Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I.
INTRODUCTION
TOP-SURFACE
POWDERED FLUX
SINTERED FLUX
LIQUID FLUX
--
~
" ~
SUBMERGEi ~ENTRY
NOZZLE SEN)
\
RE-SOLIDIFIED
Nit'
"~176
MODEL FORMULATION
A. Model Assumptions
The 3-D coupled fluid flow and heat transfer with change
of phase in the powder, liquid, and resolidified flux layers
was modeled in this study. The model accounts for the
known location and shape of the steel/flux interface, momentum transfer between the liquid steel and flux, and radiative and natural convective heat loss at the free surface
of the flux. A separate 3-D model is used to calculate the
flow field in the liquid steel. E241This steel flow model and
the flux flow model presented here are coupled through the
shear stress distribution at their mutual interface. Separate
temperature-dependent functions for powder viscosity and
thermal conductivity are applied in regions of melting and
solidifying powder.
Model assumptions include the following.
(1) Flow is laminar. This is consistent with Re ~- 70 (Table
I)
(2) The flow and thermal fields are both steady. This assumption is investigated in Section VII with the 1-D
transient model.
(3) Steel surface shape is fixed according to measurements
made under steady operating conditions. Thus, surface
waves and sloshing are ignored.
(4) Flux properties are characterized solely through the
macroscopic material properties of viscosity, thermal
conductivity, specific heat, latent heat, and density. Effects of microscopic kinetics such as particle sintering
are manifested only in the values of these macroscopic
properties.
(5) Density is constant and gravity is ignored. The model
neglects buoyancy effects due to the known density increase as the powder sinters and melts. The estimated
Raleigh number is -105 to 10 6, which is high enough
that natural convection should be important, but low
enough that the flow does not become turbulent. The
modified Froude number~251 of only 0.077 (Table I)
shows that even relative to the driving force of the steel
motion, natural convection is important. Thus, there is
a significant tendency for the powder to float above the
liquid flux layer while gravity induces flow of the liquid
flux downward into the valleys in the steel surface contours.
(6) Powder feeding is uniform and steady over the entire
mold area. In practice, this assumption is only approximated by very careful operators or automatic powder
feeders.
(7) Mold oscillation has no role other than to impose the
constant, uniform, consumption rate of liquid flux into
the mold-strand gap around the perimeter of the mold.
(8) Powder and liquid flux both behave as an isotropic
Newtonian fluid with temperature-dependent viscosity,
thermal conductivity, and enthalpy.
(9) Thermal contact resistance between the molten steel
and molten flux layers is negligible.
VOLUME 27B, AUGUST 1990---673
Table I.
Symbol
C~,
du
g
h~,~kp, kj
le
Lj,
m,.
mc
M,.
N
P
q,
tm
T
T~b
Tfmo,,
~
T~,
T~u~
ux, uy, u.
v
Vc
wp, wj
w,
x
~.
Xj:m=
Xj:~,,
Xt.SEN
y
z
2d-/"L
AT
/3
ej~
3(,
/z
/z,
p
p.
o"
r
Variable
specific heat of flux. J kg -t K -~
mold-strand gap thickness in simulation domain, m
acceleration due to gravity, ms -2
effective total heat-transfer coefficient,I43j W m -2 K ~
powder flux, liquid flux thermal conductivity, W m -~ K -~
mold-strand gap length in simulation domain, m
Equivalent Hydraulic diameter of mold, m ( = \/(w~ t~))
flux specific consumption, kg m-'flux consumption rate, kg s -~
flux consumption per meter of mold perimeter, kg m -~ s -~
number of nodes
pressure, N m -2
normal heat flux, W m -2
half-mold thickness, m
temperature, ~
ambient temperature, ~
flux melting temperature, ~
flux sintering temperature, ~
molten steel surface temperature, ~
surface temperature o f flux, ~
velocity components in x, y, and z directions, ms-~
characteristic velocity of liquid flux, ms-'
casting speed, ms -~
powder flux, liquid flux layer thickness, m
half-mold width, m
coordinate in mold width direction, m
total flux thickness, m
maximum total flux thickness, m
total flux thickness at meniscus, m
total flux thickness at SEN, m
coordinate in mold thickness direction, m
coordinate in negative casting direction, m
enthalpy of fusion, kJ kg -~
characteristic temperature difference for natural convection, K
Volumetric expansion of liquid flux, K-'
flux emissivity
surface tension for liquid steel in air, t261N m ~
kinetic viscosity of flux, kg m -j s -~
kinetic viscosity of steel at liquidus, kg m -~ s -~
density of flux, kg m -3
density o f steel, kg m -3
Stefan-Boltzrnann constant, W m -2 K -4
shear stress, N m--'
Br
Reynol snumber(= )
ModiedFroudenumber(=
Onnkmannumber(=)
Gr
Orashofnumber(=
Re
Fr"
We
Fig. 9
0.0008
9.81
Eq. [A3]
Fig. 8
0.027
0.2829
0.6
0.0326
0.0100
28,500
O. 1143
30
1000
900
1550
0.0166
0.7
0.035
0.01
0.027
350
650
2.4 10 -5
0.7
1.6
Fig. 7
0.0055
2500
7800
5.667 10 -8
70
0.077
6.0 10 -9
80
tz~
webernumber(= )
Value
}
1.5 X 10 -3
Free
SUBMERGED ENTRY
N O Z Z L E (SEN)
Surface
U~=-4.]
X 1 0 .5 m s -I
au~ = 0
Oz
az
Wideface
Widefaee Consumption
Plane of Symmetry
u~= 0
=o
o_~ =o
ax
aU~=o
ax
Wall
ux, uy.u~ = 0
,~
Plane of Symmetry
Uy = 0
t2* (tangential)
.o=,
In* (normal)
Ouz
~y = 0
Flux-SteelInterface
xtl
Narrowfaee
9= specifiedbasedon interpolation
Wall
u~, U y , U z = 0
Shell
Uz= - 0.017 ms~
~ / ~
Solidifying
9 localcoordinatesystemat steel/fluxinterface
MoldWallConsumptionRegion
/
Widelace
Mo/dWail
/
'~1.~
Plane:t~/
reduced by invoking bifold symmetry to model only onequarter of the physical domain. The exact shape of the steel
flux interface used was imposed based on steady measurements on an actual caster, U7,23]as described later. The shape
of the meniscus portion of this interface is determined from
an analytical solution of a modified version of the YoungLaplace equation, tz6.27]
The flow boundary conditions are given in Figure 4, with
the finite element mesh. At the flux/steel interface, a fixed
shear stress, r:~, condition was imposed.
Nan~wf~
MoldWall
aux i..x
dg- 0,001
SteeI-Rux
Symmetry
Xf,SEN=0"027
Interlace
[1]
[2]
[3]
They represent mass, momentum, and energy conservation in three dimensions, respectively. The Nomenclature is
given in Table 1.
C. Geometry Definition and Boundary Conditions
Schematics of the model domain with dimensions are
given in Figures 2 and 3. Computational requirements are
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
au, l
[4]
d3
t-
El
~L
I
i
10 5
ft.
....
lo'
lOOO
I ....
I ....
I ....
i
T
J.
!
T ~ 7
I ....
I ....
I ........
J-I
~
..... i] ~
...... T - - T - - - 7 - - - ~ -
I ....
I,.
soli,~,~gct.o.,.,.l~=a)
~
(St='m,~rd- High ~.)
..."----....'----T---Z. . . . F......7
loo
0.0
lo
1
0.1
....
0.01
SEN
I ....
I
I ....
I
400
I ....
I
I ....
I
800
J ....
I
I . . . . . . . . . . .
I
1200
1600
"
Ii
2000
4"
0.5
3.5
,..,
'r
,,,I,,.f
.,I,,,1,,,I,,.I,.,I,..I,,,I,
3
2.5
E
1.5
Z
Fig. 5--Velocities in steel calculated by a 3-D flow model.[:4]
E
~ 0.5
Plane of Symmetry
q~ = 0
Free Sm'face
'"1'"1'"1'
0
0
400
","","'I'"I'"['"I'"S
800
1200
1600
2000
Temperature ( ~
Planeof Symmetry
qn=O
~
/
~I~'~.....N
Narrowface Wall
T = 300"C
FIux-Steel
Solidifying
Shell
T= 1550"C
In.tel~ace
(Eq. [A3]) is dominated by radiation but also includes natural convection in air.
III.
A. Viscosity-Temperature Relationship
The three forms of flux (powder, liquid, and glassy/
crystalline solid) were simulated using two different material models, in different parts of the domain. One part characterizes the flux as liquid cooling to a coherent solid near
676---VOLUME 27B, AUGUST 1996
3.000 I06 i . . . . . . . .
~ ......
.......
~ ....
' ~ ....
C. Enthatpy-Temperature Relationship
1,ooo 1o
~.o0o,o~~
0
...............i............i................ i..............i............
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
An enthalpy-temperature model is used to simulate solidification/melting of the flux. This is believed to be more
stable and accurate than an "enhanced specific heat"
model. The assumed function, shown in Figure 9, is based
on sparse data from available literature. I37,4~ It includes a
latent heat of fusion of 350 kJ kg -~ at the melting point of
1000 ~
IV.
SOLUTION M E T H O D O L O G Y
Temperature (=C)
DEFINITION
CONDITIONS
MODELS
ISOTHERMALFLOW
MODEL
Ve~oehS,~ Prcwammno~v~lfor.
VeL ~ Flte~'~te~ )nte~ace
Shear Stressat
Flux/Steel Interface
T ~UlS~Kd~
3-D STEEL FLOW
MODEL
Shear Stressat
Flux/SteedInterface
~lvod for
YES ~
Interface
f FLOWFIELD
.kin
I ~
UNCOI~PLEDADVECTIONDIFFUSION ANALYSIS
~fr)
Problem
Type
Isothermal
flow
Energy
(AdvectionDiffusion)
Coupled
Total
Total
RelaxDisk Number Solution
ation
Space
of
Time
Factor RESCONV (MB) Iterations (CPUs)*
None
0.4
0.3
0.001
0.01
0.01
990
59
1,800
110
45
3500
4320
67,500
The preceding governing equations, subject to the boundary conditions discussed, were solved using the finite element method with the commercial CFD code FIDAP. Full
details of the implementation of this model are found in the
FIDAP Theoretical Manua~ 4q and elsewhere.t23]
The Navier-Stokes and continuity equations were solved
using a mixed (i.e., u-P) formulation. Successive substitution proved to be more robust than the Newton-Raphson
method for solving the nonlinear algebraic finite element
equations. Oscillatory behavior was suppressed with an under-relaxation coefficient between 0.3 and 0.4 (FIDAP acceleration factor between 0.7 and 0.6), meaning that the
guess used to linearize the equations relied more heavily
on the past solution than on the most recent solution. A
solution was considered converged when the normalized
residual L-2 norm (RESCONV in FIDAP) fell below the
user-specified value of 0.01. Additionally, a smooth monotonically decreasing residual norm was generally indicative
that a good solution was being achieved.
The inherent high nonlinearity in the momentum equations and the two-way coupling with the energy equation
together make this problem difficult to converge. Thus, a
good initial guess of the flow field and temperature distribution was required to avoid divergence. The solution strategy developed to consistently and efficiently obtain a
converged solution is illustrated in Figure 10. The first step
solves an isothermal flow problem, assuming a constant
density of 2500 kg m -3 and constant viscosity of 0.03 Pas,
which is the correct value at the flux/steel interface.
The final mesh, shown in Figures 4 and 6, consisted of
3640 27-noded (i.e., quadratic) brick elements and a total
of 28,500 nodes. Calculations were performed on a CRAY
Y-MP* supercomputer using a "direct iterative solver" in
*CRAYY-MPis a trademarkof Cray Research, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
FIDAP. The computational requirements are summarized in
Table II. Initial attempts using the "indirect (segregated)
solver" in FIDAP were unsuccessful, as the 15-fold savings
in cost per iteration was more than offset by a 30-fold increase in number of iterations required for convergence. All
pre- and postprocessing were performed on a Silicon
Graphics Personal Iris 4D/25 with 64 MB of RAM and over
400 MB of disk space.
TYPICAL RESULTS
The model was run to simulate behavior of the flux layers above a typical 0.23 1.40 m (9 54 in.) strand cast
VOLUME 27B, A U G U S T 1996--~77
---...
i j
,,. , ,
,...-_..-
.~D.~s_
REFERENCE
VECTOR
]
1.7 m m s"1
J
~
Fig. I 1--Calculated velocity distribution in flux layers at top surface and
at midplane showing recirculation zone and flow separation (standard
conditions).
1.7mms ~
6
8O0
'~a
12
>~ o
................................................................
i ......................i........................i...........................................
.4
....................... i........................ T ........................ i [ ~
i/
~'~"
" ~ '
I,,--
~.
TopSudace(14 mm fromWF)
~"'"e'~"l'"--''l
TopSteface(I 14 mm fromWF)
w~
-lO
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
25
E
g
region leaves less heat to melt the flux, which leads to both
a thinner liquid layer and lower top-surface temperature.
!!!!
20
==
~J
15
[,.
10
.=0
- 120
I
Distance from ~
corner along
NF, y (ram)
Fig. 15--Liquid
conditions).
II
1~
2~
300
400
500
600
7~
I
Distance from corner along
wideface, x (ram)
along the flux steel interface increases from zero at the narrowface to its maximum of 0.26 N m -2, 0.3 m from the
narrowface, and back down to zero at the SEN. This shear
stress always directs flow of liquid flux toward the SEN.
On the other hand, the consumption of liquid flux into the
narrowface gap tends to drive liquid flux away from the
SEN. At the point along the flux/steel interface where these
driving forces balance, a separation in the flux flow field is
produced. This separation occurs about 70 to 80 mm from
the narrowface.
The flow of liquid flux is predominantly in the x direction. Over most of the domain, flux consumption to the
wideface has little effect on the flow pattern. Close to the
meniscus, however, the steel flow and corresponding x direction flux velocities diminish. Here, the consumption flow
toward the mold walls is important. Figure 13 shows that
flow toward the wideface dominates the flow pattern at the
flow separation point. Without this flow, a shortage of liquid flux consumption and corresponding quality problems
are likely. These results show that the worst potential problems should exist at the off-comer region of the wideface,
for the standard conditions assumed here.
B. Temperature Distribution
Convective heat transport in the recirculation zone generates a much thicker liquid pool and corresponding hotter
surface closer to the SEN (Figure 14). In the meniscus region, where there is no vertical (z direction) component of
flow, the liquid flux layer is thinner. However, the surface
temperature close to the narrowface is relatively high because the steel/flux interface is close to the free surface
there.
Another pronounced feature of the thermal field in Figure
14 is the relatively cool top surface near the wideface wall
in the off-corner region, about 150 to 250 mm from the
narrowface wall. This is due to the flow separation phenomenon discussed previously. In effect, heat is being convected from that location toward the narrowface, wideface,
and SEN faster than it can propagate to the top of the flux
by conduction. This convective removal of heat from this
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
NUMERICAL VALIDATION
EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
A. Experimental Procedure
"NAIL.BOAPJD"
---'
I
SEN
ALUM]NIJ'M WIRE ~
.........
25
...........
-"
--.~rri, r.____]I_.
sw~
"
................
....................
...................... i
~l~ 15
................................................................................................................................
*d 10
.......................
i..........................i.:....................T
.~
o l ~
I .....
100
200
300
, .....
400
, ....
500
....
600
,i
700
0
N
t.
Y
NARROWFACE MOLD WALL
[]
POWDER FLUX
Fig. 1 6 - - S c h e m a t i c
[]
-s-
....
o f m e a s u r e d a n d p r e d i c t e d liquid l a y e r t h i c k n e s s e s .
[ ....
iI
I ....
~.;--.::---~....................~ w D ~ , - r
T
I
Steel/FluxInterface(Experiment)
[ , ---.o--- FluxMeltInterface(Experiment)
! ......... RuxMelt nterface13DModel,
.....................i..........................F........................i......................
is
o -10 -
UQUIO FLUX
[]
STEEL
=,
,-,-,-,-, , , , ~ b b b , ~ d ~
...
,,,,,,,-.,,,,,.
..........
-~o-
-3s . . . .
0
I ....
100
i ....................
200
300
400
S00
600
700
Distance f r o m N a r r o w Face
(parallel to widefaee), x (ram)
Aluminum Wire
= Powder Layer
Thickness
Fig. 1 9 ~ o m p a r i s o n
o f m e a s u r e d a n d p r e d i c t e d m e l t - i n t e r f a c e positions.
Steel Nail
II D,rec
,o
o,=1
Liquid
m
m
= Liquid Layer
Thickness
Steel
Flow
Solidified Steel
H e a d from Mold
Fig. 1 7 ~ C l o s e - u p
Comparison
with
Model
Predictions
~
.........
0
-5-
,
,
.
,;2.::\
~ -1o- ~ ' i ~
.
"~
le0
-15
.....
. ,
.... .---
pOWOER FLUX
.....
..-"
....
_~ _
~ ~
.....................
i ..................
uouto
9~
Fig. 20--3-D temperature distribution calculated for flux with lower liquid
viscosity (temperatures in ~
VIII.
E F F E C T OF PROCESS VARIABLES
-30
'
-" -3st
._~
~,
0
'''
I ....
100
I ....
200
I ....
300
I ....
400
I ....
500
~ ....
600
...
700
A. Viscosity
The viscosity-temperature curve significantly changes
with flux composition. The curve for a generally lower viscosity flux is included in Figure 7. Figure 20 shows the
effect of using this lower viscosity flux on the temperature
contours. Relative to that with the standard flux (Figure 14),
the surface temperature for the lower viscosity flux is generally higher, and the cold region associated with the flow
separation is more compressed. These differences are
caused by changes in the flow field. The lower viscosity
permits larger velocities to develop in the liquid, for the
same steel-flow driving force at the flux/steel interface.
Higher velocities generate more thermal convective mixing,
so more heat is transferred from the flux/steel interface to
the upper layers of the flux.
Figures 21 and 22 show the effect of viscosity on the
position of the melt interface as given by the 1000 ~ temperature contour. In general, decreasing flux viscosity shifts
the melt interface upward. The deeper liquid layer in the
central region is due to the stronger recirculating velocities
and associated thermal convection that accompany the
lower viscosity. The change near the meniscus is less, however, and the change near the narrowface is negligible.
Feeding to the wideface would be expected to improve
with lower viscosity powders, owing to the general increase
in liquid layer depths. This finding is in apparent agreement
with the frequently quoted empirical relationship of/_t Vc =
constant,t~-3.421 which states that a lower viscosity should be
used at higher casting speeds to achieve adequate lubrication to avoid powder-related quality problems.
B. Thermal Conductivity
The effect of liquid flux thermal conductivity was investigated using the fine-mesh, 2-D model,[231described in Section VI. Because this model overpredicts the liquid layer
thickness, its predictions are interpreted relatively.
M E T A L L U R G I C A L
1 L O W LIQUID
VISCOSITYI ~
-5
"~
-lO
.......
i...
[ ....
!.......:.~
_ .....................
~ .................
..,., ...............................
...:.
~ , ~ - ;...:..,':............
..... .:.
. . . . . . . . ~! ..................................
-.~....
..........:,... i .......................-......~,.,,,':.......i ..................... ~.........................~........................i ....................
-=
"'-. ....
-*=
~"
i\
..................
'
...
I .......
I ........
I:
--
"1'I:
-30
.as
....
I . . . . . . . .
100
~, ....
200
,' ....
300
I ....
400
500
....
600
700
Fig. 2 3 - - E f f e c t
interface.
o f liquid t h e r m a l
o .,,,,I
. . . . . . . . . . . .
'--"- i
U.~'".~"
[ ....
i ........... ~ - ~ . . . . . . . .
.- .-'~.-" "
on
location of melt
/-,-~-1-
,.-i---
j.
.5 - ~: :,--,;-~.-i ........ . - -
"
conductivity
....
! .......... ~--.~
'---~-1~
"~ '~"
#.
~.
.20 T . . . . . . . . . . ~
-30
i!i!i
(~'~0~
.............................................
-35
. . . .
. . . .
100
'
'
'
'
200
. . . .
300
400
500
. . . .
600
700
Fig. 2 4 - - C o m p a r i s o n
D, a n d 3 - D m o d e l s .
. . . . . .
0.03
! . . . . . .
I . . . . . . . . . . . .
! . . . . . .
E
0 0 2 ....... -::
............................................................................
0.015--?-""-
.~
"
....
......
- .....
o,
.......
.................. -i .......................... i
0.01
0.005
.... - ......
...........i .............. ~ t
:,
,
I
,
. . . . . . . . . "If,molI=
~C
Tf'rnd=lO00*C
,
0.05
0,1
......
,
0.15
,.mell = 1100 *C
, , , , , ,
0.2
,,
0,:>5
Fig. 2 5 - - 1 - D p r e d i c t i o n o f relationship b e t w e e n p o w d e r l a y e r t h i c k n e s s
a n d liquid l a y e r thickness as a f u n c t i o n o f the flux m e l t i n g t e m p e r a t u r e .
1-D
Steady-State
Model
A simplified I-D model was developed to further investigate the effect of process and material parameters on liquid flux layer thickness. Flux was assumed to flow
6 8 2 - - V O L U M E 27Bo AUGUST 1996
Tl'me=1200*C
C.
IX.
A.
Model
Formulation
0,025
"L
L~
, o.o2!
:(
" ........
N~l~C~w~nspull2t~.41<~J( ......
'st~l)
~-~
0.01
'
........
: ......
: .....................
i ......
.T
.....................................................................
"0
.=
0.005.
, ,,,: .......
...... :........................
,: .... 'i............
: .,"! ........
,,,' ,,,'
10
'
,.,
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Time (minutes)
Fig. 26
state.
0.035
0.03
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
] ....
, - - - o - - - Flux I
i...
9
Flux 11
.................. ~.............................................................................................
i
....
J,
Flux IV
0.025
E
0.02
0.015
~
r~
O.Ol
0.005
liquid depth is not significant, so the quasi-steady-state assumption appears to be reasonable. These results imply that
the true liquid layer thickness should be smaller than that
predicted by the steady-state models.
Or)
UJ
Constant Powder
Rux Depth
~l
-I
- 6.5
X.
CONCLUSIONS
-IIX
-I
.J - 4.0
I1.
UQUID
- 1.2
M E (s)
- 120 s
Typical Measured
Values at Center-plane
and Quarter Mold Width
APPENDIX
A.
Input Velocities
Average vertical velocity into top surface
= m.~cVc(w,. + tin)
p(Wj'm)
= 4.071 10 -5 m s -~
Consumption velocity to wide face
_ msc Vcwm
= 0.000953 m s -~
= 0.294 X 10 -2 m z
4 p A ex~,
B.
[A1]
h,o, wp + kp
w~. =
~,A ( 7 2 - r::mo,,)wr
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the following steel companies:
Armco, Inc. (Middletown, OH), Inland Steel Corporation
(East Chicago, IN), LTV Steel (Cleveland, OH), and BHP
Co. Ltd. (Wallsend, Australia) for grants which made this
research possible and particularly Bill Emling and Lee Hendrix at LTV for providing facilities and assistance with collection of experimental data. This work is also supported
by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. MSS8957195. The authors also wish to extend thanks to Fluid
Dynamics Inc. for assistance with the FIDAP program and
to the National Center for Supercomputing Applications,
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, for time on
the CRAY Y-MP supercomputer.
REFERENCES
1. S. Ogihayashi, K. Yamaguchi, T. Mukai, T. Takahashi, Y. Mimura,
and K. Koyama: "Mold Powder Technology for Continuous Casting
of Low Carbon Aluminum-Killed Steel," Nippon Steel Technical
Report, 1987, vol. 34 (7), pp. 1-10.
2. T. Nakano, T. Kishi, K. Koyama, T. Komai, and S. Naitoh: Trans.
Iron Steel Inst. Jpn., 1984, vol. 24 (11), pp. 950-56.
3. R. Bommaraju: Steelmaking Conf Proc., ISS-AIME, Warrendale, PA,
1991, vol. 74, pp. 131-46.
4. J. Sardemann, and H. Schrewe: Steelmaking Conf. Proc., ISS-AIME,
Warrendale, PA, 1991, vol. 74, pp. 719-29.
5. H. Nakato, S. Takeuchi, T. Fujii, T. Nozaki, and M. Washio:
Steelmaking Conf. Proc., ISS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, 1991, vol. 74,
pp. 639-46.
6. B. Xie, J. Wu, and Y. Gan: Steelmaking Conf. Proc., ISS-AIME,
Warrendale, PA, 1991, vol. 74, pp. 647-51.
7. R.V. Branion: Steelmaking Conf. Proc., ISS-AIME, Warrendale, PA,
1986, vol. 69, pp. 95-105.
8. J.A. Moore, R.J. Phillips, and TR. Gibbs: Steelmaking Conf. Proc.,
ISS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, 1991, vol. 74, pp. 615-21.
9. H. Lindefelt, and P. Hasselstrom: 4th Int. lron and Steel Congr., The
Metals Society, London, 1982, pp. 23-31.
10. R. Bommaraju, and E. Saad: Steelmaking Conf. Proc., ISS-AIME,
Warrendale, PA, 1990, vol. 73, pp. 281-96.
t 1. N.C. Machingawuta, S. Bagha, and P. Grievson: Steelmaking Conf.
Proc., ISS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, 1991, vol. 74, p. 163.
12. K.J. Thompson: Steelmaldng Conf. Proc., 1989, vol. 72, pp. 109-14.
13. H. Nakato, T. Sakuraya, T. Nozaki, T. Emi, and H. Nishikawa:
Steelmaking Conf. Proc., ISS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, 1986, vol. 69,
pp. 137-43.
14. E. Anzai, T. Ando, T. Shigezumi, M. Ikeda, and T. Nakano:
"Hydrodynamic Behavior of Molten Powder in Meniscus Zone of
Continuous Casting Mold," Nippon Steel Technical Report, 1987,
vol. 34 (7), pp. 31-40.
15. A. Yamauchi, K. Sorimachi, T. Sakuraya, and T. Fujii: Iron Steel
Inst. Jpn. Int., 1993, vol. 33 (1), pp. 140-47.
16. S. Ohmiya, K.-H. Tacke, and K. Schwerdtfeger: Ironmaking and
Steelmaking, 1983, vol. 10 (1), pp. 24-30.
17. B. Ho: Master's Thesis, University of IUinois at Urbana~2hampaign,
Urbana, IL, 1991.
METALLURGICALAND MATERIALSTRANSACTIONSB
0. 501 3k 3/~
air (Cp/d') I/4 [g/3(Zsurf
v:/,O2,,
[A21
Zarnb)]I/5}
[A3]