15 views

Uploaded by Jose Soto

Ing. Micr.

- Extended Surface & Analysis for Different Extrusions on Rectangular Fins
- Design of Hot Oil System
- chapter 7
- OMV_EN
- fwefewf ewfwefew ewfwef efe
- 06-405 Punj Lloyd FAT Procedure
- BS 476-11 1982- Fire test on building materials and structures (Part 11-Method for assessing the heat emission from building materials).pdf
- TD1005 Free and Forced Convection Datasheet 0518
- Temperature Measurements Using Type K Thermocouples and the Fluke Helios Plus 2287A Datalogger
- 0204_Software.pdf
- SG808 Manual
- Catalogue of Technical Insulations 2017-08-2
- HT-SPG
- Lab01Spr08
- Assignment 3
- eesfunctionsforheatexchangercalculations-161030143052
- ENGR135_LAB06 Concentric Tube Heat Exchanger
- Guia Testo 735-Copiado
- Testo Probe Overview (1).pdf
- Usb Tc 08 Thermocouple Data Logger Data Sheet

You are on page 1of 10

Part I. Experimental Design and Heat Transfer

P.C. CAMPBELL, E.B. HAWBOLT, and J.K. BRIMACOMBE

The goal of this study was to develop a mathematical model which incorporates heat flow,

phase transformation kinetics, and property-structure-composition relationships to predict the

mechanical properties of steel rod being control cooled under industrial conditions. Thus, the

principles of microstructural engineering have been brought to bear on this interdisciplinary

problem by combining computer modeling with laboratory measurements of heat flow, austenite

decomposition kinetics, microstructure and mechanical properties, and industrial trials to determine heat transfer and obtain rod samples under known conditions. Owing to the length and

diversity of the study, it is reported in three p a r t s , 118'191 the first of which is concerned with the

heat flow measurements. A relatively simple and reliable technique, involving a preheated steel

rod instrumented with a thermocouple secured at its centerline, has been devised to determine

the cooling rate in different regions of the moving bed of rod loops on an operating Stelmor

line. The measured thermal response of the rod has been analyzed by two transient conduction

models (lumped and distributed parameter, respectively) to yield overall heat-transfer coefficients for radiation and convection. The adequacy of the technique has been checked by cooling

instrumented rods under well-defined, air crossflow conditions in the laboratory and comparing

measured heat-transfer coefficients to values predicted from well-established equations. The

industrial thermal measurements have permitted the characterization of a coefficient to account

for radiative interaction among adjacent rod loops near the edge and at the center of the bed.

I.

INTRODUCTION

M I C R O S T R U C T U R A L engineering is an interdisciplinary approach to the quantitative prediction of the thermal, microstructural, and mechanical property evolution

of a metal subjected to a given thermomechanical process. Recent demands on the metals industry to improve

product quality and performance, while at the same time

reducing cost, have spurred the development of this

methodology. The root of the microstructural engineering approach is imbedded in the mathematical model,

which links the basic principles of heat and mass transfer

and microstructural phenomena to the operating process.

In addition, both laboratory experiments and industrial

trials are necessary to obtain empirical and semiempirical relationships characterizing transport phenomena by which the model can be tuned to operating

variables.

In the present study, microstructural engineering has

been applied to the Stelmor cooling of steel wire rod, Ill

a process situated after the finishing stand of a rod mill

which provides controlled cooling of the steel through

the temperature range of austenite decomposition. The

process was developed to replace lead patenting, which

British Columbia, is with BHP Central Research Laboratories,

Wallsend, New South Wales 2287, Australia. E.B. HAWBOLT,

Professor, Department of Metals and Materials Engineering and The

Centre for Metallurgical Process Engineering, and J.K.

BRIMACOMBE, Stelco/NSERC Professor and Director, The Centre

for Metallurgical Process Engineering, are with the University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.

Manuscript submitted February 14, 1990.

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

changes and desired properties to wire rod. In the Stelmor

line, forced air is the cooling medium, but more recently, other processes have exploited water and molten

salt baths to develop desired cooling characteristics, t2,3,aJ

Nonetheless, since its development nearly 25 years ago,

the Stelmor process has become the most popular patenting technique in the world. In 1982, there were 69

mills with 153 Stelmor lines operating in 26 countries, tSJ

Global capacity for the production of wire rod through

this process has been estimated to be 21 million tonnes

per year. [2]

II.

PROCESS DESCRIPTION

the rod finishing mill travel through an intermediate zone

of water cooling boxes prior to arriving at the laying head

(Figure 1). The water boxes provide control over rod

temperature prior to continuous cooling, thus affecting

prior austenite grain size, while the high-velocity water

jets remove surface scale. At the laying head, the rod is

looped continuously into coils and placed on the line where

the chain conveyor, seen in Figure 1, pulls them through

the successive cooling zones. Air is forced up from

below the loops by a series of fans in zones to effect

control of the rate of rod cooling. For lower carbon grades,

where a maximum fraction of proeutectoid ferrite is desired, slow cooling rates, and thus, high transformation

temperatures, can be achieved. For higher carbon grades,

where a fine pearlite microstructure is desired, maximum cooling rates are employed. Typically, steel arrives

at the Stelmor laying head between 840 ~ and 940 ~

is cooled through the austenite-ferrite and austenite-pearlite

VOLUME 22A, NOVEMBER 1991--2769

IV.

B

Cc

(E

ip

PREVIOUS W O R K - - H E A T

line is essentially one-dimensional, governed by the following transient heat conduction equation:

O(OT]

kOT

-- k

+---+

Or \ O r /

r Or

D

Fig. 1--Schematic diagram of the Stelmor line: (a) delivery pipe and

water boxes, (b) laying head, (c) conveyor, (d) plenum chambers,

and (e) coil forming chamber.

and exits

the line at a temperature suitable for handling ( - 5 0 0 ~

Ill.

developed to enable prediction of the thermal history,

microstructural evolution, and mechanical properties of

steel rod cooled by the Stelmor process. In addition, a

series of experiments has been conducted in the laboratory at The University of British Columbia (UBC) as

well as on an operating Stelmor line at the Stelco Hilton

Works No. 2 Rod Mill in Hamilton, ON, Canada. The

experiments were performed to obtain data on heat transfer from cooling rods, microstructural evolution, and on

microstmcture-composition-property relationships in order

to augment existing data in the literature. Part I of this

three-part article includes experimental design and results pertaining directly to the heat-transfer aspects of the

project. Investigation of the microstructure evolved in

continuously cooled rod and correlations developed to

link steel composition, microstructure, and mechanical

properties are presented in Part II. uS] Formulation, validation, and predictions of the mathematical model are

given in Part III. u91

Turning specifically to Part I, it was realized at the

outset that within the timeframe of this project, heat

transfer on a Stelmor line would be too complex to predict accurately from first principles. Both the forced convection of air through the array of rod loops and the

radiative interchange among them could not be characterized easily from existing correlations. Thus, a reliable

technique was sought to measure the cooling conditions

in the relatively hostile environment of a Stelmor line.

This was accomplished by instrumenting lengths of steel

rod with thermocouples at the centerline and measuring

the thermal response. The temperature-time results were

then utilized to calculate heat-transfer coefficients as a

function of process parameters. The method was checked

first in the laboratory under well-defined air cross flow

conditions. Correlations for describing the heat-transfer

coefficients as a function of the process variables were

subsequently incorporated into the mathematical model.

It should be stressed that the instrumented rod tests in

both the laboratory and plant also provided vital steel

samples for microstructural examination and mechanical

property evaluation.

2770--VOLUME 22A, NOVEMBER 1991

TRANSFER

OT

qre = PCp

-~t

[1]

where qrR is the heat released due to the austenite decomposition reactions. This equation can be solved utilizing numerical techniques, as outlined in Part III of this

article. 09/An important aspect of the solution of Eq. [1]

is the characterization of the boundary condition at the

rod surface, which can be written as

r = ro

OT

-k-= h o v ( T s - Ta)

Or

[2]

where hov represents the overall heat-transfer coefficient. Although the Stelmor process employs forced air

to cool the steel rods, radiation from the rod surface also

contributes to the removal of heat. As a result, the overall heat-transfer coefficient must be linked to the combined effects of convection and radiation, or in equation

form:

hov = hc +

hR

[3]

Radiation heat losses from a cooling rod can be quantified by the following equation:

he = irE \ Ts

Ta /

[4]

where F is a radiation factor which accounts for the emissivity and relative geometries of the cooling body and

its surroundings while temperatures are absolute (K).

Assuming that the rod is capable of radiating unhindered

to a black body at ambient temperature, F simply reduces to e, the emissivity of the steel ( = 0 . 8 for an oxidized surfacet6]), which allows ready solution of

Eq. [4]. In an actual system, such as the Stelmor process, the value for F will depend on the geometry of the

overlapping rods, for which a simple solution is not

available in the literature. As a result, experiments, or

detailed radiative calculations, are required to determine

the radiation factor as a function of bed position and steel

temperature.

Clearly, the heat-transfer coefficient, due to convection, is the key thermal variable which must be controlled in the Stelmor process. Correlations for convective

heat transfer from cylindrical bodies in crossflow are

available in the literature for a range of cooling fluids.t7.8.9]

All of the correlations are empirical and relate the Nusselt

number (Nu) to the Reynolds number (Re) and Prandtl

number (Pr). One of the equations, as given by Kreith

and Black, E71 is

Nu = CReXpr y

[5]

magnitude of Re and on the cooling medium.

Correlations also have appeared in the literature, where

the objectives were to study heat transfer from cooling

steel rods and bars. Mehta and Geiger u~ conducted a set

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

operating parameters on the cooling rates of steel bars.

Although the cooling medium employed in the mill was

water, the principles utilized for the investigation are applicable to air cooling. The thermal response of the bars,

measured in the mill, was utilized to back-calculate surface heat fluxes and heat-transfer coefficients v i a solution of the transient heat-conduction equation (Eq. [ 1]).

Stelmor cooling of rods was examined experimentally

by Hanada e t al. I~l~ T h e objective of the experiments was

to quantify the differences among cooling conditions at

various locations on the bed and for different Stelmor

deck configurations. Although details of the experimental technique were not reported fully, rod samples

200 m m in length and 5.5 or 11 m m in diameter were

instrumented with a C H R O M E L - A L U M E L * thermo-

rod cooling by Iyer e t al. tl2j The technique employed for

temperature measurement during the tests involved

threading a steel plug, instrumented with a thermocouple, into a hole to the rod centerline. An air source

supplied a constant velocity for cooling of the 10-mmdiameter rods employed in the tests. A range of cooling

rates was studied, and the thermal responses of the rods

were found to compare favorably with mathematical model

predictions.

Although these earlier studies provided encouraging

results on heat transfer under Stelmor conditions, it was

decided to confirm the findings in this work. But more

importantly, a technique for measuring cooling rates was

sought which performed equally well under laboratory

and plant conditions.

Company, Hamburg, MI.

V.

centerline. No detail was provided on the method utilized to anchor the thermocouple in place. In order to

simulate the Stelmor process, the instrumented rod was

either placed in bundles with other rods at various angles

of contact or was cooled as a single rod. The bundles

and single rods were preheated to a temperature typical

of Stelmor cooling, then cooled in a crossflow of air.

Results showed the effect of cooling air velocity, rod

diameter, and geometry of the cooling bundle on the average cooling rate of the instrumented rods. Additional

work on a pilot-scale Stelmor line showed the effect of

bed position and damper angles on the average rod cooling rates.

Instrumented steel rods were employed to tune a math-

In order to cool steel rod under well-defined conditions in a crossflow of forced air and thereby simulate

the Stelmor process, the apparatus shown in Figure 2

was constructed. The equipment made use of a "constant

velocity duct" (CVD) at the discharge end to provide a

uniform air velocity at the rod surface, over a length of

200 mm. A 10-hp Rootes-type compressor with a rated

capacity approaching 100 1/s supplied air to the CVD,

resulting in a peak air velocity of 22 m / s . The velocity

was controlled by bleeding air from a parallel line originating at the compressor. Five vanes were mounted inside the upper zone of the CVD to facilitate uniform air

flow through the discharge end. To increase back pressure in the system and enhance the uniformity of the

velocity distribution at the bottom of the CVD, a 60-mesh

Fig. 2 - - Diagram showing test rod m position under constant velocity duct for typical laboratory rod cooling test.

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

screen was inserted 50-mm upstream of the air discharge. A pitot tube was employed to evaluate the distribution of air velocities at the discharge end of the duct.

An orifice plate situated upstream from the CVD was

calibrated against the average air velocity exiting the apparatus and was utilized to measure the air velocity for

each test. Owing to heatup of the compressor during its

operation, the air temperature was measured with a thermometer, and a mean temperature was recorded for each

cooling test.

The composition of all steel grades utilized in the laboratory and plant tests is presented in Table I. The steels

employed in the experiments were obtained from Stelco

Inc. in Hamilton, ON, Canada and are typical of plaincarbon material rolled in a rod mill. The steel grades can

be divided into three categories: (1) eutectoid or neareutectoid grades (steels A, B, and F in Table I),

(2) medium-carbon grades (steels C, D, G, and H), and

(3) lower carbon grades (steels E, I, and J). Steel

grades A through E were employed for the laboratory

experiments, while grades C and E through J were under

study in the plant trials. Table II summarizes the conditions investigated during the laboratory tests for which

four different rod diameters, between 8 and 15 mm, were

adopted and air velocities from the CVD ranged from 6

to 22 m/s. A summary of conditions in the plant trials

is presented in Table III; three rod diameters (7.5, 9.1,

and 15 mm) were examined in the tests, and two locations on the Stelmor deck were investigated, as indicated

in the table. In total, 68 tests were performed in the plant.

During the campaign, the conveyor speed ranged from

0.43 to 0.71 m / s , but for the majority (90 pct) of the

trials, it was 0.46 to 0.56 m/s.

For the laboratory tests, 350-mm lengths were cut from

the rod loops supplied by Stelco and straightened, with

some of the samples being machined down to smaller

diameters. As indicated in Figure 2, the centerline temperature in the rod samples was monitored by a thermocouple which was connected to a chart recorder (Kipp

and Zonen model BD 41) and data logger (John Fluke

Manufacturing Inc. model 2280). The method employed

for attaching the thermocouple to the rod is depicted in

Figure 3. As can be seen, two holes were drilled into

the centerline of the rod, one through which a 0.25-mmdiameter

mullite-sheathed,

CHROMEL-ALUMEL

thermocouple was introduced and the other through which

Table I.

Diameters, and Air Velocities Studied in the Laboratory

Steel

Grade

Rod

Diameter

(mm)

A (1080)

10

B

B

B

C

C

D

E

E

15

11

8

11

8

11

11

8

(1070)

(1038)

(1037)

(1020)

Air

Velocity (m/s)

20, 18, 16, 14, 21, 20,

9, 11, 19,22

22, 16, 11, 9

22, 10, 6

22, 15, 6

22, 15, 10, 6

22, 13,6

22, 16, 12

22, 15, 13, 6

22, 12, 6

and Number of Tests Completed during Plant Trials

Steel

Grade

Rod

Diameter

(mm)

Number of

Center

Bed Tests

Number of

Edge

Bed Tests

C

E

F

F

G

H

I

J

15

15

9.1

7.5

9.1

7.5

9.1

7.5

7

7

4

5

4

6

6

5

4

1

3

4

3

2

2

5

a steel set screw was threaded to anchor the thermocouple junction. This arrangement provided an effective

means for ensuring good contact between the therrnocouple and the rod while minimizing disturbance of the

thermal response being measured.

The experimental technique followed for the laboratory tests, involving pitot tube and rod temperature response measurements, was repeated in the plant, at the

Stelco Hilton Works No. 2 Rod Mill, with minor changes.

For temperature response determination, thermocouples

were mounted at the rod centerline utilizing the same

technique, but longer rod lengths ( - 4 5 0 ram) were cut.

Heating of the samples was once again accomplished in

Chemical Analysis of Rod Samples Employed in Laboratory and Plant Experiments (in Weight Percent)

Grade

Code

Mn

Si

Cu

Ni

Cr

Mo

Cb

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

0.789

0.69

0.393

0.377

0.201

0.772

0.369

0.335

0.183

0.200

0.74

0.76

0.82

0.79

0.50

0.87

0.77

0.72

0.38

0.95

0.021

0.014

0.016

0.007

0.005

0.011

0.006

0.010

0.002

0.004

0.033

0.019

0.021

0.024

0.009

0.017

0.015

0.015

0.014

0.007

0.237

0.022

0.28

0.238

0.017

0.163

0.19

0.244

0.004

0.174

0.005

0.088

0.007

0.009

0.007

0.007

0.006

0.008

0.006

0.007

0.002

0.005

0.007

0.005

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.052

0.028

0.027

0.034

0.020

0.024

0.024

0.026

0.014

0.023

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.027

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

Fig. 3 - - S c h e m a t i c diagram of method employed to mount thermocouples at centerline position in rods for Stelmor simulation tests.

logger, with a sampling frequency of 1 Hz. Upon completion of cooling, individual rods were removed from

the CVD and saved for mechanical testing and microstructural examination. Rods also were sectioned through

the thermocouple area to verify the exact location of the

hot junction. In all cases, the hot junction proved to be

at or near the centerline of the rod.

To obtain a range of cooling rates typical of Stelmor

cooling, a variety of rod diameters from 8 to 15 m m was

studied in conjunction with cooling air velocities ranging

from 5 to 22 m / s . The measured thermal response from

the tests provided data for determination of heat-transfer

coefficients at the rod surface as a function of rod temperature, diameter, and air velocity (Table II).

B. Plant Trials

line. The temperature in the rod samples was monitored

by a strip chart recorder (Kipp and Zonen model BD41)

during heating. However, during cooling, a hand-held

data logger (Metrosonics Company Model DL-702),

which could be carried easily along the length of the bed,

was employed.

In order to supply rods with a uniform temperature

over a sufficient length, the tube furnace was specially

constructed, with particular attention being paid to minimizing the longitudinal thermal gradient. A 63-mm OD

quartz tube was wound with 2.4-mm-wide C H R O M E L

strip and insulated with two layers of 6.4-ram-thick

FIBERFRAX* sheet. This assembly was contained in a

*FIBERFRAX is a trademark of Standard Oil Engineered Materials

Company, Niagara Falls, NY.

shell of thermobestos insulation and encased in an aluminum tube. The furnace was 690 m m in length and

designed for a peak temperature of 900 ~ operating with

a 220 V power supply. To minimize scale formation on

the test rods, a flow of nitrogen of approximately 3 to

6 1/min was maintained through the furnace. Measurement of the axial temperature profile down the furnace

showed that the 200-mm center section was isothermal

to within ---5 ~

VI.

followed. Sample heating was monitored by the strip chart

recorder only. After reaching the desired test temperature, samples were also soaked for approximately

5 minutes. However, it was difficult to maintain this soak

period in all cases, because test times were dictated by

the rolling mill schedule. In each test, an attempt was

made to match the grades and diameters of the instrumented rod with those being processed on the line. At

the appropriate time, the thermocouple leads were disconnected from the chart recorder and connected to the

hand-held data logger. Each instrumented rod was quickly

withdrawn from the furnace and placed on the Stelmor

line during normal operation. Care was taken to ensure

the instrumented rod was woven into the rod loops, thus

preventing unwanted movement as it traveled the length

of the line. The instrumented rods were placed at two

locations, one at the center of the bed, where the coils

are loosely packed, and one at the edge of the bed, where

the packing density is much higher. A schematic diagram of the two positions is shown in Figure 4. The

sampling frequency of the hand-held data logger was

1 Hz. Temperatures were recorded until the instrumented rod reached the end of the Stelmor deck, whereupon it was removed from the coils and saved for

PROCEDURE

A. Laboratory Tests

Prior to each laboratory test, the tube furnace was heated

to, and held at, the desired austenitizing temperature while

being flushed with nitrogen at a flow rate of 3 1/min.

For the medium- and high-carbon grades, an austenitizing temperature of 850 ~ was chosen, whereas for the

low-carbon grades, a temperature of 875 ~ was adopted.

Rod samples were placed in the tube furnace, and the

centerline temperature was monitored with the strip chart

recorder. Once the desired temperature had been achieved,

the samples were held for an additional 5 minutes soaking time. For the laboratory tests, the rods were then

withdrawn quickly from the furnace and placed in the

cross flow of air, as indicated in Figure 2. During coolMETALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

edge and center of the Stelmor line.

VOLUME 22A, NOVEMBER 1991

2773

evaluation.

The set point on the Stelmor blowers at the Hilton

Works is not continuously variable but is either "full on"

or "off." In an attempt to determine the air velocity distribution with the blowers set at full on, a series of pitot

tube measurements was made on the line during a down

period in the plant. With air to the Stelmor decks turned

on but in the absence of rod loops, the pitot tube was

moved to various locations on the bed in each of the four

cooling zones. For each measurement, the pitot tube was

held at the same height as the rod loops when the Stelmor

line is in operation. In total, 16 separate regions on two

Stelmor lines were investigated, yielding nearly 450 individual air velocities to map out the velocity distribution across the bed as well as along its length.

VII.

900

......

850

0

e,....

8OO

Z}

750

r'~

7O0

E

(l)

I---

650

Steel B 1070

8-ram Dia.

22 m/s Vel.

Steel E 1020

1l-ram Dia.

6 m/s Vel.

",,/'-",,

600

550

500

20

40

60

80

100

Time (s)

Fig. 6--Typical laboratory thermal responses measured in 8-mmdiameter (steel B 1070) and 1l-ram-diameter(steel E 1020) rods cooled

with air velocities of 22 and 6 m/s, respectively.

RESULTS

A. Laboratory Tests

The results of the pitot tube measurements of the velocity profile over the length of the CVD for three orifice

plate pressure drops are shown in Figure 5. The results

confirm the essentially uniform (-+ l0 pct) air velocity

over the length of the CVD.

Two typical thermal responses measured at the centerline of a high-carbon (steel B 1070) and a low-carbon

(steel E 1020) steel rod cooled during the laboratory tests

are shown in Figure 6. Recalescence due to both the

austenite-ferrite and austenite-pearlite transformations is

evident for the 1020 grade, while recalescence due only

to the austenite-pearlite transformation is apparent for the

1070 steel. Owing to the differences in rod diameter, as

well as cooling air velocity, a significant difference between average rod cooling rates exists in the two samples. Similar results were obtained from the remainder

of the laboratory tests, and a complete report can be found

elsewhere. [~31

The cooling curves were employed to determine heattransfer coefficients as a function of rod diameter and air

30

28

26

24

22

g

-~a

o

o)

>

?<

20

18

U-Tubeah=8.8 rnrn Hg

16

14

12

10

U-TubeAh=2.7 rnm Hg

8

6

4

, , , ,

3

11

13

15

17

19

Fig, 5 - Velocity profiles for three orifice plate pressure drops. Note

the constant velocity across the width of the duct.

2774--VOLUME 22A, NOVEMBER 1991

negligible temperature gradients (lumped parameter), and

the other was based on a finite-difference technique to

back-calculate an effective heat-transfer coefficient from

the measured centerline temperature. The first method

assumes negligible internal resistance to heat flow, which

can be assessed by the magnitude of the Biot modulus, Bi:

hD

Bi = - k

[6]

where h is the heat-transfer coefficient, D is the rod diameter, and k is the thermal conductivity of the material.

In general, if Bi < 0.1, there will be a small error in

assuming negligible internal gradients for calculation of

the heat-transfer coefficients. [~4] For this condition, the

heat-transfer coefficient is given by

hov - -proC~ In

2t

LT---~-TAJ

[7]

temperature (for a given time interval), T is the temperature at time t, and ro is the rod radius. The specific heat

of the steel, Cp, was calculated at each temperature based

on the composition and phases present, with values taken

from the literature.i~s,16jT]

The second method involved the use of an iterative

scheme whereby the heat-transfer coefficient was initially guessed; then finite-difference equations were utilized to solve for the rod centerline temperature (the model

will be described in detail in Part IIIil9]), and the predicted temperature was compared with the measured value.

A difference of 0.01 ~ was taken as a limiting value

for each series of iterations. This process was repeated

for successive time steps throughout the thermal excursion of each rod sample. The advantage of this technique

is that the radial temperature gradient through the cooling rod is not ignored, particularly for large diameter

rods and high cooling rates, thus providing a more realistic

estimation

of the

overall

heat-transfer

coefficient, hov.

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

A plot of calculated heat-transfer coefficient as a function of rod centerline temperature, employing both techniques for a cooling test on steel C (1037), is presented

in Figure 7. It may be noted that in the temperature range

from 620 ~ to 700 ~ where the austenite decomposition reactions occur, the latent heat released by the

transformations makes calculated h values meaningless.

However, it can be seen that for temperatures before and

after the transformation, little difference exists between

the heat-transfer coefficients calculated by the two methods. It is also evident that the change in the magnitude

of the overall heat-transfer coefficient as the sample cools,

~ 1 9 0 W / m 2 ~ at 800 ~ reducing to ~ 1 2 0 W / m 2 ~

at 500 ~ is due primarily to the decrease in radiative

heat transfer. Plots similar to that shown in Figure 7 were

utilized to determine the variation in overall heat-transfer

coefficient as a function of temperature for all laboratory

tests.

Comparisons between theoretically predicted and empirically calculated values for h have been made for the

laboratory data at several temperatures. Utilizing Eq. [5]

with the properties of air evaluated at the mean film temperature, as given by Kreith and Black, ~71the convective

heat-transfer coefficient was calculated from the following equation:

\ 0.466 ~

hc = 0 . 6 8 3 -

~ 1/3

[8]

\ k II

D\lx]

Figure 8 shows a comparison of measured and predicted

heat-transfer coefficients for a rod temperature of

525 ~ The heat-transfer coefficients are plotted as a

function of v~176

, w h i c h according to Eq. [8],

should provide a linear relationship, owing to the fact

that over a small range of temperature (---5 ~

the radiative heat-transfer coefficient is constant and independent of rod diameter or air velocity. The predicted line

shown in Figure 8 is based on the sum of Eqs. [4] and

[8]. The agreement between the measured and predicted

~"

E

t-t--

90

8o

7-

70

o

0

03

525 ~

200

180

--

1

I

I

[] Measuredh o

190

[]

Predicted h

t~

170

r

160

~E

150

o

O

140

03

c"

t-O3

7-

[]

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

0.6

0.'8

1

V 0,466

1.2

1.4

D o.534

Fig. 8 - - M e a s u r e d heat-transfer coefficient at 525 ~ for the labodiameter) ~

The

solid line is based on the combined effects of radiation and convection

(Eqs. [4] and [8]).

and provides confirmation of the use of the instrumented

rod to characterize cooling under Stelmor conditions.

Similar results have been obtained at other temperatures

for the laboratory results.

Additional support for predicting the heat-transfer

coefficients, based on the combined effect of radiation

and convection according to Eqs. [4] and [8], can be

found in the literature. Average cooling rates for two rod

diameters at various air velocities reported by Hanada

et al. (lu have been converted into heat-transfer coefficients, employing the techniques outlined previously. The

results, shown in Figure 9, once again exhibit good

agreement between predicted and measured hedt-transfer

coefficients.

300

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

'~

(1)

o

210

Test C7

o Measuredh-ll mm Dia.

Predicted h

280

o Finite-Difference Method

Lumped-Parameter Method

t~

t~

t~

260

240

220

9-~

O

200

[]

O 13

mO@Om0 +

[]

[]

[]

[]

160

140

120

I--

[]

100

~o

o

60

60

500

540

580

620

660

700

740

780

Temperature (~

Fig. 7--Heat-transfer coefficients calculated from measured rod

centerline temperature, utilizing both a lumped-parameter and a finitedifference technique. The results are for a steel C (1037) 8-mm-diameter

rod cooled with an air velocity of 6 m / s .

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

40

~

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

V 0.466

D 0.534

1.4

1,6

1.8

against (air velocity)~ 466/(rod diameter) ~

The solid line is based on

the combined effects of radiation and convection (Eqs. [4] and [8]).

VOLUME 22A, NOVEMBER 1991--2775

B. Plant Trials

at several locations on two Stelmor lines, are presented

in Figure 10. As can be seen, in an attempt to provide

uniform cooling across the loops, a higher air velocity

of nearly 30 m / s is applied to the edge of the bed, where

the packing density of the rods is highest, as compared

to about 18 m / s at the center, where the rod packing is

minimum.

Typical thermal responses measured at the centerline

of instrumented rods during the plant trials are shown in

Figure 11. As can be seen, they have a similar appearance to those obtained in the laboratory tests (Figure 6).

It is important to note, however, that some of the temperature responses measured in the plant exhibited erratic behavior and, therefore, were discarded. This

behavior was thought to arise from vibration and move-

The shaded area indicates ---1 standard deviation for the measurements.

850

800

750

......

', ~

',,

~

',,,, \\, / _ ~

--

Steel F 1080

7.5-rnm Dia.

Edge FFFF

Steel E 1020

15-mmDia.

700

280

260

~E

240

~,

220

D_

t-

in poor thermocouple contact or from damaged thermocouple wires. The valid thermal responses from the plant

tests were employed to calculate the heat-transfer coefficients as a function of process variables. As was indicated earlier, the Stelmor process variables include a

difference in air velocity between the center and the edge

of the bed and the option of operating the line with or

without forced air flow. In this latter condition, radiative

cooling dominates, with the combination of forced (due

to motion of the line) and natural convection contributing in a minor way to the overall heat transfer.

Similar to the laboratory results, the calculated surface

heat-transfer coefficients for 800 ~ have been plotted

against V0"466//O 0"534 in Figure 12 for center and edge positions and three rod diameters employed in the experiments. The line in Figure 12 represents the predicted

heat-transfer coefficient based on convection only. Owing

to the difficulty in predicting the radiative component of

the heat-transfer coefficient in rods bundled on the Stelmor

line, no attempt has been made to predict an overall heattransfer coefficient from first principles, although this is

an important next step. Instead, plots such as those shown

in Figure 12, have been employed to determine the relative magnitude of hR, assuming the difference between

the average measured heat-transfer coefficient and the

predicted value based on convection is due to radiation.

A series of plots similar to Figure 12 has been produced at different temperatures from the plant thermal

data. The difference between the measured heat-transfer

coefficient and that predicted from the correlation for

convection only (Eq. [8]) has been calculated to determine the radiative component of the heat-transfer coefficient as a function of rod temperature. Figure 13 shows

the calculated radiative heat-transfer coefficient for the

center and edge of the bed as a function of temperature.

As can be seen, with decreasing temperature there is a

dramatic decrease in the magnitude of the radiative component, as would be expected. The radiative coefficient

at the center of the bed is consistently larger than that

at the edge, where greater radiative interchange occurs

E:

650

o

0

O

0

B

O

200

o :~

180

160

600

140

550

I-t~

"1-

120

500

+ EdgeFull (800~

- - Pred. h Convective

100

80

2(3

40

6()

'

80

Time (s)

(steel F 1080) and 15-mm-diameter(steel E 1020) rods, cooled at the

edge and center of the Stelmor bed, respectively. The "FFFF" in the

figure legend indicates that cooling air was "on" in all four cooling

zones for the tests.

2776--VOLUME 22A, NOVEMBER 1991

60

0.7

09

1.1

V 0.466

D 0.534

tests plotted against (air v e l o c i t y )0 466 /(rod diameter) ~

The predicted line is based on convection only (Eq. [8]).

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

80

c~ Center of Bed Tests

~.

7O

Equations [10] and [11] are employed in the mathematical model to predict the radiative heat-transfer coefficient for cooling conditions obtained on the Stelmor line

but, it should be noted, apply to conditions where the

rod surface temperature is less than 875 ~

, , m

6o

o

50

~t-

4o

F--

30

T

~

._.

20

"~

rr

10

VIII.

400

500

600

700

800

Temperature (~

Fig. 13--Calculated values for radiative heat-transfer coefficient from

the plant trials plotted against temperature. Also included is the predicted value from Eq. [4].

included in Figure 13 is the predicted radiative heattransfer coefficient based on Eq. [4]. A comparison of

the predicted and measured values for the radiative

heat-transfer coefficient can be utilized to construct an

effective "radiation correction factor," R, for the two locations on the Stelmor bed. This correction factor can

be utilized in the following equation to calculate hR:

Ts

TA/'

[9]

Results from the plant trials have been employed to obtain the value of R for the center (Rc) and edge (RE)

position of the bed. Each is plotted in Figure 14 as a

function of rod temperature. The equations are

Rc = 2.02x-~

-~176176176

[1 1]

1

NOMENCLATURE

Bi

C

1.1

0.9

In this first part of a three-part paper on microstructural engineering applied to the controlled cooling

of steel rod, the question of heat transfer in the process

is addressed experimentally and theoretically. A series

of experiments, conducted in the laboratory as well as

on an operating Stelmor line, has been performed to

measure the thermal response of an instrumented steel

rod under controlled cooling conditions. Results from the

experiments were utilized to back-calculate the overall

heat-transfer coefficient, and a comparison of the measured values was made with empirical correlations. The

following conclusions can be drawn from the work:

1. The experimental technique employed for the laboratory and plant tests provided a reproducible means

for measuring the thermal response at the centerline

of a cooling rod.

2. Comparison between predicted and measured heattransfer coefficients for the laboratory tests showed

that reasonable estimates of hR and hc could be made

utilizing standard equations for laboratory conditions.

3. For an operating Stelmor line, heat-transfer coefficients reflected the radiative interaction among adjacent loops on the bed. By assuming the portion of

the overall heat-transfer coefficient due to convection

can be predicted reasonably by a published equation,

correlations for hR as a function of rod temperature

and position on the bed have been determined.

[10]

RE = 8.94x-~176176176

//~

- Predicted

D

F

h

hc

0.7

0.6

0.5

hov

hR

0.4

~

rr

O.3

k

Nu

Pr

qrR

0.2

0.1

Biot number

empirical constant used in Eq. [5]

specific heat, J kg -1 ~

rod diameter, m

radiation factor in Eq. [4]

heat-transfer coefficient, W m -2 ~ t

heat-transfer coefficient due to convection,

W m -2 ~

0.8

u_

~

- - ' r ~ - ' ~ r ~ - - - ~ r - - ~

400

500

600

r

700

800

Temperature (~

Fig. 14--Radiation correction factor for center and edge of bed plotted against temperature. Lines are calculated from the regression

equations for both parameters (Eqs. [10] and [11]).

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

ro

R

Rc

RE

heat-transfer coefficient due to radiation,

W m -2 ~

thermal conductivity, W m -~ ~

Nusselt number

Prandtl number

rate of heat release during phase

transformation, W

radial position, m

rod radius, m

radiation correction factor

radiation correction factor for center of the

Stelmor line

radiation correction factor for edge of the

Stelmor line

VOLUME 22A, NOVEMBER 1991--2777

Re

t

TA

To

T~

x

Y

P

o

8

/z

v

Reynolds number

time, s

temperature, K or ~

ambient temperature, K or ~

initial temperature, K or ~

surface temperature, K or ~

empirical constant used in Eq. [5] and

symbol denoting undercooling, ~ in

Eqs. [10] and [11]

empirical constant used in Eq. [5]

density, kg m -3

Stefan-Boltzman constant,

5.6710 -8 W m -2 K - 4

emissivity

kinematic viscosity, m 2 s -1

air velocity, m s -1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the Natural Sciences

and Engineering Research Council of Canada for support

of research expenses. The University of British Columbia

awarded a University Fellowship, while the Cy and

Emerald Keyes Foundation provided a scholarship to P.C.

Campbell. The cooperation of Steltech and Stelco Steel

in organizing the plant trials is deeply appreciated.

REFERENCES

1. J.K. Brimacombe, E.B. Hawbolt, I.V. Samarasekera, P.C.

Campbell, and C. Devadas: in Proc. Thermec "88, I. Tamura,

ed., Iron and Steel Institute of Japan, Tokyo, pp. 783-90.

3. J. Tominaga, K. Matsuoka, and S. Inoue: Wire J. Int., 1985,

vol. 18, pp. 62-72.

4. P. Bercy, U.G. Boel, N. Lambert, and M. Economopoulos: Metall.

Plant Technol., 1984, vol. 4, pp. 46-51.

5. A.A. Jalil: Iron Steel Eng., 1982, vol. 59, pp. 46-48.

6. G.H. Geiger and D.R. Poirier: Transport Phenomena in

Metallurgy, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1973, pp. 367-69.

7. F. Kreith and W.Z. Black: Basic Heat Transfer, Harper and Row,

New York, NY, 1980, pp. 249-51.

8. C.O. Bennett and J.E. Myers: Momentum, Heat andMass Transfer,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1974, pp. 381-83.

9. Chemical Engineer's Handbook, J.H. Perry, ed., McGraw-Hill,

New York, NY, 1969, pp. 10.13-10.15.

10. A.J. Mehta and G.H. Geiger: Mechanical Working and Steel

Processing Conf. XV, ISS-AIME, Pittsburgh, PA, 1977,

pp. 458-82.

11. Y. Hanada, K. Ueno, A. Noda, H. Kondoh, T. Sakamoto, and

K. Mine: Kawasaki Steel Technical Report, 1986, vol. 15,

pp. 50-57.

12. J. Iyer, J.K. Brimacombe, and E.B. Hawbolt: Mechanical Working

and Steel Processing Conf. XXII, ISS, Pittsburgh, PA, 1984,

pp. 47-58.

13. P.C. Campbell: Ph.D. Thesis, The University of British Columbia,

Vancouver, 1989.

14. F. Kreith: Principles of Heat Transfer, 3rd ed., Intext Educational

Publishers, New York, NY, 1973, p. 140.

15. British Iron and Steel Research Association: Physical Constants

of Some Commercial Steels at Elevated Temperatures,

Butterworth's Scientific Publications, Guildford, Surrey, United

Kingdom, 1953, pp. 3-14.

16. I. Barin, O. Knacke, and O. Kubaschewski: Thermochemical

Properties of Inorganic Substances; Supplement, Springer-Verlag,

New York, NY, 1977, pp. 245-46.

17. JANAF Thermochemical Tables, The Thermal Research

Laboratory, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, 1960.

18. P.C. Campbell, E.B. Hawbolt, and J.K. Brimacombe: Metall.

Trans. A, 1991, vol. 22A, pp. 2779-90.

19. P.C. Campbell, E.B. Hawbolt, and J.K. Brimacombe: Metall.

Trans. A, 1991, vol. 22A, pp. 2791-2805.

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A

- Extended Surface & Analysis for Different Extrusions on Rectangular FinsUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Design of Hot Oil SystemUploaded byVeena Goldwyn
- chapter 7Uploaded byBeevy GB
- OMV_ENUploaded byMuhamad Saukie
- fwefewf ewfwefew ewfwef efeUploaded byDedy Alfilianto
- 06-405 Punj Lloyd FAT ProcedureUploaded byhoney871
- BS 476-11 1982- Fire test on building materials and structures (Part 11-Method for assessing the heat emission from building materials).pdfUploaded byMegat Alexander
- TD1005 Free and Forced Convection Datasheet 0518Uploaded byAmier Azizi
- Temperature Measurements Using Type K Thermocouples and the Fluke Helios Plus 2287A DataloggerUploaded bymilivoj11
- 0204_Software.pdfUploaded bySyed Mohammed Hussain
- SG808 ManualUploaded byzzmeone
- Catalogue of Technical Insulations 2017-08-2Uploaded byyesuplus2
- HT-SPGUploaded bymmkatta
- Lab01Spr08Uploaded byAman Sinha
- Assignment 3Uploaded byMukul Parashar
- eesfunctionsforheatexchangercalculations-161030143052Uploaded byk4piii
- ENGR135_LAB06 Concentric Tube Heat ExchangerUploaded bygigabyte3235840
- Guia Testo 735-CopiadoUploaded byGilberto Andrés Jurado
- Testo Probe Overview (1).pdfUploaded byCristhian Tapia
- Usb Tc 08 Thermocouple Data Logger Data SheetUploaded byAbderrahmane Elboubakri
- Syllabus Mechanical EngUploaded byAnoop Kumar Singh
- Syllabus for Written TestUploaded bySachin Banerji
- Syllabus_for_Written_Test.pdfUploaded bySachin Banerji
- T1Uploaded byNazira Dz
- 1516 Q1 bUploaded byRansley Tong
- Lesson PlanUploaded byAnonymous FxIgJzLI
- Heat Chap05-096.docUploaded byEmaan W Ka
- ME 2355 SET3Uploaded byvsureshkannanmsec
- heat chapetr one.pdfUploaded byTegegne Alemu
- Heat Engines and Carnot CycleUploaded byJatin Sharma

- d 3848 – 98 ;Rdm4ndgtotgUploaded byJose Soto
- standard test method for microindentation hardness of materials.pdfUploaded byBrian R. Araujo Claudio
- E 384 – 99 ;RTM4NC05OQ__.pdfUploaded byJose Soto
- Banhart 1998Uploaded byJose Soto
- Chlorine Absorption Utilizing Caustic Sodium SulfiteUploaded byJose Soto
- 1752-153X-7-2.pdfUploaded byJose Soto
- Car 1997Uploaded byJose Soto
- Production-of-Al-Cu-Fe-metallic-foams-without-foaming-agents-or-space-holders_2014_Journal-of-Alloys-and-Compounds.pdfUploaded byJose Soto
- MPC20140003_AuthorProofsUploaded byJose Soto
- Fluidtherm - Fluidized Bed FurnacesUploaded byJose Soto
- 2002 JMPT v125-126 p170-178Uploaded byJose Soto
- AL451a - CopiaUploaded byJose Soto

- TrapUploaded byDedy Dayat
- D. van Oosten, P. van der Straten and H.T.C. Stoof- Quantum phases in an optical latticeUploaded byKiomax
- Pharmacy TechnicianUploaded byapi-79118614
- Chapter 10 Global Climate ProjectionsUploaded byIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- ch-6Uploaded byanil.gelra5140
- F212 Module 1 Biological MoleculesUploaded byhakishankz
- Lenses_Virtual LabPhET Geometric Optics.docUploaded byEMMABOICU
- Recent Advances in Hair ConditioningUploaded bytahder77
- A Guide to the Language of SteelUploaded byIwona Kołodziejczyk
- Fundamentals of Drilling EngineeringUploaded byAlionk Gaara
- Adhesive Anchor ExamplesUploaded byJosue Lewandowski
- cwm054Uploaded byflo ngo
- Agne Rustan_ et al-Rock mechanics, drilling and blasting desk reference.pdfUploaded byMeša Selimović
- BAYER AGUploaded byAman Madnawat
- Expt2_VLE_Group1_Sec021 (2)Uploaded byMohamed-DeqSabriye
- Classifications of Rock PropertiesUploaded byAlwin Antony
- 1.Introduction to SMAWUploaded byRumman Ul Ahsan
- Clostridium PerfringensUploaded byEduardo Ramirez Laso
- Basal ReinforcementTensarUploaded bymetropodikas
- 2-Ch2(atom and element).pptUploaded byMia Yukimura
- Solubility NoteUploaded byAh Boon
- 6. Hydro Processing Corrosion Wash WaterUploaded byNagendra H
- Water - Slow Sand FiltersUploaded byFriends of the Atlantic Coast Watch Newslet
- CIVL 2510 - LAB3 - Venturi Meter.pdfUploaded bymax
- IS 1343.2012Uploaded byKasi
- Pages From ASME IIA Begin to SA450Uploaded byWaqas Waqas
- Temperature Dependent Photovoltaic (PV) Efficiency and Its.pdfUploaded bya durgadevi
- fuel_cell_handbookUploaded bycuteaero
- Paragolpes Absorbente Frontal Del VehiculoUploaded bygiggy
- Widyowijatnoko, AndryUploaded byvaibhsarch