validation of fluid flow and solidification simulation of a continuous...
TRANSCRIPT
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Validation of Fluid Flow and Solidification Simulation of a Continuous Thin-Slab Caster
Validation of Fluid Flow and Solidification Simulation of a Continuous Thin-Slab Caster
Brian G. Thomas1, Ron O'Malley2, Tiebiao Shi1, Ya Meng1, David Creech1, and David Stone1
1 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,1206 West Green Street, Urbana, IL USA, 61801
2 AK Steel Research
703 Curtis StreetMiddletown, Ohio 45043
Brian G. Thomas1, Ron O'Malley2, Tiebiao Shi1, Ya Meng1, David Creech1, and David Stone1
1 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,1206 West Green Street, Urbana, IL USA, 61801
2 AK Steel Research
703 Curtis StreetMiddletown, Ohio 45043
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
l Continuous Casting Consortium AK Steel, Allegheny Ludlum Corp., Columbus Steel, Ispat-Inland Steel, LTV Steel, Stollberg Inc.
l National Science Foundation (Grant DMI-98-00274)
l NCSA (computing time and use of CFX)
l AK Steel (water model and plant measurements)
l M. Langeneckert and G. Webster (finite element analysis of the mold)
l Continuous Casting Consortium AK Steel, Allegheny Ludlum Corp., Columbus Steel, Ispat-Inland Steel, LTV Steel, Stollberg Inc.
l National Science Foundation (Grant DMI-98-00274)
l NCSA (computing time and use of CFX)
l AK Steel (water model and plant measurements)
l M. Langeneckert and G. Webster (finite element analysis of the mold)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
ObjectiveObjective
Validate fluid flow and solidification models with extensive measurements:Validate fluid flow and solidification models with extensive measurements:
l velocities within the liquid pool (from water models)
l temperatures measured in the molten steel pool (plant trial)
l temperatures measured in the copper mold walls (mold thermocouples)
l heat flow rate (heat balance on the mold cooling water)
l thickness of the solidified steel shell (from breakout shell measurements)
l velocities within the liquid pool (from water models)
l temperatures measured in the molten steel pool (plant trial)
l temperatures measured in the copper mold walls (mold thermocouples)
l heat flow rate (heat balance on the mold cooling water)
l thickness of the solidified steel shell (from breakout shell measurements)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
The Continuous Casting Process
B.G. Thomas
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Thin Slab Casting MoldThin Slab Casting Mold
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Fluid Flow ModelFluid Flow Model
3D Domain and Mesh of¼ of Liquid Pool:
l Includes 3-port nozzle
l Standard high-Re K-ε turbulence model and wall laws
l Solidification front (boundary): liquidus temperature
l Predicts velocities and superheat distribution
3D Domain and Mesh of¼ of Liquid Pool:
l Includes 3-port nozzle
l Standard high-Re K-ε turbulence model and wall laws
l Solidification front (boundary): liquidus temperature
l Predicts velocities and superheat distribution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
3-D K-ε Simulation Water Model3-D K-ε Simulation Water Model
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Water Model FlowWater Model Flow
Velocity Along Flowing Jet (Calculated and Water Model Measurements)
Velocity Along Flowing Jet (Calculated and Water Model Measurements)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Calculated Speed (Jet Centerline)Calculated Speed (Average)Measured Speed
Vel
ocity
(m
/s)
Horizontal Distance from Mold Center (mm)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Molten Steel Temperature(Model Validation)
Molten Steel Temperature(Model Validation)
Pour
Liquidus 56°C superheat
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 50 100 150 200
Probe (insertion)
Probe (withdrawal)
Model
1505
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
Sup
erhe
at (
C)
Distance below the Meniscus (mm)
SEN
Profile Location
Measurement Position
NFMiddle Point
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Superheat Flux Profiles(Calculated Around the Exterior of the Strand Surface)
Superheat Flux Profiles(Calculated Around the Exterior of the Strand Surface)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
30 1000 2000 3000 4000
Corner
Wideface centerline
Narrow face centerline
Dis
tanc
e be
low
Men
iscu
s (m
)
SuperHeat Flux from liquid to shell (KW/m2)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Temperature Contours in 3-D Portion of Mold WallTemperature Contours in 3-D Portion of Mold Wall
Wide FaceWide Face
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Instrumented Mold (106 Thermocouples)Instrumented Mold (106 Thermocouples)
Dist (mm)Dist (mm)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Heat Flux and Cooling Water Heat BalanceHeat Flux and Cooling Water Heat Balance
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Wide Face
Narrow Face
Hea
t Flu
x (M
Wm
-2)
Distance below Meniscus (mm)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Wide Face
Narrow Face
Hea
t Flu
x (M
Wm
-2)
Distance below Meniscus (mm)
Breakout shell
Steady state
8.228.287.98Narrow Face
5.616.286.12Wide Face
CON1D predicted
measurementsUnit : oC
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Temperatures Down Mold Walls (Calculated and Measured at Thermocouple Locations)
Temperatures Down Mold Walls (Calculated and Measured at Thermocouple Locations)
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
0 200 400 600 800 1000
IR WF 325 mm East of CLIR WF 75 mm East of CLIR WF 75 mm west of CLIR WF 325 mm west of CLOR WF 325 mm East of CLOR WF 75 mm East of CLOR WF 75 mm west of CLOR WF 325 mm west of CLCON1D predicted WF
Tem
pera
ture
(C
)
Distance from Top of Mold (mm)
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
0 200 400 600 800 1000
IR WF 325 mm East of CLIR WF 75 mm East of CLIR WF 75 mm west of CLIR WF 325 mm west of CLOR WF 325 mm East of CLOR WF 75 mm East of CLOR WF 75 mm west of CLOR WF 325 mm west of CLCON1D predicted WF
Tem
pera
ture
(C
)
Distance from Top of Mold (mm)
CON1D calculation offset: 4.5mm 10.3mmCON1D calculation offset: 4.5mm 10.3mm
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 200 400 600 800 1000
East NF center
West NF center
CON1D predicted NF
Tem
pera
ture
(C
)
Distance from Top of Mold (mm)
Wide FaceWide Face Narrow FaceNarrow Face
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Solidification and Heat Transfer Model: CON1DSolidification and Heat Transfer Model: CON1D
l 1-D transient finite-difference model of solidifying steel shell
l 2-D steady-state heat conduction within the mold wall
l detailed treatment of interfacial gap including mass and momentum balances on slag layers
l uses superheat flux from flow modell predicts:
-shell thickness down the mold-temperature in the mold and shell -slag layer thicknesses (solid & liquid) -heat flux down the mold-mold water temperature rise-ideal taper of mold walls
l 1-D transient finite-difference model of solidifying steel shell
l 2-D steady-state heat conduction within the mold wall
l detailed treatment of interfacial gap including mass and momentum balances on slag layers
l uses superheat flux from flow modell predicts:
-shell thickness down the mold-temperature in the mold and shell -slag layer thicknesses (solid & liquid) -heat flux down the mold-mold water temperature rise-ideal taper of mold walls
(MW/m )2 Heat fluxHeat flux
Peak near meniscus
Copper Mold and Gap
Liquid Steel
1.0123
Dis
tanc
e be
low
men
iscu
s (m
m)
400
200
top of mold
23 mm
4
0
Mold Exit
600
Heat Input to shell inside from liquid (q )
Water Spray Zone
Meniscus
Narrow face (Peak near mold exit)
(MW/m )2
Solidifying Steel Shell
1200 ÞC1300 ÞC
1400 ÞC1500 ÞC
1100 ÞC
800
Wide face (Very little superheat )
int sh
x
z
Heat Removed from shell surface to gap (q )
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Solid Fraction Effect on Steady-state Shell ThicknessSolid Fraction Effect on Steady-state Shell Thickness
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
She
ll T
hick
ness
(m
m)
Distance below meniscus (mm)
fs=0fs=0.1fs=0.3fs=0.7fs=1.0
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Section through slab showing longitudinal crack that started breakout
Section through slab showing longitudinal crack that started breakout
NarrowFace
NarrowFace
CenterlineCenterline
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Casting Conditions & Simulation parametersCasting Conditions & Simulation parameters
l Casting Speed: 1.524m/minl Pour Temperature: 1563 oC (61 oC superheat)l Slab Size: 984mm*132mml Mold Length: 1200mml Nozzle Submerge depth: 127mml Mold Powder Consumption Rate: 0.48kg/m2
l Mold Thickness: wide face 35mm; narrow face 25mml Steel Grade: 434 Stainless Steell Inlet Cooling Water Temperature: 25 oCl Fraction Solid for Shell Thickness Location: 0.1
l Casting Speed: 1.524m/minl Pour Temperature: 1563 oC (61 oC superheat)l Slab Size: 984mm*132mml Mold Length: 1200mml Nozzle Submerge depth: 127mml Mold Powder Consumption Rate: 0.48kg/m2
l Mold Thickness: wide face 35mm; narrow face 25mml Steel Grade: 434 Stainless Steell Inlet Cooling Water Temperature: 25 oCl Fraction Solid for Shell Thickness Location: 0.1
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Events during breakoutEvents during breakout
0
500
1000
1500
2000
7120 7140 7160 7180 7200 7220 7240 7260
Dis
tanc
e be
low
ste
ady-
stat
e m
enis
cus
(mm
)
Time (s)
t0
t0 - 10
t0 - 20
t0 - 30
t0 - 40
t0 - 50
t0 - 57
mold exit
Estimated liquid level
Bottom of breakout hole
Measured liquid levelTop of breakout shell
0
500
1000
1500
2000
7120 7140 7160 7180 7200 7220 7240 7260
Dis
tanc
e be
low
ste
ady-
stat
e m
enis
cus
(mm
)
Time (s)
t0
t0 - 10
t0 - 20
t0 - 30
t0 - 40
t0 - 50
t0 - 57
mold exit
Estimated liquid level
Bottom of breakout hole
Measured liquid levelTop of breakout shell
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Shell Thickness Along Wide Face (WF)(Calculated Compared with Breakout Shell Measurements)
Shell Thickness Along Wide Face (WF)(Calculated Compared with Breakout Shell Measurements)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800 1000
IR WF 86mm East of CLIR WF 86mm West of CLOR WF 86mm East of CLOR WF 86mm West of CLCON1D Transient CON1D Steady-State
She
ll T
hick
ness
(mm
)
Distance below Meniscus (mm)
Solidifcation Time (s)0 10 20 30 40 50
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Shell Thickness Along Wide Face (WF)(Calculated Compared with Breakout Shell Measurements)
Shell Thickness Along Wide Face (WF)(Calculated Compared with Breakout Shell Measurements)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800 1000
IR WF 86mm East of CLIR WF 86mm West of CLOR WF 86mm East of CLOR WF 86mm West of CLIR WF 238mm East ofCLIR WF 238mm West of CLOR WF 238mm East of CLOR WF 238mm West of CLCON1D Transient CON1D Steady-State
She
ll T
hick
ness
(mm
)
Distance below Meniscus (mm)
Solidifcation Time (s)0 10 20 30 40 50
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Shell Thickness Along Narrow Face (NF) (Calculated Compared with Breakout Shell Measurements)
Shell Thickness Along Narrow Face (NF) (Calculated Compared with Breakout Shell Measurements)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800 1000
East NF CenterWest NF CenterCON1D TransientCON1D Steady-State
She
ll T
hick
ness
(mm
)
Distance below Meniscus (mm)
Solidifcation Time (s)0 10 20 30 40 50
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
Model ApplicationsModel Applications
These validated modeling tools can now be applied to study related phenomena of practical significance in a quantitative manner, which include:
l ideal taper of the mold walls to match the shell shrinkage,
l critical shell thickness to avoid breakouts,
l behavior of flux layers in the interfacial gap,
l crack formation,
l relationships between mold wall temperatures and events in solidifying shell to enable online quality prediction.
These validated modeling tools can now be applied to study related phenomena of practical significance in a quantitative manner, which include:
l ideal taper of the mold walls to match the shell shrinkage,
l critical shell thickness to avoid breakouts,
l behavior of flux layers in the interfacial gap,
l crack formation,
l relationships between mold wall temperatures and events in solidifying shell to enable online quality prediction.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Metals Processing Simulation Lab • Brian G. Thomas
ConclusionConclusion
l An efficient model of 3-D turbulent flow, heat transfer and solidification in a thin slab caster has been developed, featuring one-way coupling betweenä K-ε flow model (CFX) and ä 1-D transient model of heat transfer in the mold, interface, and
solidifying steel shell (CON1D).
l The accuracy of this modeling approach has been demonstrated by comparison with
ä experimental measurements of fluid flow in the liquid pool,ä temperature in the molten steel, ä temperature in the copper mold walls, ä temperature increase of the cooling water, and ä breakout shell thickness.
l An efficient model of 3-D turbulent flow, heat transfer and solidification in a thin slab caster has been developed, featuring one-way coupling betweenä K-ε flow model (CFX) and ä 1-D transient model of heat transfer in the mold, interface, and
solidifying steel shell (CON1D).
l The accuracy of this modeling approach has been demonstrated by comparison with
ä experimental measurements of fluid flow in the liquid pool,ä temperature in the molten steel, ä temperature in the copper mold walls, ä temperature increase of the cooling water, and ä breakout shell thickness.