IV.
Nozzle Type
Well bottom
Mountain bottom
Surface Velocity
Average Velocity
Fluctuations
Average Velocity
Fluctuations
Asymmetry
(Due to Flow Transients)
Low
High
low
high
Fig. 9Comparison of the port velocities in (a) well- and (b) mountain bottom nozzles.
Fig. 10Calculated jet-velocity vectors and speed contours near nozzle at mold center plane in (a) well- and (b) mountain-bottom nozzles.
Fig. 11Velocity contours and streamlines at the midplane between wide faces with (a) well- and (b) mountain-bottom nozzles in water-model
mold.
Fig. 12Vertical velocity at 10 mm from narrow face at the midplane between wide faces with well- and mountain-bottom nozzles in
the water-model mold.
Figure 16 shows the measured histories of the horizontal velocities near the surface on the left and right
side of the mold for both nozzles, along with the their
time-averaged values. For the well-bottom nozzle, timeaveraged horizontal-surface velocities are approximately
0.109 m/s, with the right side 11.6 pct higher than the
left. The mountain-bottom nozzle has more than 50 pct
higher average surface velocities, 0.157 m/s, due to the
higher jet velocity. Its asymmetry is also higher, with
12.1 pct higher velocity on the right side. Relative to the
jet, these surface ow results show that asymmetry
increases as the ow travels through the mold. Furthermore, the mountain-bottom nozzle is more susceptible
to asymmetric ow.
Fig. 13Free surface-level comparison in well- and mountain-bottom nozzles of water-model mold.
C. Velocity Fluctuations
Power spectrum of the jet and surface velocity
uctuations of both nozzles are shown in Figures 17
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
Simulations of a full-scale steel caster with wellbottom nozzle were performed to evaluate the watermodel ndings. The laboratory water model has several
dierences from the real caster as follows: (1) geometric
Fig. 17Power spectrum of jet-velocity uctuations measured in water model with well- and mountain-bottom nozzles.
880VOLUME 39B, DECEMBER 2008
Fig. 18Power spectrum of surface-velocity uctuations measured in water model with well- and mountain-bottom nozzles.
Figure 21 presents the velocity contours and streamlines at the midplane between wide faces in the steel
caster with the solidifying shell. The casting speed for
the full-scale caster matches the Froude number of 0.005
of the water model. The ow pattern is generally similar
to the water model. Comparison of horizontal-surface
velocity between water model (after converting to full
scale) and the steel caster is given in Figure 22. The
horizontal axis is non-dimensionalized to compare both
water model and caster. The vertical axis is simply the
horizontal velocity for the steel caster. Horizontal
velocity for the water model was multiplied by 1.732
(the square root of the length scale of 3), according to
the Froude criterion. The horizontal velocity in the
water model falls in between the caster velocities with
and without the solidifying shell. Note that ow in the
water model is in the transition regime (Re = 2200
based on strand-hydraulic diameter), while the steel
caster is fully turbulent (Re = 13,500). The watermodel velocities would match the caster without the
shell if it was fully turbulent.
VOLUME 39B, DECEMBER 2008881
IX.
SUMMARY
This work investigates well-bottom and mountainbottom type nozzles both experimentally and numerically. The computational model agrees very well with
measured velocities in all cases but over predicts
turbulent kinetic energy in the jet and surface of the
well-bottom nozzle perhaps due to time resolution
(approximately 0.1 Hz) of the impeller probe and
uctuations being higher frequency. The measured
surface turbulence in mountain-bottom nozzle matches
well with the simulations. Based upon experiments
and the validated computational model, the following
Fig. 22Comparison of surface velocities in mold of one-third scale water model and steel caster using Froude-number similarity (well-bottom
nozzle).
Fig. 23Comparison of liquid level in one-third scale water model and steel caster with solidifying shell using Froude-number similarity (wellbottom nozzle).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Young-Jin Jeon and Professor
Hyung-Jin Sung, Department of Mechanical Engineering, KAIST (South Korea), and Seong-Mook Cho,
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
POSTECH (South Korea), for help with the PIV measurements. They also thank POSCO, Oh-Duck Kwon,
Shin-Eon Kang, and POSCO Technical Research Laboratories for relevant data and providing the water
model and ANSYS Inc. for supplying FLUENT. Support from the Continuous Casting Consortium, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, POSCO, South
Korea (Grant No. 4.0002397.01) and the National
Science Foundation (Grant No. DMI 05-00453) is
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. B.G. Thomas: in Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, 11th ed.,
vol. 5, Casting volume, A. Cramb, ed., AISE Steel Foundation,
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003, pp. 14.114.41.
2. J. Kubota, K. Okimoto, A. Shirayama, and H. Murakami:
Steelmaking Conf. Proc., Iron and Steel Society, Warrendale, PA,
1991, vol. 74, pp. 23341.
3. M.B. Assar, P.H. Dauby, and G.D. Lawson: Steelmaking Conf.
Proc., ISS, Warrendale, PA, 2000, pp. 397411.
4. D. Gupta and A.K. Lahiri: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 1996,
vol. 27B, pp. 75764.
5. D. Gupta and A.K. Lahiri: Steel Res., 1992, vol. 63 (5), pp. 201
04.
6. B.G. Thomas, X. Huang, and R.C. Sussman: Metall. Mater.
Trans. B, 1994, vol. 25B, pp. 52747.
7. B.G. Thomas and L. Zhang: ISIJ Int., 2001, vol. 41 (10), pp. 1181
93.
8. T. Honeyands and J. Herbertson: Steel Res., 1995, vol. 66 (7),
pp. 28793.
9. N.J. Lawson and M.R. Davidson: J. Fluids Eng., 2002, vol. 124
(2), pp. 53543.
10. D. Xu, W.K. Jones, and J.W. Evans: in Processing of Metals and
Advanced Materials: Modeling, Design and Properties, B.Q. Li, ed.,
TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1998, pp. 314.
11. S. Sivaramakrishnan, B.G. Thomas, and S.P. Vanka: in Materials
Processing in the Computer Age, V. Voller and H. Henein, eds.,
TMS, Warrendale, PA, 2000, pp. 18998.
12. H. Bai and B.G. Thomas: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2001, vol. 32B,
pp. 25367.
VOLUME 39B, DECEMBER 2008883
13. H. Bai and B.G. Thomas: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2001, vol. 32B,
pp. 26984.
14. D.E. Hershey, B.G. Thomas, and F.M. Najjar: Int. J. Numer.
Methods Fluids, 1993, vol. 17 (1), pp. 2347.
15. F.M. Najjar, B.G. Thomas, and D.E. Hershey: Metall. Mater.
Trans. B, 1995, vol. 26B, pp. 74965.
16. B.G. Thomas, L.J. Mika, and F.M. Najjar: Metall. Trans. B, 1990,
vol. 21B, pp. 387400.
17. X. Huang and B.G. Thomas: Can. Metall. Q., 1998, vol. 37 (34),
pp. 197212.
18. K. Takatani, Y. Tanizawa, H. Mizukami, and K. Nishimura: ISIJ
Int., 2001, vol. 41 (10), pp. 125261.
19. Q. Yuan, B.G. Thomas, and S.P. Vanka: Metall. Mater. Trans. B,
2004, vol. 35B, pp. 685702.
20. Q. Yuan, S. Sivaramakrishnan, S.P. Vanka, and B.G. Thomas:
Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2004, vol. 35B (5), pp. 96782.
21. B.G. Thomas, Q. Yuan, S. Sivaramakrishnan, T. Shi, S.P. Vanka,
and M.B. Assar: ISIJ Int., 2001, vol. 41 (10), pp. 126271.
22. H. Versteeg and W. Malalasekra: An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method Approach,
Longman Scientic Technical, Essex, United Kingdom, 1995.
23. B.E. Launder and D.B. Spalding: Mathematical Models of Turbulence, Academic Press, London, 1972.
24. B.G. Thomas: in Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, A.W.
Cramb, ed., AISE Steel Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.
25. Y.A. Meng and B.G. Thomas: Metall. Trans. B, 2003, vol. 34B,
pp. 685705.
26. B.T. Rietow: Masters Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign, Urbana, IL, 2007.
27. D. Creech: Masters Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1999.
28. FLUENT6.3-Manual, ANSYS Inc., Lebanon, NH, 2007.
29. G.A. Panaras, A. Theodorakakos, and G. Bergeles: Metall. Mater.
Trans. B, 1998, vol. 29B, pp. 111726.
30. B.E. Launder and D.B. Spalding: Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech.
Eng., 1974, vol. 3 (2), pp. 26989.