You are on page 1of 151

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF AIR-KNIFE GEOMETRY IN

CONTINUOUS HOT-DIP GALVANIZING


Experimental Investigation of Air-Knife Geometry in Continuous
Hot-Dip Galvanizing

By

SEPIDEH ALIBEIGI, B.A.Sc.

A Thesis

Submitted to the School of Graduate


Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements For the Degree

Master of Applied Science

McMaster University
© Copyright by Sepideh Alibeigi, November 2013
Master of Applied Science (2013) McMaster University
(Mechanical Engineering) Hamilton, Ontario

TITILE: Experimental Investigation of Air-Knife Geometry in


Continuous Hot-Dip Galvanizing

AUTHOR: Sepideh Alibeigi, B.Sc. (Azad University,

Iran) SUPERVISORS: Dr. Joseph R. McDermid, Dr. Samir

Ziada NUMBER OF PAGES: xvii, 115

ii
Abstract

This thesis investigates the wall pressure distributions of the single-slot

impinging jet and multiple-slot impinging jet as a function of various parameters and

compares the results obtained with the computational study of Tamadonfar [2010]. The

process of gas wiping is used in many industrial applications such as tempering of the

plate glass, the chemical mixing process, and turbine blade cooling. One of the most

important industrial applications of gas jet wiping is the production of galvanized steel

strip in a continuous hot-dip galvanizing line. In this process, an impinging jet is used

to remove the excess zinc alloy from the steel strip and control the final coating weight

by applying wall pressure and shear stress on the moving substrate emerging from the

bath of molten zinc. Changing the various operating parameters such as jet Reynolds

number (Re), the jet to strip distance (z), the jet slot width (d), and jet inclination angles

(α) allows manufacturers manipulate the final coating weight on the substrate.

Production of high quality sheet steels, which have a very thin coating weight and high

uniformity quality, is one of the goals of the automotive industry. In order to obtain

thinner and more uniform coating weight, a new model of impinging jet which is

comprised of one main jet with two auxiliary jets, one on each side of the main jet,

called a multiple-slot impinging jet, is of considerable interest.

For the current study, a multiple-slot impinging jet was designed and

manufactured and measurements were performed for both the single-slot impinging jets,

the current model used in continuous hot-dip galvanizing lines, and the multiple-

slot
3
33
impinging jet subjected to a wide range of gas wiping parameters which include the

main jet Reynolds number (Rem), the auxiliary jet Reynolds number (Rea), and the plate-

to- nozzle ratio (z/d). A comparison between the measured results obtained for the

two impinging jet configurations and the numerical results by Tamadonfar [2010] has

been provided. The similarities and differences between the experimental and numerical

results are presented and discussed.


Acknowledgments

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to Dr.

Joseph R. McDermid and Dr. Samir Ziada for their guidance and unconditional support

throughout my graduate studies.

I am also very grateful to Dr. Frank Goodwin, Executive Vice President of

Technology and Market Development at the International Lead-Zinc Research

Organization. The work done in this research would have not been made possible

without his financial support.

I would also like to acknowledge the Mechanical Engineering Department

Machine Shop technicians Ron Lodewyks, Michael Lee, Joe Verhaeghe, Jim McLaren,

and Mark MacKenzie for their assistance for the fabrication and development of the

devices and setups.

Finally, I deeply thank my parents and my sister Samaneh, for their love,

supports and patience that made this journey so much easier for me.

5
5
Table on Contents

Abstract ..........................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ v
Table on Contents........................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ xiv
Nomenclature ................................................................................................................ xv
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Thesis Statement .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Motivation and Objectives ........................................................................................... 2
1.3 Thesis Organization ..................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Literature Review ....................................................................................... 6
2.1 Continuous Hot-Dip Galvanizing ................................................................................. 6
2.2 Impinging Jets ............................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Coating Weight Model............................................................................................... 16
2.4 Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet ....................................................................................... 24
Chapter 3: Experimental Setup .................................................................................. 30
3.1 Single-Slot Impinging Jet........................................................................................... 30
3.2 Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet ....................................................................................... 34
3.3 Pressure Transducers ................................................................................................. 39
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion .............................................................................. 42
4.1 Single-Slot Impinging Jet........................................................................................... 42
4.1.1 Effect of Plate-to-Nozzle Ratio (z/d) ...................................................................... 43
4.1.2 Effect of Main Jet Reynolds Number (Rem) ............................................................ 45
4.1.3 Effect of Jet Inclination Angle (α) .......................................................................... 51
4.2 Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet ....................................................................................... 56
4.2.1 Effect of Plate-to-Nozzle Ratio (z/d) ...................................................................... 57
4.2.2 Effect of Main Jet Reynolds Number (Rem) ............................................................ 60
4.2.3 Effect of Auxiliary Jet Reynolds Number (Rea) ...................................................... 61
4.3 Comparison between Multiple-Slot and Single-Slot Impinging Jet ............................. 64
4.4 Computational Results Validation .............................................................................. 69
4.4.1 Single-slot Impinging Jet ....................................................................................... 69
4.4.2 Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet ................................................................................... 73
4.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 78
4.5.1 Effect of Plate-to-Nozzle Ratio (z/d) ...................................................................... 78
4.5.2 Reynolds Number Effect (Re) ................................................................................ 82
4.5.3 Jet Inclination Effect (α)......................................................................................... 84
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Future Work ................................................................. 85
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 85
5.2 Future Work .............................................................................................................. 87
Appendix A: Dimensions of Impinging Jets ............................................................... 92
A.i Single-Slot Impinging Jet........................................................................................... 92
A.ii Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet ....................................................................................... 97
Appendix B: Wall Pressure Profiles ......................................................................... 105
B.i Single-Slot Impinging Jet..........................................................................................105
B.ii Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet ......................................................................................109
Appendix C: Uncertainty Analysis ........................................................................... 112
C.i Flow Velocity Uncertainty ........................................................................................112
C.ii Experimental Setup Uncertainty................................................................................115

vii
List of Figures

Figure 1-1: a) Schematic of single-slot impinging jet b) Schematic of multiple-


slot impinging jet.
................................................................................................................. 1

Figure 1-2: Schematic of gas wiping process [Ahn & Chung, 2006]................................
3

Figure 2-1: Schematic of a continuous hot dip galvanizing line [Marder, 2000]. .............
7

Figure 2-2: Schematic of the gas jet wiping process in the continuous hot-dip
galvanizing line [Gosset & Buchlin, 2007 and Elsaadawy et al. 2007].
.............................................. 8

Figure 2-3: Visualization of an impinging jet flow field [Maurel & Solliec, 2001].
........10

Figure 2-4: Splashing in a continuous hot-dip galvanizing line [Dubois, 2005].


.............11

Figure 2-5: Computational domain and boundary conditions [Cho et al.,


2009]..............12

Figure 2-6: Normalized coating thickness for different configurations [Myrillas et


al.,
2013]. ............................................................................................................................13

Figure 2-7: Schematic of a steel strip with edge overcoating [Arthurs, 2007].
................14

Figure 2-8: Bowtie air knife profile [Arthurs, 2007].


......................................................15

Figure 2-9: Schematic of air knives with edge baffles [Arthurs, 2007]
...........................16

Figure 2-10: Schematic of gas-jet wiping process [Kweon & Kim, 2011].
.....................16

Figure 2-11: a) Comparison of the coating weight predictions between the coating
weight model of Tu and the industrial line data b) Comparison between the Elsaadawy
et al. [2007] model and the measured industrial data.
.............................................................20
8
88
Figure 2-12: Non-dimensional pressure profile for all z/d at Re=11000 [Tu & Wood,
1996]. ............................................................................................................................21

Figure 2-13: Comparison of Stanton and Preston tube for measuring the wall shear
stress
[Tu & Wood, 1996]. ......................................................................................................22

Figure 2-14: The schematic of the single-slot impinging jet [Tamadonfar, 2010].
..........23

Figure 2-15: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution for 2≤z/d≤12


[Tamadonfar,
2010]. ............................................................................................................................24

9
99
Figure 2-16: Schematic of the simulation domain and parameters of the double air knife
[Yoon & Chung, 2010]. .................................................................................................25

Figure 2-17: Proposed multiple jet [Kim et al., 2010].....................................................26

Figure 2-18: Schematic of multiple-slot impinging jet [Tamadonfar, 2010]....................28

Figure 2-19: Coating weight comparison between the single-slot and multiple-
slot impinging jets as a function of z/d [Tamadonfar,
2010]..................................................29

Figure 3-1: Single-slot impinging jet set-up. ..................................................................31

Figure 3-2: Single-slot impinging jet..............................................................................32

Figure 3-3: a) Velmex™ traverse, b) Newport 481 A series rotary table.........................33

Figure 3-4: Single-impinging slot set-up parameters. .....................................................33

Figure 3-5: Multiple-slot impinging jet schematic. .........................................................36

Figure 3-6: Schematic of multiple-slot impinging jet parameters....................................37

Figure 3-7: Non-dimensional velocity profile at the exit of the short nozzle and
long nozzle single-slot impinging jets at Rem = 11000(PPlenum= 7.91 kPa), d = 1.5
mm..........38

Figure 3-8: Non-dimensional velocity profile at the exit of the multiple-slot impinging
jet
nozzles...........................................................................................................................39

Figure 3-9: Schematic of pressure measurement facility. ................................................40

Figure 4-1: Schematic of the single-slot impinging jet a) short nozzle b) long nozzle.
....43

Figure 4-2: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution at Rem=11000 for all z/d for the
short nozzle single-slot impinging jet. ............................................................................44

Figure 4-3: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution at Rem=11000 for all z/d for the
long nozzle single-slot impinging jet..............................................................................45

Figure 4-4: Non-dimensional wall pressure profile for the short nozzle and long
nozzle single-slot impinging jets for different z/d at Rem=11000.
..............................................46

9
9
Figure 4-5: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution at Rem=20000 for the short
nozzle single-slot impinging jet.
...............................................................................................48

Figure 4-6: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution at Rem =30000 for the short
nozzle single-slot impinging jet. ....................................................................................48

1
01
Figure 4-7: Wall pressure profile distribution for different Rem and z/d for the single-
slot impinging jet with short nozzle.
.....................................................................................49

Figure 4-8: Maximum wall pressure gradient as a function of Rem and z/d for the
short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.
....................................................................................50

Figure 4-9: Schematic of oblique single-impinging slot jet.............................................50

Figure 4-10: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution for different z/d at Rem=11000
for short nozzle single-slot impinging jet. ......................................................................52

Figure 4-11: Comparison of the maximum wall pressure as a function of z/d at α=0° and
α=3° for short nozzle single-slot impinging jet. .............................................................52

Figure 4-12: Wall pressure gradient distribution as a function of Rem at z/d=10 for 3°
tilted short nozzle single-slot impinging jet. ...................................................................53

Figure 4-13: Maximum wall pressure gradient as a function of Rem and z/d for 3°
tilted short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.
............................................................................54

Figure 4-14: Comparison of maximum pressure gradient as a function of Reynolds

number between α=0° and α=3° tilted for the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet..55
Figure 4-15: Geometry of the multiple-slot impinging jet...............................................57

Figure 4-16: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function of z/d at


Rem=9000 and Rea=11000.
.............................................................................................................59

Figure 4-17: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function of z/d at


Rem=11000 and Rea=11000. ..........................................................................................59

Figure 4-18: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function ofz/d at


Rem=13000 and Rea=11000 ...........................................................................................60

Figure 4-19: Experimental wall pressure distribution as a function of Rem at Rea=11000


and z/d=6.......................................................................................................................61

Figure 4-20: Experimental non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function of


Rea
with Rem=11000 at z/d=8. .............................................................................................62

Figure 4-21: Experimental non-dimensional wall pressure distribution for different Rea
with Rem=11000 and z/d=4............................................................................................63

1
01
Figure 4-22: Experimental maximum pressure gradient as a function of auxiliary jet
Reynolds number (Rea) with Rem=11000 and z/d=4.......................................................63

1
11
Figure 4-23: Comparison of non-dimensional pressure distribution between the single-
slot and multiple slot impinging jets for Rem=11000, Rea=11000 and
z/d=10.......................65

Figure 4-24: Comparison of maximum pressure of short nozzle single-slot and


multiple- slot impinging jets for various values of z/d, Rem=11000 and Rea=11000.
.....................65

Figure 4-25: Comparison of maximum pressure gradient of single and multiple-


slot impinging jets for various values of z/d, Rem=11000 and
Rea=11000.............................67

Figure 4-26: Non-dimensional shear stress for single-slot and multiple-slot impinging
jet at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000 [Tamadonfar, 2010].
......................................................67

Figure 4-27: Comparison of force per unit width of single-slot and multiple-
slot impinging jet as a function of z/d at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000.
..................................68

Figure 4-28: Experimental versus simulated [Tamadonfar, 2010] non-


dimensional pressure profile for different z/d at Rem=11000 (short nozzle single-slot
impinging jet). 71

Figure 4-29: Comparison of simulated [Tamadonfar, 2010] and experimental pressure

profile derivatives 
 dp at Re =11000 for the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.
..72  m

dx 
Figure 4-30: Experimental and simulated [Tamadonfar, 2010] maximum pressure
gradient as a function of z/d for Rem=11000 for the short nozzle single-slot impinging
jet.
......................................................................................................................................72

Figure 4-31: Comparison between the experimental and simulated jet exit velocity
profile
[Tamadonfar, 2010]. ......................................................................................................73

Figure 4-32: Simulated [Tamadonfar, 2010] and experimental non-dimensional pressure


profile distribution comparison for different z/d at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000 for
multiple-slot impinging jet. ............................................................................................74

Figure 4-33: Comparison of simulation [Tamadonfar, 2010] and experimental maximum


pressure gradient as a function of z/d at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000 for multiple-slot
impinging jet. ................................................................................................................75

1
11
Figure 4-34: Comparison of the experimental and numerical [Tamadonfar, 2010] wall
pressure distribution for Rem=11000, Rea=11000 at z/d=4 for multiple-slot impinging
jet.
......................................................................................................................................76

Figure 4-35: Maximum wall pressure gradient for different main jet Reynolds number
at
z/d=4 and Rea=11000 [Tamadonfar, 2010] for multiple-slot impinging jet.
...................77

1
21
Figure 4-36: Numerical maximum wall pressure gradient as a function of Rea with
Rem=11000 and z/d=4. ..................................................................................................77

Figure 4-37: Maximum wall pressure gradient for the multiple-slot impinging jet as
a function of Rem for 4z/d12 at Rea=11000.
...................................................................79
Figure 4-38: Maximum wall pressure for the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet as
a function of z/d for different Rem at Rea=11000.
..............................................................79

Figure 4-39: Maximum wall pressure for the multiple-slot impinging jet as a function of
z/d at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000. .................................................................................80

Figure 4-40: Maximum wall pressure of short nozzle single-slot impinging jet as a
function of Rem for 6z/d12..........................................................................................82
Figure 4-41: Maximum wall pressure of multiple-slot impinging jet as a function of Rem
for 4 z/d 12 and Rea=11000........................................................................................83

Figure A-1: Isometric view of the single-slot impinging jet............................................92

Figure A-2: Single-slot impinging jet plenum. ...............................................................93

Figure A-3: Single-slot impinging jet top cap.................................................................94

Figure A-4: Single-slot impinging jet nozzle flange. ......................................................95

Figure A-5: Single-slot impinging jet bottom cap...........................................................96

Figure A-6: Isometric views of multiple-slot impinging jet. ...........................................97

Figure A-7: Top cap of the multiple-slot impinging jet...................................................98

Figure A-8: Main jet plenum of the multiple-slot impinging jet......................................99

Figure A-9: Auxiliary jet plenum of the multiple-slot impinging jet. ............................100

Figure A-10: Main jet nozzle flange of the multiple-slot impinging jet.........................101

Figure A-11: Auxiliary jet side flange of the multiple-slot impinging jet. .....................102

Figure A-12: Auxiliary jet front flange of the multiple-slot impinging jet.....................103

Figure A-13: Bottom cap of the multiple-slot impinging jet. ........................................104

xii
Figure B-1: Wall pressure distribution at U=113m/s for all z/d for the short nozzle
single- slot impinging jet at
α=0°.............................................................................................105

Figure B-2: Wall pressure distribution at U=200 m/s for all z/d for the short nozzle
single- slot impinging jet at
α=0°.............................................................................................106

Figure B-3: Wall pressure distribution at U=300 m/s for all z/d for the short nozzle
single- slot impinging jet at
α=0°.............................................................................................106

Figure B-4: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at U=113 m/s for short nozzle
single-slot impinging jet at α=3°. .................................................................................107

Figure B-5: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at U=200 m/s for short
nozzle single-slot impinging jet at α=3°.
.................................................................................107

Figure B-6: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at U=300 m/s for short
nozzle single-slot impinging jet at α=3°.
.................................................................................108

Figure B-7: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at Um=90 m/s and Ua=55 m/s
for multiple-slot impinging jet.
..........................................................................................109

Figure B-8: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at Um=113 m/s and Ua=55 m/s
for multiple-slot impinging jet.
..........................................................................................109

Figure B-9: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at Um=130 m/s and Ua=55 m/s
for multiple-slot impinging jet.
..........................................................................................110

Figure B-10: Wall pressure distribution for different Ua at Um=113 m/s and z/d=4 for
multiple-slot impinging jet. ..........................................................................................110

Figure B-11: Wall pressure distribution for different Ua at Um=113 m/s and z/d=6 for
multiple-slot impinging jet. ..........................................................................................111

Figure B-12: Wall pressure distribution for different Ua at Um=113 m/s and z/d=8 for
multiple-slot impinging jet. ..........................................................................................111

FIGURE C-1: CALIBRATION DIAGRAM FOR DIAPHRAGM NUMBER 32 (P=1.25 PSI OR 14


KPA). ....................................................................................................................115

13
131
List of Tables

Table 3-1: Pressure transducer properties. ......................................................................41

Table 4-1: Shear layer thickness (δ, δ*, θ*) of computational [Tamadonfar, 2010] and
experimental results at the exit of the nozzle.
.................................................................70

Table C-1: Uncertainty in the geometry parameters of the experimental setup. ............115

14
141
Nomenclature

ܽ ܽ Wall distance between two jets [mm]

݀ ܽ Air-knife gap width [mm]

݃ ܽ Gravitational constant [m⁄s ଶ]

‫ܩ‬ Non-dimensional effective gravitational acceleration

ܲ ܽ Pressure along the sheet substrate [Pa]

ܲ ௠௠௫
ܽ Maximum pressure on the sheet substrate [Pa]

‫ݍ‬ Volumetric flow rate per unit of film width [m ଶ⁄sିିଵ]

ܳ ܽ Non-dimensional withdrawal flux

ܴ ௠
ܽ Auxiliary slot jet Reynolds number

ܴ ௠
ܽ Main slot jet Reynolds number

‫ݏ‬ Distance of the main slot jet to the auxiliary slot jet [mm]

ܵ ܽ Non-dimensional shear stress

15
151
ܷܽ Mean fluid velocity [m⁄s]
‫ݑ‬ Fluid velocity [m⁄s]

ܸ ௦௧௠௠௠
ܽ Sheet substrate velocity

[m⁄s]

w Film thickness [m]

W Non-dimensional film thickness


‫ݔ‬ Cartesian coordinate [m]

‫ݕ‬ Cartesian coordinate [m]

‫ݖ‬ Impingement distance [mm]

Greek Symbols

ߙ Jet angle [˚]

ߜ Disturbance thickness [mm]

ߜ∗ Displacement thickness [mm]

ߠ∗ Momentum thickness [mm]


ߥ Kinematic viscosity [m ଶ ⁄s]
ߤ Dynamic viscosity [Pa.s]

ߩ Mass density [kg⁄m ଷ]

߬ ߬ Wall shear stress on the sheet substrate [Pa]

߬ ௠௠௫
߬ Maximum wall shear stress [Pa]

Abbreviations

CGL Continuous Galvanizing Line

EOC Edge Over Coating

LES Large Eddy Simulation

LDV Laser Doppler Velocimetry

PIV Particle Image Velocimetry

RMS Root Mean Square

xvii
xviii
McMaster University-Mechanical M.A.Sc. Thesis- S. Alibeigi
Engineering

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Thesis Statement

An experimental investigation has been done on a single-slot impinging jet (a

conventional air knife design) and a multiple-slot impinging jet [Figure 1-1] to study

the effect of the process parameters and air-knife geometry on the wall pressure

distribution. In order to facilitate this project, an experimental multiple-slot

impinging jet was designed, manufactured and tested. The experimental results for

both single-slot and multiple-slot impinging jets were compared with the simulated

results of Tamadonfar [2010] for the same operating conditions.

Figure 1-1: a) Schematic of single-slot impinging jet b) schematic of multiple-


slot impinging jet.

1
1.2 Motivation and Objectives

Impinging jets have many useful properties which make them suitable for

a variety of different applications. One of these applications, which is the focus of this

project, is gas-jet wiping in the continuous hot-dip galvanizing process. In this process

an impinging jet, in the industry known as air knife, controls the Zn-alloy coating

thickness by removing excess zinc from the moving substrate immediately after dipping

in the molten zinc bath. Figure 1-2 shows a schematic of the gas-jet wiping process

with a conventional air knife configuration, consisting of a single-slot nozzle.

Zinc coating weight is one of the concerns of the automotive industry.

The minimum possible coating weight with the conventional air knife is currently

2
approximately 40 g/m whereas the automotive industry is demanding lighter coating

weights. In order to obtain lower coating weight at reasonable strip velocit y, the

wiping pressure should increase significantly. However, increasing the pressure causes

some industrial difficulties such as splashing and generation of higher noise. Splashing

is characterized by the ejection of zinc droplets from the strip which can be deposited on

or around the jet nozzle or on the strip itself, resulting in defects. Full splashing happens

when the shear forces applied on the film becomes higher than the liquid surface

tension.

Currently, in order to cope with splashing, the steel strip moves at lower speeds in

the hot-dip galvanizing process resulting in decrease in steel strip production. Kim et al.
[2010] proposed a multiple-slot jet air knife design model in order to solve the

splashing problem and enhance coating quality.


Figure 1-2: Schematic of gas wiping process [Ahn & Chung, 2006].

In addition, zinc coating quality is an important industrial issue, especially in the

automobile industry which requires sheet steels with a uniform coating and excellent

corrosion resistance. One of the coating defects in the continuous hot-dip galvanizing

process affecting final coating quality is a localized non-uniform coating known as

check mark [Yoon & Chung, 2010]. Check marks which appear on the steel strip may be

caused by flow instabilities arising from gas jet flow flapping.

Considerable numerical and experimental work has been done to study the

single- slot impinging jet in the continuous hot-dip galvanizing line, while few studies

exist on the multiple-slot jet. In the present work, the effect of different air knife

geometries on the wall pressure distribution as a function of processing parameters such

as Reynolds numbers and plate-to-nozzle spacing ratio have been studied

experimentally for a single-


slot and multiple slot impinging jet. In addition, the computed results of Tamadonfar

[2010] were compared with the experimental results.

1.3 Thesis Organization

This thesis consists of five Chapters and two Appendices. Chapter 1 contains an

introduction of the present work, including the motivation and objectives of this study.

Chapter 2 comprises the literature survey and begins with information concerning the

continuous hot-dip galvanizing process and impinging jet applications in industry and

specifically in continuous hot-dip galvanizing lines. Chapter 2 then continues with the

introduction of the coating models used for estimating the final coating thickness on

the moving substrate. It continues with the provision of information about the new

proposed air knife model, a multiple-slot impinging jet, as well as a brief literature

review on past studies. Chapter 3 details the experimental apparatus used for the

measurements and the investigated experimental parameters. Chapter 4 presents the

experimental results for both impinging jet designs as well as comparison between the

results of both configurations and the computed results of Tamadonfar [2010]. The

last section of Chapter 4 presents the discussion of the results. Chapter 5 provides

conclusions and various suggestions for future work.

Additional sections are provided at the end of this thesis. Appendix A contains

details of the parts and dimensions for the multiple-slot and single-slot impinging

jet.
Appendix B and appendix C provide the pressure profiles for the different studied

cases in dimensional form and the error analysis in the measurements, respectively.
Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter begins with a brief description of the continuous hot-dip

galvanizing process and introduces an impinging jet and its application in the

continuous galvanizing line for controlling the coating thickness on a steel substrate. It

then presents various coating weight models. Finally, a new air knife entailing a

multiple-slot impinging jet is introduced.

2.1 Continuous Hot-Dip Galvanizing

Continuous hot-dip galvanizing process is a very high production volume

process such that the galvanized sheet production increased by 40% to 32.5 million

tons (Mt) in

2012 from 23.1 Mt in 2009. Therefore, it is a major process worthy of attention. In the

continuous hot-dip galvanizing process, sheet steel is coated with a layer of zinc

to protect it from corrosion. Figure 2-1 shows a schematic of the continuous hot-

dip galvanizing process. After the steel sheet goes through the heat treatments and

surface preparation in order to improve coating adherence, it is immersed into the 460ºC

molten zinc pot. After the steel strip exits the zinc bath, a pair of two-dimensional high

speed opposing plane gas jets, which impinge on the substrate, remove any excess

molten zinc from the substrate surface using the combined actions of gravity, wall

pressure, and wall shear stress which causes the excess zinc to run back into the bath.

Next, the strip is air- cooled by forced or natural convection to produce metallic
galvanized coatings or proceeds to a further heat treatment to produce galvannealed

coatings. The gas wiping


jets, or air knives, utilize either nitrogen or compressed air as a working fluid and the

air knives are aligned to impinge symmetrically at the same position on both sides of

the steel strip [Marder, 2000]. Figure 2-2 shows a schematic of the gas-jet wiping

process, and approximate position of the strip, zinc pot, and the air knives.

Figure 2-1: Schematic of a continuous hot dip galvanizing line [Marder, 2000].

The main process parameters that control the coating weight are the

impingement distance (z), the jet slot width (d), and the plenum pressure (P) as shown

in Figure 2-2. The impingement distance is usually used in its non-dimensional form,

known as the impingement ratio (z/d), which basically is non-dimensionalized by the jet

slot width.
Figure 2-2: Schematic of the gas jet wiping process in the continuous hot-dip
galvanizing
line [Gosset & Buchlin, 2007 and Elsaadawy et al. 2007].

2.2 Impinging Jets

Impinging jets have many applications in industry because of their useful

properties. For example, due to their high Nusselt number near the wall region, which

leads to high rate of heat transfer, impinging jets are very useful in applications such

as the cooling of turbine blades [Li et al., 2011] or electronic systems, in the shaping

and tempering of glass plates [Lee & Viskanta, 2012 and Camci & Herr, 2002] and

deicing the aircraft systems. Considerable numerical studies have been done on

impinging jets, focusing on heat transfer such as those of Behnia [1999], Kubacki and

Dick [2010] and Zu et al. [2011]. Moreover, because of their highly turbulent mixing
and high Sherwood number, impinging jets are useful for mixing enhancements (for

instance in chemical
processing) and material deposition processes (such as plasma spray), respectively.

Impinging jets, in addition, are well known in industry because of their high level

of shear stress at the wall regions which makes them attractive for drying in

paper production as well as for coating applications such as gas-jet wiping

process in continuous galvanizing lines. The last application is the subject of this study.

The impinging jet in continuous galvanizing lines is known as an air-knife. Its

application is to control the thickness of the liquid coating metal, mostly zinc, on the

steel sheet substrate. Impinging jets have a highly complex flow structure, so that many

studies have been done to examine impinging jet flow fields experimentally and

numerically. There are different techniques of studying the fluid flow field such as

Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), Laser Doppler Anemometry (LDA), and Hot-Wire

Anemometry. Esirgenez et al. [2007], Fairweather et al. [2002], Durst et al. [1996],

Maurel & Solliec [2001], Loureiro & Silva Freire [2012], Brata et al. [2004], Durst

[1995], and Durst et al. [2001] used Laser Doppler Anemometry to investigate the

fluid flow field. Maurel & Solliec [2001], Hammad & Milanovic [2011], and

Fairweather & Hargrave [2002] used the PIV technique to study the flow field of

impinging jets. Zhe & Modi [2001] and Durst et al. [2001] used Hot Wire Anemometry

to measure the flow field near the wall.

Maurel & Solliec [2001] studied the impinging jet flow structure experimentally.

As it can be seen in Figure 2-3 they divided impinging jet flow field into three zones as

follows:
 Potential Core Zone. In this zone, the centerline velocity is the same as
the jet

exit velocity. The length of this zone is 3<z/d<6.

 Intermediate Zone. In this zone, the axial velocity profile starts decaying and
the turbulence level is rising.

 Impinging Zone. As the flow reaches to the plate, the value of velocity

normal to the plate becomes zero and the flow turns. The flow builds up the

higher pressure and shear stress on the wall. In this region, the vortices stretch

and turbulence increases.

Figure 2-3: Visualization of an impinging jet flow field [Maurel & Solliec, 2001].

One of the undesirable phenomena in continuous galvanizing lines

which
decrease the wiping efficiency is splashing. Splashing is characterized by ejection of
liquid zinc droplets of the runback film flow from the coating surface. Splashing is

initiated at the edge of the strip at some high speed lines, and spreads toward the center

of the strip. Splashing decreases the quality of the coating and can result in nozzle

blockage due to liquid zinc droplets solidify on the air-knife nozzle. Figure 2-4 shows a

full splashing in a continuous hot-dip galvanizing line. Full splashing occurs when

the applied force on the upstream film is higher than the liquid surface tension. One of

the documented cases in which full splashing occurred is for a zinc coating thickness

of 20

µm produced at line speed of 160-170 m/min when the distance between the strip and

air- knife was short (z/d<6) [Dubois, 2011]. There are some experimental and

numerical studies shows that the wiping angle or the shape of the jet can delay this

phenomenon, such as Dubois et al. [2005]. They expected a 30% increase in line speed

by inclining the jet angle by up to 30˚, although an inclination angle greater than 10˚ has

some physical setup limitations.


Figure 2-4: Splashing in a continuous hot-dip galvanizing line [Dubois, 2005].
Cho et al. [2009] numerically studied the effect of the tilting angle of an air-

knife with constant expansion rate and strip speed on coating thickness. Figure 2-5

shows the computational domain and boundary condition of this research. Their

proposed air-knife system with a constant expansion rate diminished the splashing

problem, and saved energy in comparison with the conventional design. They

concluded that tilting the air knife probably alleviates splashing problem. However, by

increasing the jet inclination for angles higher than five degrees, the coating thickness

increased up to 11%. For jet angles less than 5 degrees, a significant difference has not

been observed. They also studied the effect of strip velocity with a constant jet

inclination of 5º. They showed that by decreasing the strip velocity, the coating

thickness reduced since when the strip velocity increases, the momentum influx per

unit area of the strip decreases.

Figure 2-5: Computational domain and boundary conditions [Cho et al., 2009].
Myrillas et al. [2013] experimentally studied the effect of a side jet on delaying

splashing by stabilizing the runback flow. They showed that using the side jet results

in the stronger wiping and consequently lower value of coating thickness. They put the

side jet parallel to the main jet and at the distance of 1 mm away from the main jet, once

at the top and once at the bottom of the main jet. Figure 2-6 shows the non-

dimensionalized coating thickness results for main jet with side jet at upstream, side

jet at downstream, and no side jets. It can be seen that the presence of side jet has

delayed the splashing. It can be seen also that by avoiding splashing, thinner coating

thickness can be reached because the main jet can be operated at higher pressure. They

used propylene glycol as a liquid for experiments.

Figure 2-6: Normalized coating thickness for different configurations [Myrillas et


al.,
2013].
Another undesirable phenomenon in gas jet wiping is edge overcoating (EOC),

where the coating at the edge of the sheet is thicker than the middle of the strip [Figure

2-

7]. EOC can cause some difficulties in coiling or inadequate galvannealing at the edge

of the sheet substrate [Arthurs, 2007]. There are different techniques to overcome

this problem.

Figure 2-7: Schematic of a steel strip with edge overcoating [Arthurs, 2007].

Using bowtie profile air knifes is one of the ways of combating this problem

[Arthurs, 2007]. Figure 2-8 shows the typical dimensions of a bowtie air knife. It can be

seen that the jet width at the edge of the bowtie air knife is wider than the center, and

therefore the momentum of the flow at the edge of the strip increases.

Additional momentum at the edge of the strip results in more zinc being removed at the

edge of the sheet. Zhang et al. [2012] numerically studied the effect of an air knife with

a variable nozzle slot opening on coating, and they concluded this type of air knife

provides a more uniform coating thickness. The study of Kim et al. [2003] showed that

EOC is caused by the alternating vortices which are generated by the collision of
the opposing air jets outside of the strip. Ahn and Chung [2006] numerically studied

the effect of adding a


small diameter cylinder at the lower lip of both air knives in order to deflect the jets

downward and prevent EOC. By this method, the collision between the two opposing

edges happened at an angle of less than 180º, and made the vortical structures at the

edge of the sheet disappear. By eliminating the vortices at the edge of the sheet, the

pressure across the surface becomes uniform. This uniformity causes the consistency of

coating weight.

Figure 2-8: Bowtie air knife profile [Arthurs, 2007].

Another method to solve the EOC problem is using edge baffle plates, which are

also used to reduce the noise level in the gas-jet wiping process [Figure 2-9]. Zhang

et al.’s [2012] numerical study showed that using wider baffle plates and shorter

distance between the baffle plates to the strip can effectively control EOC. However,

Ahn and Chung [2006] claimed that using the small diameter cylinder at lower lips of

air knives is more effective than using baffle plates.


Figure 2-9: Schematic of air knives with edge baffles [Arthurs, 2007]

2.3 Coating Weight Model

Many researchers have tried to predict the coating weight as a function

of operating parameters using experimental, empirical, or simulation techniques. The

first work in this field is done by Thorton and Graff [1976]. They assumed that the

coating weight was only a function of the wall pressure profile imposed on the film

created by the impinging jet. The defect in their model was in neglecting the effect of

shear stress on the coating weight.

Figure 2-10: Schematic of gas-jet wiping process [Kweon & Kim, 2011].
Ellen and Tu [1984] further developed the model of Thornton and Graff [1976]

by taking the wall shear stress into account. It was shown that including the wall shear

stress into the model enhanced the coating weight model accuracy. The simplified two-

dimensional Navier-Stokes equation was used to calculate the coating thickness. In

order to simplify the Navier-Stokes equation, it has been assumed that the molten zinc

on the coating layer was at steady state, and isothermal with a constant viscosity and

density (incompressible flow), and it was also assumed that the pressure across the

coating layer was constant since the velocity perpendicular to the substrate is

negligible. From these assumptions, the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equation at

the substrate wall was

reduced to:

2 dp 
d u 
  g (2-1)
dy 2  dx
 0

Where u is the liquid film velocity, p the pressure along the substrate, g the

gravitational acceleration and μ and ρ are the viscosity and density of the

coating material,

respectively. The boundary conditions for solving equation (2-1) are:

uV at y  0 (No slip condition)


Strip (2-2)
 du
 = yw
 dy
 at

whereτ is the shear stress imposed on the film by the impinging jet, and w is the film
thickness. By integrating equation (2-1) and applying the boundary conditions, the

liquid film velocity can be derived:


 2
y y  GW
y
u  V 1  SW 2  (2-3)
 
s w w w 2 

 g , S is
In equation (2-3), W is the non-dimensional film thickness W  w
V
Strip


the non-dimensional shear stress S  , and G is the gravitational
acceleration
V
g
Strip

1 dp
G1 .
 g dx

Based on the conservation of mass, the net vertical liquid mass flow rate at

any position must be equal to the final coating mass multiplied by the strip

velocity.

Therefore, the liquid zinc flux can be written as follows:

 2
h Sw Gw 
q   udy  V w 1   (2-4)

Strip  2 3 
0

q  g converts to:
Thus, the non-dimensional flux Q 
VStrip
VStrip

3 2
GW SW
Q  (2-5)
W
3 2

The non-dimensional film thickness W corresponds to the maximum withdrawal


flux, so W can be determined by solving dQ
dW  0 [Ellen and Tu, 1984].
S  S2  4G
W (2-
6)
2G

It can be seen that the maximum non-dimensional withdrawal flux

and corresponding non-dimensional film thickness are function of the pressure

gradient and

shear stress. Once the liquid film solidified, the coating thickness can be written as:

w
 QMax 
min (2-7)
g
VStrip

Myrillas et al. [2009] used an analytical model with surface tension [Yoneda,

1993] for predicting the coating thickness. They used the maximum pressure gradient

and maximum shear stress to calculate the coating thickness on the moving substrate.

The model showed 7% difference with the experimental results.

Elsaadawy et al. [2007] further developed the coating weight model as a

function of operating parameters by combining experimental and computational

methods to improve the pressure and shear stress correlation using the k-ε turbulence

model in the FLUENT CFD code. They developed the pressure and shear stress

correlation based on the earlier work of Ellen and Tu [1984]. Figure 2-11a illustrates the

comparison between the coating weight prediction of Ellen and Tu [1984] with

experimental results, and Figure 2-11b shows the comparison between the

experimental results and the developed model of Elsaadawy et al. [2007]. By


comparing these two figures, it can be seen that a significant improvement with the

new developed coating weight model has been


achieved. Their model is in good agreement with industrial data for coating weights

2 2
of less than 75 g/m (Wc<75 g/m ). Since the model neglected the inertial effects of

the entrained molten coating, which is significant when the coating thickness increased,

their

model was less accurate for higher coating weight. They improved the coating weight

model by adding the convective heat transfer effect into their model.

Figure 2-11: a) Comparison of the coating weight predictions between the coating
weight model of Tu and the industrial line data b) Comparison between the Elsaadawy
et al. [2007] model and the measured industrial data.

Tu and Wood [1996] measured the wall pressure and shear stress profile of an

impinging jet for wide range of Reynolds numbers, 3000Re6300, and plate-to-nozzle
ratios, 1z/d20, where the nozzle width was kept constant at 0.97 mm. They also
measured wall pressure and shear stress profiles for Re=11000, plate-to-nozzle ratios

between 1 and 12, and a nozzle width of 6.4 mm. Figure 2-12 shows the non-

dimensional pressure profile for all z/d at Re=11000. They concluded that the length of

the potential
core is five times the jet width. They examined a range of Preston and Stanton tubes for

measuring the shear stress, and found that a 0.05 mm-high Stanton tube gave the most

accurate results [Figure 2-13]. They found that the non-dimensional shear stress profile

was dependent on the plate-to-nozzle ratio and Reynolds number.

Figure 2-12: Non-dimensional pressure profile for all z/d at Re=11000 [Tu & Wood,
1996].
Figure 2-13: Comparison of Stanton and Preston tube for measuring the wall shear
stress
[Tu & Wood, 1996].

Tamadonfar [2010] numerically investigated the wall pressure and shear stress

profile, and consequently calculated the coating thickness as function of plate-to-nozzle

ratio for 6<z/d<12. The mesh used for this configuration was comprised of

quadrilaterals and was generated with GAMBIT. The meshed geometry is shown in

Figure 2-14. He refined the mesh in order that the solutions become mesh independent.

Depending on the plate-to-nozzle ratio, number of nodes varied between 70,000 and
TM
130,000. The simulations have been solved using FLUNT . The simulations were

performed using the standard k-ε turbulence model. The inlet condition was defined as

velocity-inlet, and the far-field boundary condition was set to atmospheric pressure. He

considered the substrate in his simulation stationary since the ratio of jet velocity

to the substrate velocity is high. He assumed the effect of the moving plate on the

pressure and shear stress is negligible. No-slip condition was defined for the substrate.

Figure 2-15 shows the non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function of

plate-to-nozzle ratio. It
illustrates that the non-dimensional wall pressure profile and the maximum non-

dimensional wall pressure does not change significantly to 2≤z/d≤8. However, the non-

dimensional maximum wall pressure drops for z/d>8 because the plate is outside of

the jet potential core. Therefore, he concluded the length of the potential core is eight

times the jet width. His results showed that the non-dimensional shear stress for

2≤z/d≤12 changes from zero to its maximum value linearly, and the maximum shear

stress on the plate is in the laminar boundary layer. He also calculated the coating

weight for different plate-to-nozzle ratios. He concluded that the coating weight does

not change significantly for z/d≤8 since the plate is in the potential core of the jet

whereas the coating weight increases by going outside of the potential core (z/d≥10).

Figure 2-14: The schematic of the single-slot impinging jet [Tamadonfar, 2010].
Figure 2-15: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution for 2≤z/d≤12
[Tamadonfar,
2010].

2.4 Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet

The idea of using auxiliary jets in addition to the main jet was proposed by Tu

et al. [1993, 1994]. In a patent which they filed, different configurations of impinging

jets were proposed. Two of the proposed models, a main jet with inclined auxiliary

impinging slot jet configuration and two parallel impinging slot jets, were studied

computationally by Tamadonfar [2010] and Yoon and Chung [2010].

Yoon and Chung [2010] used unsteady 3D compressible FLUENT to simulate the

flow field. They used Large Eddy Simulation (LES) to solve this flow field. In order to

figure out the optimum configuration, they performed a series of parametric studies.

The
parameters and the calculation domain of the double jet are shown in Figure 2-16. The

angle between the main jet and the guide jet was changed between the ranges of 0˚ to

2˚. The inclined jet operated as a guide jet in order to make the flow field of the

main jet more stable. The guide jet prevented the formation of vortices on the

stagnation line and resulted in decreasing the check-mark stain on the substrate. They

concluded that the maximum pressure of the model with two parallel jets was lower

than the model with the main jet and the inclined jet. They also suggested that the

multiple-slot jet with the two parallel jets could produce a thinner coating weight

compare to the single-slot impinging jet. However, they have not specified the coating

thicknesses of the different configurations of the double air knife. They used the

maximum pressure and the RMS value of pressure fluctuation to figure out the

optimum configuration of the double air knife. The optimum configuration is found to

be when d03=0.6 mm, d04=0.2 mm, θ=1° and P03=15 kPa.

Figure 2-16: Schematic of the simulation domain and parameters of the double air
knife
[Yoon & Chung, 2010].
In addition, Tamadonfar [2010] used k-ε model to solve the 2D dimensional

flow fields of two configurations of multiple-slot impinging jets, one consists of two

parallel jets and the other consists of one main jet with an inclined jet. The angle

between the main jet and the inclined jet is 20˚. He showed that the maximum pressure

for both configurations is less than the single-slot impinging jet maximum pressure. The

coating weight of the multiple-slot impinging jet with one main jet and one inclined jet

is lighter than the multiple-slot jet with two parallel jets. The coating weight of the

single-slot impinging jet is less than the multiple-slot impinging jet configuration

coating weight.

Figure 2-17: Proposed multiple jet [Kim et al., 2010].

Kim et al. [2010] proposed a new design of multiple-slot jet which contains one

main jet and 4 auxiliary inclined jets which had a lower velocity compared to the main

jet
[Figure 2-17]. In this design, the gas discharging from the main and the auxiliary jets

provided the necessary force for wiping excess molten zinc from the sheet. The second

auxiliary jets are used to prevent splashing. The auxiliary jets restrain zinc droplets from

splashing by mixing the gas particles of the main jet and auxiliary jet which are in

lower speed compare to the main jet particles resulting in the lower speed of the jet wall

along a length direction of the substrate. The lower speed of the wall jet weakens the

shear stress, therefore it prevents splashing of zinc droplets.

Tamadonfar [2010] investigated the flow field characteristics of multiple-

impinging slot jet which consists of one main jet and two adjacent inclined auxiliary

jets, for various operating parameters with the goal of estimating the final coating

weight. Eventually, he compared the coating weight of single-impinging slot jet with

that of the multiple-slot impinging jet. The multiple-slot impinging jet configuration is

shown in Figure 2-18. For all the simulation cases, d=1.52 mm and s/d=13.15. He

solved the simulation for 2≤z/d≤12 at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000. He observed that the

maximum pressure gradient is sensitive to z/d ratio, and it increases with

decreasing z/d ratio. Adding auxiliary jets resulted in increasing of the pressure along

the wall in comparison with the single-slot impinging jet. Figure 2-19 shows the

comparison of coating weight for single-slot impinging jet and multiple-slot impinging

jet as a function of z/d. It can be seen that the coating weight of multiple-slot

impinging jet is greater than that of the single-slot jet case for each z/d ratio.
Figure 2-18: Schematic of multiple-slot impinging jet [Tamadonfar, 2010].

In addition, Tamadonfar [2010] studied the effect of auxiliary jets

Reynolds number ranging from 4000 and 13000 with Rem=11000 and z/d=4 and 10. The

maximum pressure increased with increasing the auxiliary jets Reynolds number.

The results showed that Rea does not have a significant effect on the coating weight

with Rem=11000 and z/d=4, whereas the coating weight increases with increasing Rea

for z/d=10 and Rem=11000.

There are few studies on multiple-slot jets, and most of these studies are

numerical studies. In this project, the above model by Tamadonfar [2010] is examined

experimentally. The experimental results are compared with those of the conventional

model of air knife (single-slot impinging jet) and numerical results of

Tamadonfar [2010].
Figure 2-19: Coating weight comparison between the single-slot and multiple-
slot
impinging jets as a function of z/d [Tamadonfar, 2010].
Chapter 3: Experimental Setup

This chapter introduces the experimental apparatus used to do the current

measurements. It starts with explaining the single-slot impinging jet set-up, and

continues with presenting the multiple impinging slot-jet. Finally, the measurement

facility set-up will be explained.

3.1 Single-Slot Impinging Jet

Measurements were performed using a high-speed planer impinging jet. A

general view of the single-slot impinging jet experimental apparatus is presented in

Figure 3-1. The planar nozzle, plenum, and plate were machined out of aluminum. The

plenum was pressurized with compressed air from a 550 kPa supply. The air supply line

consists of a

5 cm regulator at the beginning with a 5cm ball valve and a 5 cm gate valve. Afterward,

air enters into a T shaped manifold with three outlets, each with a 2.5 cm globe valve,

which were used to control the pressure for each of the three nozzles of the multiple-

slot impinging jet facility.

In all tests, measurements started when the system achieved a stable operating

condition. As shown in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2, air entered into the plenum from

the

25.4 mm diameter hole at the top of plenum and then went through the 25.4 mm

diameter flow distributor and then passed through a series of mesh screens located

upstream of the nozzle contraction in order to break up any large-scale turbulence

structures. These
screens consist of stainless steel cloth with a density of 70 wires per inch and an
open

area fraction of β=0.58 [Mehta & Bradshaw, 1979]. Air exits the nozzle at 90 to the
direction to which it entered into the plenum [Figure 3-2]. The nozzle has an
elliptical

profile shape with major and minor axes of 45 mm and 30 mm, respectively. The nozzle

has a span length (L) of 100 mm. The jet thickness for this study was fixed at 1.5 mm.

The jet thickness (d) was adjusted by a feeler gauge and was double checked by using a

Vernier Caliper. The overall aspect ratio (L/d) of the nozzle was 66.67. Detailed

dimensions of the jet facility are presented in Appendix A.

Figure 3-1: Single-slot impinging jet set-up.


Figure 3-2: Single-slot impinging jet.

The planar jet impinged normally on a 150 mm×200 mm aluminum plate of

10 mm thickness. The plate was milled using a single fly-cutter in order to provide

the flattest surface possible. The plate was mounted on a Velmex™ 6.35cm wide A25

series traverse with a resolution of 0.0254 mm, as shown in Figure 3-3a. In order to

measure the wall pressure profiles, the jet was kept stationary and the impingement

plate was moved manually. For adjusting the distance between the nozzle and the plate,

the impinging jet was mounted on a computer controlled traverse system consisting of a

VXM-3 Velmex™ power supply with a Slo-syn stepper motor with the minimum

division of 5 microns. In order to adjust the angle of the jet, a Newport 481 A series

rotary positioning stage with a


resolution of 0.008º was used. This rotary table was equipped with both fine and coarse

adjustments and a locking mechanism [Figure 3-3b].

Figure 3-3: a) Velmex™ traverse, b) Newport 481 A series rotary table.

Figure 3-4: Single-impinging slot set-up parameters.

Figure 3-4 shows the experimental parameters for the single-slot impinging

jet. The axes are defined as x and y, where the x-axis is parallel to the surface of

the
impingement plate, and the y-direction is parallel to the centerline of the jet. The nozzle

width is defined as d, which was fixed to 1.5 mm in this study, and z represents the

distance from the exit of the nozzle to the plate. The effect of jet velocity was studied

by changing the plenum pressure. The results are presented as functions of non-

dimensional parameters such as Reynolds number (Re) and plate to nozzle ratio (z/d).

3.2 Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet

In order to facilitate the study of this geometry, planar nozzles and separate

plenums were constructed. All parts were manufactured using aluminum. This model

consists of three jets, one main jet and two auxiliary jets on both sides of the main

jet. The main jet was perpendicular to the impingement plate and the auxiliary jets

were

inclined at 20 from the main jet centerline. Each jet has its individual plenum and
valve

in order to manipulate the pressure at each plenum separately. Compressed air was used

for pressurizing the plenums. After air passed through the 5 cm regulator valve, 5 cm

ball valve and 5 cm gate valve, air entered into a T-shaped manifold with three 2.5 cm

globe valves in order to control the pressure for each nozzle. Consistent with the single-

slot jet, air entered into each plenum from a 25.4 mm diameter hole at the top of the

plenum, and

after passing through the air distributor tube and mesh screens, it exited the nozzle at
90

to its inlet direction. A high grade of surface finished for the nozzles was desired in

order to minimize disturbances in the outgoing air flow. This was obtained with
CNC machining and hand-polishing. The nozzles geometries implemented in this

design were
an elliptical profile. A CFD analysis was performed to determine the optimal design

parameters to ensure that the exiting jet velocity had the uniform "top-hat" shape

velocity profile [Youanas, 2012]. The k-ε turbulence model in the CFX ANSYS

software was used for this analysis. The main jet, which is the middle jet, had the

longest nozzle length with dimensions of the major and minor ellipse axes of 120 and 54

mm, respectively. The major axis of the nozzle aligned with the stream-wise direction

of the exiting flow. The nozzles of the auxiliary jets had the dimensions of 37 and 23

mm for the major and minor elliptical axes, respectively. The flat edge of the nozzle lips

was 2 mm wide. The main jet and auxiliary jet nozzle thickness were designed to be able

to vary from 0.8 to 5 mm and from 0.2 to 50 mm, respectively. The distance of the

auxiliary jet exits to the main jet exit could be varied from 0 to 45 mm. Control of each

jet parameter was designed to be independent from the parameters of the other jets.

A schematic of the multiple-slot impinging jet is shown in Figure 3-5. Detailed

dimensions of the multiple-slot impinging jet apparatus are presented in Appendix A.

Another capability of this design is that the auxiliary jets can be

disassembled from the main jet, and the main jet operates as a single-slot impinging jet.

The difference between this model of the single-slot impinging jet and the previous one

is in the nozzle dimensions. In this thesis, these two different single-slot impinging jets

are referred to as the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet [Figure 3-2] and the long

nozzle single-slot impinging jet [Figure 3-5]. The effect of these two designs on wall

pressure profiles will be presented in Chapter 4.


Figure 3-5: Multiple-slot impinging jet schematic.

The experimental operating parameters for the multiple-slot impinging jet

are presented in Figure 3-6. As was the case for the single-slot impinging jet, d is the

main nozzle width and z is the distance from the exit of the main jet to the

impingement plate. The width of the auxiliary jet is designated by a, and the distance of

the exit of the auxiliary jet to the exit of the main jet is s. The distance from the exit of

the main jet to the impingement plate and the distance from the exit of the auxiliary jet

to the exit of the main jet were non-dimensionalized by dividing by the main

nozzle width (d). The measurements were performed for 4≤z/d≤12 in increments of 2.

The common plate-to- nozzle ratio in industry is 8, but it is required to carry out the

measurements for lower and greater value of z/d. In this study the auxiliary slot jet width

was held constant at twice of the main slot jet width, and the auxiliary jet velocity was

lower than the main jet velocity.


Most of the parameters values in this study were chosen based on the Tamadonfar [2010]

simulation parameters.

Figure 3-6: Schematic of multiple-slot impinging jet


parameters.

A specially constructed stagnation pressure probe used by Arthurs et al. [2013]

was used to measure the jet velocity profile at the jet exit for both the single-

slot impinging jet and multiple-slot impinging jet. Figure 3-7 compares the non-

dimensional velocity profiles at the exit of the short nozzle and long nozzle single-slot

impinging jets. As it can be seen, the velocity profiles had a uniform "top-hat" shape. It

can be seen that the boundary thickness of the long-nozzle single-slot jet is greater than

that of the short nozzle single-slot jet. Long nozzle provides more time for the boundary

layer of the flow to grow.


Dimensionless flow velocity (u/U)
Short Nozzle
Long Nozzle
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Dimensionless cross stream position (x/d)
Figure 3-7: Non-dimensional velocity profile at the exit of the short nozzle and
long nozzle single-slot impinging jets at Rem = 11000(PPlenum= 7.91 kPa), d = 1.5
mm.

*
The disturbance thickness (δ), displacement thickness (δ ) and the momentum
*
thickness (θ ) at the outlet of the long nozzle single-slot impinging jet for the free

stream jet velocity (U) of 113 m/s were 0.35, 0.155, and 0.036 mm, respectively, where

the definitions of disturbance thickness, displacement thickness and momentum

thickness are as follow:

  y for u ( y)  0.99U (3-1)

  (3-2)
u( y)  u( y) 
    yd yd
1 U 
  1 U
0 
0

  u( y) u( y)   u( u( y)  (3-3)

  
1 dy y)  dy
 
1
0  0  
U U U U
 
The dimensionless velocity profile at the exit of the multiple-slot impinging

jet nozzles for a main jet velocity of 113 m/s and auxiliary jet velocity of 55 m/s is

shown in

Figure 3-8.
Dimensionless flow velocity (u/U)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dimensionless cross-stream position (x/d)

Figure 3-8: Non-dimensional velocity profile at the exit of the multiple-slot impinging
jet nozzles.

3.3 Pressure Transducers

In order to measure the pressures in the plenum and on the impingement plate, a

Validyne DP-15 pressure transducer was used. The pressure within the plenum was

measured at the centerline of the jet upstream of the nozzle contraction. The accuracy

of
pressure transducer was 0.25% of full scale output. Different pressure sensor diaphragms

were used for every Reynolds number in order to improve the measurement accuracy.

The sensors properties for each Reynolds number are listed in Table 3-1. The

impingement plate was instrumented with 0.6 mm diameter holes to measure the static

pressure profiles at the plate. The 1 mm diameter static pressure tube has been

connected to the pressure transducer. The schematic of pressure measurement system is

shown in Figure 3-9.

Figure 3-9: Schematic of pressure measurement


facility.

The flow velocity (V) at the exit of the nozzle was calculated by the following
formula:

2   P  P   (3-4)
V  c. s 
1  1


  1  P 

where c is the speed of sound (343 m/s),  is the ratio of specific heats of air, Ps is the

static pressure in the plenum and P is the ambient pressure. The static pressure
was measured upstream of the nozzle contraction of the nozzles.
Table 3-1: Pressure transducer properties.

Main Jet Reynolds


Number

9000

11000

13000

20000

30000
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

This chapter begins with discussing the results of two different single-slot

impinging jets. The effect of various parameters will be studied. This includes the

effect

of plate-to-nozzle ratio (z/d), main jet Reynolds number (Rem), and jet inclination (∝) on
the wall pressure distribution. The chapter then continues with presenting
the

experimental results for the multiple-slot impinging jet, which is composed of one

main slot jet with two adjacent inclined auxiliary slot jets, as a function of plate-to-

nozzle ratios (z/d), main jet Reynolds number (Rem), and auxiliary jet Reynolds

number (Rea). The measured results for both single-slot and multiple-slot impinging

jets will then be used to verify the computational results of Tamadonfar [2010].

Finally, the effects of process parameters on both single-slot and multiple-slot

impinging jets will be summarized and discussed in the last section.

4.1 Single-Slot Impinging Jet

The single-slot impinging jet, which is the conventional model of air knife used

in galvanizing lines, consists of one main slot jet which discharges air onto the plate. In

this section, the effect of plate-to-nozzle ratio (z/d), main jet Reynolds number (Rem)

and jet

inclination angle (∝) on the pressure profile distribution on the plate will be presented.
Figure 4-1 shows a schematic of the short and long nozzle single-slot impinging
jets,
where d is the main jet slot width and z is the distance of the main jet exit to the strip.

In this study the main jet width was fixed at 1.5 mm.
Figure 4-1: Schematic of the single-slot impinging jet a) short nozzle b) long nozzle.

4.1.1 Effect of Plate-to-Nozzle Ratio (z/d)

The effect of plate-to-nozzle ratio (z/d) on the wall pressure distribution is

examined in this section. The non-dimensional wall pressure distributions for 6 z/d12

in increments of z/d=2 at Rem =11000 (Pplenum=7.91 kPa), which corresponds to a main

jet velocity of 113 m/s, for the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet and the long

nozzle single-slot impinging jet are shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3,

respectively. The horizontal axis is non-dimensionalized by the nozzle thickness (d) and

2
the vertical axis is non-dimensionalized by the dynamic pressure (0.5ρU ). It shows that

the maximum non- dimensional wall pressure is at the center line of the jet for all z/d. It

can also be seen that at z/d=6 the plate seems to be in the potential core of the jet

2
because the dynamic pressure at the jet exit (0.5ρU ) is fully recovered. By going

outside the potential core


(i.e. for z/d≥8), the maximum pressure decreases significantly with increasing z/d.

1.0
z/d=6
z/d=8
0.8 z/d=10
z/d=12
P/0.5U2
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4

x/d

Figure 4-2: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution at Rem=11000 for all z/d for
the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.

The non-dimensional wall pressure profiles for both the short nozzle and long

nozzle single-slot impinging jet for 6z/d12 at Rem=11000 are presented in Figure 4-4.

It can be seen that there were insignificant differences between the short nozzle and

the

long nozzle wall pressure distribution at z/d=6. However, the maximum non-

dimensional pressure for the short nozzle design is higher than the long nozzle design

for z/d higher than 6. The wall pressure distribution at z/d=6 did not change much

because the plate was within the potential core of the jet, however for higher z/d the

plate was outside of the potential core. The reason that the long nozzle had a lower

non-dimensional maximum pressure than the short nozzle design is that the long nozzle

design has thicker boundary layers, as shown in Figure 3-7.


1.0

0.8
P/0.5U2
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4

x/d

Figure 4-3: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution at Rem=11000 for all z/d for
the long nozzle single-slot impinging jet.

4.1.2 Effect of Main Jet Reynolds Number (Rem )

In this section, the effect of the main jet Reynolds number on the wall pressure

distribution will be reviewed. The main jet Reynolds number at the exit of the jet was

changed by varying the plenum pressure. The exit velocity was calculated by measuring

the static pressure in the plenum using the following formula [White, 2003]:

 1௠
 
U  c. 2   Ps (4-1)

 P 
1

1  P  
where c is the speed of sound, P the ambient pressure and  the specific heat ratio of air

[Table 3-1]. The pressure profiles for Rem of 11000, 20000, and 30000 for different plate-

to-nozzle ratios were investigated.

z/d = 6 Long Nozzle Jet z/d = 8 Long nozzle Jet


le Jet e Jet
1.0 1.0

0.8

P/0.5U
0.8
P/0.5U

2
2

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4 0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4
x/d x/d

z/d = 10 Long Nozzle Jet Jet e Jet


1.0 z/d = 10 Short Nozzle Jet 1.0
P/0.5U
P/0.5U

0.8 0.8
2
2

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4 0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4
x/d x/d
Figure 4-4: Non-dimensional wall pressure profile for the short nozzle and long
nozzle single-slot impinging jets for different z/d at Rem=11000.
Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show the non-dimensional wall pressure distribution

for Rem=20000 and Rem=30000 as a function of plate-to-nozzle ratio (z/d). The pressure

is non-dimensionalized by the jet dynamic pressure. Due to the fact that at this Reynolds

number the flow is in the compressible regions, the compressible value of the gas

density at the exit of the nozzle has used in calculations of the dynamic pressure. These

figures show that the maximum non-dimensional pressure occurred at the center line

of the jet for all z/d. It can be seen that the impingement plate was in the jet potential

core at z/d=6. As z/d increased, the maximum non-dimensional pressure decreased,

indicating that the impingement plate was no longer in the potential core. It can be seen

that for Rem=30000, the maximum pressure dropped significantly from z/d=6 to 8.

Comparison of the non- dimensional wall pressure profiles for different Reynolds

numbers [Figure 4-2, Figure 4-

5, and Figure 4-6] shows the plate was within the potential core for z/d=6 for

all Reynolds numbers. Thus, it can be concluded that the length of the potential core

was independent of the Reynolds number for the Rem range explored in this study.
1.0
z/d=12
z/d=10

P/(0.5U2)nozzle
z/d=8
0.8 z/d=6

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4

x/d

Figure 4-5: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution at Rem=20000 for the


short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.

1.0
P/(0.5U )Nozzle

z/d=6
z/d=8
0.8 z/d=10
2

z/d=12

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4

x/d
Figure 4-6: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution at Rem =30000 for the
short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.
Figure 4-7 compares the wall pressure distribution at different z/d as a function

of the main jet Reynolds number. It shows that the maximum wall pressure

increased significantly by increasing the main jet Reynolds number for all plate-to-

nozzle ratios (z/d).

The effect of main jet Reynolds number on the maximum wall pressure gradient

for different plate-to-nozzle ratios (z/d) is summarized in Figure 4-8. It shows that by

increasing the plenum pressure, which increases the main jet Reynolds number, the

maximum wall pressure gradient increases significantly for all z/d and decreases

with

increasing z/d for all Reynolds numbers.

z/d=6 60000 z/d=8 Rem=11000


Rem=11000 Rem=20000
60000 50000
Pressure (Pa)

Rem=20000 Rem=30000
50000 Rem=30000
40000
Pressure (Pa)

40000

30000 30000

20000 20000

10000 10000
0
0 -4 -2 0 2 4
-4 -2 0 2 4
x/d
x/d
z/d=10
z/d=12 Rem=11000
pressure (Pa)

60000
Rem=20000
Rem=30000
50000 40000 Rem=30000
40000
30000
Pressure (Pa)

30000

20000
20000

10000
10000
0 -4 -2 0 2 4
0 -4 -2 0 2 4
x/d x/d
Figure 4-7: Wall pressure profile distribution for different Rem and z/d for the single-
slot
impinging jet with short nozzle.
|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
30000

Re =30000
m
25000 Re =20000
m

Re
m
=11000
20000

15000

10000

5000

0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
z/d

Figure 4-8: Maximum wall pressure gradient as a function of Rem and z/d for the
short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.

Figure 4-9: Schematic of oblique single-impinging slot


jet.
4.1.3 Effect of Jet Inclination Angle (α)

The effect of jet inclination on the wall pressure profile was investigated

for different plate-to-nozzle ratios and Reynolds numbers. The measurements

were

performed for 6z/d12 in increments of z/d=2 at a downward jet inclination angle of 3°

(α=3º). The main jet Reynolds number was changed between 11000 and 30000. Figure

4-9 shows the configuration of a single-slot impinging jet with an incident angle of
α.

The non-dimensional pressure profile for the 3° tilted jet as a function of z/d for

Rem=11000 is shown in Figure 4-10. The non-dimensional maximum pressure decreased

with increasing z/d ratio. By inclining the jet, the maximum pressure did not change

and the location of the non-dimensional stagnation pressure moved further away from

the centerline of the main jet with increasing z/d ratio. The same trend was observed for

Reynolds numbers of 20000 and 30000.

Figure 4-11 compares the maximum pressure for the 3° inclined short nozzle

single-slot impinging jet with the non-inclined single-slot impinging jet as a function

of z/d for Rem=11000, 20000, and 30000, which correspond to the velocities of 113

m/s,

200, and 300 m/s, respectively. It can be observed that the maximum pressure for
all

plate-to-nozzle ratios (z/d) did not change significantly at Rem=11000 and

Rem=20000. The difference between the α=0° and α=3° is slightly greater for

Rem=30000. However, this difference is less than 6%.


z/d=6
1.0 z/d=8
z/d=10
0.8 z/d=12

P/0.5U2
0.6

0.4

0.2
0.0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
x/d
Figure 4-10: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution for different z/d at
Rem=11000 for short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.

Figure 4-11: Comparison of the maximum wall pressure as a function of z/d at α=0°
and
α=3° for short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.
Figure 4-12 shows the wall pressure gradient distribution for different Reynolds

numbers at z/d=10. The location of the maximum pressure gradient moved to a higher

x/d ratio by increasing Reynolds number. The value of the maximum pressure

gradient

increased with increasing Reynolds number.

Re
m =11000
Re =20000
m
15000
Re
m =30000
dp/dx (Pa/mm)

10000

5000

-5000

-10000

-15000 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

x/d

Figure 4-12: Wall pressure gradient distribution as a function of Rem at z/d=10 for

tilted short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.

Derivatives of the wall pressure gradient were calculated and the

maximum values of the pressure gradient plotted as functions of z/d and Reynolds

number in Figure

4-13. As illustrated in this figure, by increasing the plate-to-nozzle ratio, the maximum

pressure gradient decreased for all the Reynolds numbers, while the maximum pressure

gradient increased by increasing the Reynolds number for a fixed z/d.


40000

|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
m
Re =11000
35000
m Re =20000
30000 m Re =30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12

z/d
Figure 4-13: Maximum wall pressure gradient as a function of Rem and z/d for 3°
tilted short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.

Figure 4-14 compares the maximum pressure gradient of the tilted and non-tilted

single-slot impinging jet as a function of Rem for 6z/d12. It can be seen that for
Rem=11000 there was no significant difference in the maximum pressure gradient

between the tilted and non-tilted impinging jet. In addition, the maximum

pressure gradient of the tilted single-slot impinging jet is higher than the non-tilted

single-slot impinging jet for all measurement parameters except for z/d=10 at

Rem=30000 which is due to the lower maximum pressure of tilted impinging jet compare

to the non-tilted impinging jet [Figure 4-11]


|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
40000 z/d=6 20000 z/d=8
35000 Non-tilted 18000 Non-tilted
 
30000 16000
14000
25000

20000

15000

10000 4000
5000
2000
0 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)

|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
Rem Rem
z/d=10 z/d=12
16000 Non-tilted 12000 Non-tilted

14000 10000 



12000
8000
10000

8000 6000

6000 4000
4000
2000
2000
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Rem
Rem

Figure 4-14: Comparison of maximum pressure gradient as a function of


Reynolds

number between α=0° and α=3° tilted for the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet
.

4.2 Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet

In this section, a proposed design for the multiple-slot impinging jet by

Tamadonfar [2010] which consists of one main jet with two inclined jets at both sides

of the main jet was studied experimentally. The main slot jet discharges air

perpendicular to the plate while the auxiliary jets discharge air at a lower velocity than

the main jet at a

20 angle from the main slot jet centerline [Figure 4-15]. The effect of the plate-to-
nozzle

ratio (z/d), which was changed between 4 and 12, the main jet Reynolds

numbers changing between 9000 and 13000, and the auxiliary slot jets Reynolds number,

changing between 11000 and 15000, on the pressure distribution will be discussed. The

main jet width (d), auxiliary jet width (a) and the distance between the exit of the main

and auxiliary jet (s) were fixed at d=1.5 mm, a=3 mm (double the main jet width) and

s=19.7 mm, respectively. The wall pressure distribution for different plate-to-nozzle

ratio (z/d), main jet Reynolds number (Rem), and auxiliary jet Reynolds number

(Rea) will be presented.

It should be noted that, although the auxiliary jet Reynolds number was in

the same range as the main jet Reynolds number, the velocity of the auxiliary jet was

lower than the velocity of the main jet because the width of the auxiliary jet was twice

that of the main jet. The velocity of main jet was changed from 90 m/s to 130 m/s, and

the velocity of auxiliary jet was changed from 55 to 75 m/s.


Figure 4-15: Geometry of the multiple-slot impinging jet.

4.2.1 Effect of Plate-to-Nozzle Ratio (z/d)

The effect of the plate to nozzle ratio on the normalized pressure distribution is

reviewed for the multiple-slot impinging jet in this section. First, the experimental

results for different plate-to-nozzle ratios (z/d) at fixed main jet and auxiliary jet

Reynolds numbers are presented. It should be noted that, because of air supply

limitations and symmetric resulted profile of the multiple-slot impinging jet [Figure 3-

8], the measurements were performed for one half of the jet only. However, both

auxiliary jets were always used.

Figure 4-16 shows the wall pressure distribution for different values of z/d at the

main jet Reynolds number of Rem=9000 and auxiliary jets Reynolds number of

Rea=11000. It can be seen that adding auxiliary jets to the main jet changed the wall

pressure profile distribution compared to the single-slot impinging jet wall

pressure
profile. The shoulder which is seen in the pressure profile for z/d≤6 disappears for z/d=8
and higher. In addition, it shows that the stagnation pressure dropped as z/d
increased.

Figure 4-17 and Figure 4-18 show the effect of z/d for the higher Rem of 11000 and

13000 for the same Rea=11000. The same trends seen in Figure 4-16 are exemplified

in these two figures. It can be seen that, while the impingement plate was in the

potential core at z/d=6 for the single-slot impinging jet, the plate was not in the main jet

potential core at z/d=6 for the multiple-slot impinging jets. At the interaction zone of

the auxiliary jet and the main jet, the auxiliary jet flow accelerated and the main jet

flow decelerated because the auxiliary jet velocity was lower than the main jet velocity.

Consequently, the main jet potential core became a little bit smaller. It can be seen that

the impingement plate was at the main jet potential core at z/d=4 for all cases studied

[Figure 4-16, Figure 4-17, and Figure 4-18]. In addition, it can be seen that at low z/d

there was a secondary peak pressure which is resulted from the presence of the

auxiliary jet, while at higher z/d the secondary pressure peak disappeared. At z/d=4 and

6, the flow field of the auxiliary jets and the main jet have not merged, while at

z/d>6the auxiliary and main jets flow fields have been mixed.
1.0 z/d=4
z/d=6
z/d=8
0.8
m ) Nozzle
z/d=10
z/d=12
P/(0.5U

0.6
2

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x/d

Figure 4-16: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function of z/d at


Rem=9000 and Rea=11000.

1.0 z/d=4
z/d=6
0.8 z/d=8
)Nozzle

z/d=10
P/(0.5U

z/d=12
0.6
2
m

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x/d
Figure 4-17: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function of z/d
at
Rem=11000 and Rea=11000.
z/d
1.0

m ) Nozzle
0.8
P/(0.5U
2

0.6

0.4

0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x/d
Figure 4-18: Non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function ofz/d
at
Rem=13000 and Rea=11000

4.2.2 Effect of Main Jet Reynolds Number (Rem )

The effect of main jet Reynolds number (Rem) on the wall pressure distribution

is presented in this section. Rem was varied between 9000 and 13000 while Rea was fixed

at

11000. For all these cases, the main jet velocity was higher than the auxiliary jet

velocity. That is, the main jet velocity changed from 90 to 130 m/s, whereas the

auxiliary jet velocity was 55 m/s.

Figure 4-19 demonstrates the experimental wall pressure distribution at z/d=6. It

can be seen that increasing the main jet velocity did not have a significant effect on the

wall jet region (x/d>2), while the stagnation pressure increased with increasing Rem.

The same trend was seen for all z/d.


12000
Re
m =9000
Pressure (Pa) 10000 Re
m =11000
Re =13000
m
8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

x/d
Figure 4-19: Experimental wall pressure distribution as a function of Rem at
Rea=11000 and z/d=6.

4.2.3 Effect of Auxiliary Jet Reynolds Number (Rea)

The effect of Rea on the wall pressure distribution was investigated while keeping

Rem constant. Figure 4-20 shows the wall pressure distribution for two different Rea
of

11000 and 13000 with fixed Rem=11000 for z/d=8. According to this figure, by

increasing the auxiliary jet Reynolds number, the shoulder of the pressure distribution

became more pronounced while the main jet stagnation pressure dropped.
Re =13000
a

0.8 Re
a
=11000

)Nozzle
0.6
m
P/(0.5U
2

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

x/d

Figure 4-20: Experimental non-dimensional wall pressure distribution as a function


of
Rea with Rem=11000 at z/d=8.

Figure 4-21 presents the non-dimensional wall pressure distributions for

different Rea with Rem=11000 and z/d=4. The pressure was non-dimensionalized by the

dynamic pressure of the main nozzle. It can be seen that the main jet stagnation

pressure was independent of Rea, since the plate was within the potential core of the jet

while the shoulder of the wall pressure distribution (2<x/d<10) increased with

increasing Rea.

Figure 4-22 shows the maximum pressure gradient for 11000Rea15000 with
Rem=11000 and z/d=4. Although the maximum pressure was independent of Rea at

z/d=4 [Figure 4-21], it can be seen that the maximum pressure gradient was sensitive to

Rea and decreased with increasing Rea. The same trend has been seen for higher z/d.
Re
a =14000
Re
a =12000
1.0
Re
a =10000
m )Nozzle
0.8
P/(0.5U

0.6
2

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x/d

Figure 4-21: Experimental non-dimensional wall pressure distribution for different


Rea
with Rem=11000 and z/d=4.

3700
| (Pa/mm)

3600

3500

3400
max

3300
|(dP/dx)

3200

3100
3000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000

Rea
Figure 4-22: Experimental maximum pressure gradient as a function of auxiliary
jet
Reynolds number (Rea) with Rem=11000 and z/d=4.
4.3 Comparison between Multiple-Slot and Single-Slot Impinging Jet

In this section, the effect of adding the two inclined auxiliary jets to the main

jet on the pressure profiles will be examined. Figure 4-23 compares the non-dimensional

pressure profile distribution of the multiple-slot impinging jet and the single-slot

impinging jet with Rem=11000 and Rea=11000 at z/d=10. As observed in this figure, the

non-dimensional maximum wall pressure for the main jet of the multiple-slot

impinging jet configuration was higher than that of the single-slot impinging jet. As a

result of the presence of the auxiliary jets, more momentum has been added to the flow

field, and that caused the maximum pressure of multiple-slot impinging jet to be higher

than that of the single-slot jet.

Figure 4-24 shows the main jet maximum wall pressure as a function of plate-

to- nozzle ratio for both multiple and single-slot impinging jets. It can be seen that at

low z/d, there was no significant difference in the main jet maximum wall pressure

between the single-slot and multiple-slot impinging jets. However, the maximum

pressure of the multiple-slot impinging jet became higher than that of the maximum

pressure for the single-slot impinging jet by increasing z/d.


Single-impinging
Multiple-impingi
1.0

0.8
P/(0.5U )
2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10

x/d
Figure 4-23: Comparison of non-dimensional pressure distribution between the
single- slot and multiple slot impinging jets for Rem=11000, Rea=11000 and
z/d=10.

8000 Single-impinging slot jet


Multiple-impinging slot jet
7500
P max (Pa)

7000

6500

6000

5500

5000

6 7 8 9 10 11 12
z/d
Figure 4-24: Comparison of maximum pressure of short nozzle single-slot and
multiple- slot impinging jets for various values of z/d, Rem=11000 and
Rea=11000.
Although the maximum non-dimensional pressure of multiple-slot impinging

jet is higher than the single-slot impinging jet [Figure 4-24], the maximum pressure

gradient for the multiple-slot impinging jet was lower than that of the single-slot

impinging jet, as can be seen from Figure 4-25. These results matched well with the

results of Kim et al. [2010] who proposed the multiple-slot impinging jet. The auxiliary

nozzles gas particles, which have the lower speed compared to the main nozzle, collide

with the main jet gas particles and it results in the overall gas speed decrease along the

length of the steel substrate.

Based on the coating weight model of Elsaadawy [2007], the final coating

weight is a function of maximum pressure gradient and maximum shear stress.

Figure 4-26 shows that at low z/d for the single-slot impinging jet and all z/d for the

multiple-slot impinging jet, the maximum shear stress does not change

significantly. Thus, it is expected that at these regions, the maximum pressure

gradient has more dominant effect on the final coating weight. However, maximum

shear stress changes become more significant for higher z/d. Since, increasing the

Reynolds number results in higher values of the maximum wall pressure gradient

[Figure 4-7], this is likely to lead to thinner coatings. However, there is still limitation

due to the full splashing [Dubois, 2005] or high noise levels generation at high

Reynolds numbers which are close to the sonic velocity. For higher z/d, the value of

shear stress should be obtained in order to fully determine the trends of coating weight

changes with z/d or Rem.


|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
4500
Single-impinging
4000 Multiple-impingin

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

z/d
Figure 4-25: Comparison of maximum pressure gradient of single and multiple-
slot impinging jets for various values of z/d, Rem=11000 and Rea=11000.

Figure 4-26: Non-dimensional shear stress for single-slot and multiple-slot impinging
jet at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000 [Tamadonfar, 2010].
The area under the half of pressure profiles for the single-slot and multiple-slot

impinging jets, which represents the reaction force per unit width of plate, for 6z/d12
was numerically calculated by integrating the pressure distribution curve using
Trapezoid

rule [Equation (4-2)] for each z/d. The results are shown in Figure 4-27. It can be seen

that the force per unit width of plate for the single-impinging jet remained nearly

constant (the maximum difference is 3 percent) in order to balance the jet’s momentum

flux. Moreover, the value of F/dx for the multiple-slot impinging jet was greater than

that of the single-slot impinging jet, so the force that the multiple-slot impinging jets

exerted on the plate was greater than that of the single-slot impinging jet. Therefore, the

use of the

multiple-slot impinging jet may stabilize the steel strip and reduce its
vibration.

b 1 N
f ( x)dx 
x k 1 k   k 1  k 
  (4-2)


a 2 k 1
Force / Width (N/m)

34
Multiple-slot imp
Single-slot imp

32

30

28

26
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
z/d
Figure 4-27: Comparison of force per unit width of single-slot and multiple-
slot impinging jet as a function of z/d at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000.
4.4 Computational Results Validation

The computational results of Tamadonfar [2010] for the single-slot and

multiple- slot impinging jets configurations were compared with the present

experimental results in this section.

4.4.1 Single-slot Impinging Jet

Experimental versus simulated pressure profiles for 6z/d12 at Rem=11000 are


presented in this section. Figure 4-28 presents a comparison of the numerical
non-

dimensional wall pressure profile versus the experimental data for the short nozzle

single- slot impinging jet as function of z/d. It can be seen that the value of the

predicted maximum non-dimensional pressure for z/d=6 is not significantly different

from the measured one. However, the simulated maximum non-dimensional pressure is

slightly higher than the experimental maximum non-dimensional pressure for z/d≥8.

Also, it can be seen that the experimental pressure distributions were slightly

broader than the simulated pressure profile distributions.

Figure 4-29 shows the simulated maximum pressure gradient versus the

experimental maximum pressure gradient for the short nozzle design for z/d=6 at

Rem=11000. It can be seen that the maximum pressure gradient is shifted to higher x/d

compared to the simulation results. This is due to the fact that the experimental

pressure distribution is broader than the simulated pressure distribution. Figure 4-30

compares the simulated and calculated maximum pressure gradient as a function of

plate-to-nozzle
ratio (z/d). It can be seen that for all plate-to-nozzle ratios, the simulated maximum

pressure gradient is higher than the experimental. These differences might be resulting

from the difference between the simulation jet exit velocity profile and the

experimental jet exit velocity profiles. Figure 4-31 shows that the simulated velocity

profile has a parabolic shape which arises from the long parallel nozzle geometry of

the simulation. The disturbance thickness (δ), displacement thickness (δ*) and the

momentum thickness (θ*) of computational result of Tamadonfar [2010] and the

current measurements are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Shear layer thickness (δ, δ*, θ*) of computational [Tamadonfar, 2010]
and experimental results at the exit of the nozzle.

disturbance thickness (δ) (mm)

displacement thickness (δ*) (mm)

momentumthickness (θ*) (mm)


Figure 4-28: Experimental versus simulated [Tamadonfar, 2010] non-dimensional
pressure profile for different z/d at Rem=11000 (short nozzle single-slot impinging jet).
6000 z/d = 6 Simulation
z/d = 6 Experiment
4000

dP/dx (Pa/mm)
2000

-2000

-4000
-6000 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
x (mm)

Figure 4-29: Comparison of simulated [Tamadonfar, 2010] and experimental pressure

profile derivatives 
 dp at Re =11000 for the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet.
 m
dx 
|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)

5000 Experiment
Simulation
4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000
1500 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
z/d

Figure 4-30: Experimental and simulated [Tamadonfar, 2010] maximum pressure


gradient as a function of z/d for Rem=11000 for the short nozzle single-slot impinging
jet.
Dimensionless flow velocity (u/U)
Simulation
Short Nozzle
Long Nozzle
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6


Dimensionless cross stream position (x/d)
Figure 4-31: Comparison between the experimental and simulated jet exit velocity
profile
[Tamadonfar, 2010].

4.4.2 Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet

Figure 4-32 compares the experimental non-dimensional wall pressure

distribution with the numerical results of Tamadonfar [2010] as a function of z/d

ratio.

The second peak pressure seen in the experimental pressure profiles at z/d6 was not

observed in the simulation results. The simulated non-dimensional pressure profiles at

x/d>4,
the the area affected
experimental resultsby
forthe presence
z/d≥8. of the the
However, auxiliary jet, were
simulated in good
stagnation agreement
pressure with
is higher

than the experimental one. As observed in Figure 4-32, the simulated maximum

non- dimensional pressure at z/d=6 was more than one, which means that the

stagnation
pressure was higher than the pressure inside the plenum, which does not seem

reasonable. Therefore, it can be concluded that the simulation has overestimated

the maximum pressure.

The comparison between the simulated and experimental maximum pressure

gradient as a function of z/d for a Rem=11000 and Rea=11000 is shown in Figure 4-33. It

shows that the simulated maximum pressure gradient was higher than the experimental

result, which was also seen in the single-slot impinging jet results.

Figure 4-32: Simulated [Tamadonfar, 2010] and experimental non-dimensional


pressure profile distribution comparison for different z/d at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000
for multiple-slot impinging jet.
|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
Simulation
4000
Experiment

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

z/d
Figure 4-33: Comparison of simulation [Tamadonfar, 2010] and experimental
maximum pressure gradient as a function of z/d at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000 for
multiple-slot impinging jet.

The comparison of wall pressure distributions between the simulation data of

Tamadonfar [2010] and the experimental results at Rem=11000, Rea=11000 and z/d=4 is

presented in Figure 4-34. The experimental stagnation pressure is significantly lower

than the simulated stagnation pressure. Since the plate was at the potential core of the

main jet z/d=4, the same pressure as the plenum pressure was expected for the

stagnation pressure. As mentioned earlier the simulation likely over-predicted the

stagnation pressure. In addition, it can be seen that no secondary peak pressure,

observed at low z/d in the experimental results, was detected for the simulation results

for all z/d ratios.


Figure 4-35 compares the experimental and simulated maximum pressure gradient as

a function of Rem at fixed Rea and z/d. The simulated maximum pressure gradient was

significantly higher than the experimental results.

10000

Experim
Simulati
Pressure (Pa)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

x/d

Figure 4-34: Comparison of the experimental and numerical [Tamadonfar, 2010] wall
pressure distribution for Rem=11000, Rea=11000 at z/d=4 for multiple-slot impinging
jet.

The numerical maximum pressure gradient as a function of auxiliary jet

Reynolds number at Rem=11000 and z/d=4 is presented in Figure 4-36. According to

this figure, the maximum pressure gradient decreased with increasing Rea to

approximately 12000 and then it increased. By comparing Figure 4-22 and Figure 4-36,

it can be seen that there

dp
is a significant difference between the values of the numerical and experimental .
dx max
dp did not increase at Rea=14000, but continued to decrease
Also, the experimental
dx max

with increasing auxiliary jet Reynolds number.


|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
6500
6000 Experiment
Simulation
5500
5000

4500
4000

3500
3000
2500
2000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Rem
Figure 4-35: Maximum wall pressure gradient for different main jet Reynolds number
at
z/d=4 and Rea=11000 [Tamadonfar, 2010] for multiple-slot impinging jet.
|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)

4600

4400

4200

4000

3800

3600 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Rea
Figure 4-36: Numerical maximum wall pressure gradient as a function of Rea
with
Rem=11000 and z/d=4.
4.5 Discussion

In this section, the results of the experiments are summarized and discussed. An

experimental study has been carried out to understand the effect of various gas jet

wiping process parameters such as Reynolds number (Rem, Rea), plate-to-nozzle ratio

(z/d) and jet inclination angle (α) on the wall pressure distribution for two different

air knife configurations, which are the conventional air knife (single-slot impinging jet)

and multiple-slot impinging jet, respectively.

4.5.1 Effect of Plate-to-Nozzle Ratio (z/d)

The effect of plate-to-nozzle ratio (z/d) on the wall pressure distribution and

maximum pressure gradient for single-slot and multiple-slot impinging jets was

investigated and compared with the numerical results of Tamadonfar [2010]. The results

showed that by increasing the plate-to-nozzle ratio (z/d), the maximum wall pressure

gradient [Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-37] and maximum wall pressure [Figure 4-38 and

Figure 4-39] decreased for both the single-slot and multiple-slot impinging jet designs.
|(dP/dx)max| (Pa/mm)
9000
z/d=4
8000 z/d=6 z/d=8 z/d=10 z/d=12
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

9000 10000 11000 12000 13000


Rem

Figure 4-37: Maximum wall pressure gradient for the multiple-slot impinging jet as
a function of Rem for 4z/d12 at Rea=11000.

Re = 11000 m
60000
Re
m = 20000
Re = 30000
m
50000
P max (Pa)

40000

30000

20000

10000

6 7 8 9 10 11 12
z/d

Figure 4-38: Maximum wall pressure for the short nozzle single-slot impinging jet as
a function of z/d for different Rem at Rea=11000.
8000

7500
P max (Pa)
7000

6500

6000

5500
5000 4 6 8 10 12
z/d

Figure 4-39: Maximum wall pressure for the multiple-slot impinging jet as a function
of
z/d at Rem=11000 and Rea=11000.

At z/d=6, the plate was within the potential core of the single-slot impinging

jet for all Rem as the non-dimensional wall pressure was equal to one [Figure 4-3, Figure

4-5, and Figure 4-6]. However, Figure 4-16, Figure 4-17, and Figure 4-18 showed that

the maximum wall pressure for the multiple-slot impinging jet was somewhat smaller

than the plenum pressure at z/d=6, which indicates that at this z/d ratio the impingement

plate was slightly out of the potential core of the main jet. Although, the maximum

pressure of the multiple-slot impinging jet at z/d>6 was higher than the maximum

pressure of the single-slot impinging jet [Figure 4-24], the maximum pressure gradient

for the multiple- slot impinging jet was smaller than the maximum pressure gradient of

the single-slot impinging jet for z/d>6 [Figure 4-25]. By assuming that the maximum

pressure gradient is the only process parameter in determining the final coating weight,

it can be concluded
that the single slot impinging jet would produce a lighter coating weight. However, it

should be noted that based on the Elsaadawy [2007] coating weight model, [Equation

(2-

6)], the shear stress also has effect on the final coating weight. Therefore, in order to

state the definitive effect of the multiple-slot impinging jet and single-slot impinging jet

on the coating weight, the shear stress at the wall must be measured. The

simulated wall pressure profiles of Tamadonfar [2010] are similar in shape with the

experimental results of this study and most authors such as Tu & wood [1996],

Elsaadawy et al. [2007], and Cho et al. [2009]. However, for both the single-slot and

multiple-slot impinging jets the experimental values of the maximum wall pressure and

maximum wall pressure gradient were lower than the simulation results for z/d>6. The

computational results shown in Figure 4-28 indicate that the plate is still in the potential

core of the jet at z/d=8. The instabilities in the shear layer of the main jet grow

exponentially as they convect downstream. The generated flow vortical structures

impinge on the plate, and generate pressure fluctuations at the impinging zone which

travel back upstream to exit lips of the nozzle and enhance the instabilities in the initial

shear layer [Arthurs, 2012]. This mechanism increases the velocity fluctuations of the

jet column and jet spread rate. The simulation [Tamadonfar, 2010] does not account for

the shear layer instability and the pressure perturbation in the impingement zone

accurately. As a result, the value of the potential core length of the main jet is greater

than it was shown in the experimental results.


4.5.2 Reynolds Number Effect (Re)

The effect of the main jet Reynolds number (Rem) on the maximum pressure and

maximum pressure gradient were examined experimentally for two models of air knife

as well as the effect of the auxiliary jet Reynolds number (Rea) for the multiple-slot jet.

The experimental results were compared to the simulation results of Tamadonfar

[2010]. It was shown that increasing the Rem at a constant z/d caused the maximum

wall pressure

 dp 
(Pmax) [Figure 4-40 and Figure 4-41] and maximum wall pressure gradient 

dx
 max 

[Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-37] to increase for both the single-slot and multiple-slot jet

designs.

60000 z/d=6 z/d=8 z/d=10 z/d=1

50000

40000
(Pa)

30000
max

20000
P

10000

0
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Rem
Figure 4-40: Maximum wall pressure of short nozzle single-slot impinging jet as
a function of Rem for 6z/d12.
11000
z/d=4 z/d=6
10000 z/d=8 z/d=10 z/d=12
9000
8000
P max (Pa)

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000

Rem
Figure 4-41: Maximum wall pressure of multiple-slot impinging jet as a function of
Rem
for 4 z/d 12 and Rea=11000.

It was also determined from Figure 4-20 and Figure 4-22 that the maximum wall

 dp 
pressure (Pmax) and maximum wall pressure gradient  decreased by increasing

dx max 

the auxiliary jet Reynolds number (Rea) when the Rem and z/d were kept constant for

z/d>6. While the plate is at the potential core of the jet (z/d<6), the maximum

pressure was not affected by Rea changes, whereas, the maximum pressure gradient

decreases since the main peak of the pressure profiles became wider [Figure 4-21 and

Figure 4-22]. However, the numerical investigation of Tamadonfar [2010] on predicting

the effect of Rea on the wall pressure profile showed that increasing the Rea

would cause the maximum wall pressure to increase. Based on the numerical

results it was expected adding the auxiliary jets makes the main jet flow more

confined and adds more


momentum into the flow and as a result increase the maximum wall pressure.

Although, the experimental results showed that adding auxiliary jet increased the flow

momentum and enhanced the maximum pressure compare to the single impinging jet,

increasing the auxiliary jet velocity at z/d>6 resulted in that auxiliary flow field cut

into the main jet flow field column and caused a drop in the maximum wall pressure.

4.5.3 Jet Inclination Effect (α)

The effect of impinging jet inclination on the gas wiping process was

investigated for the single-slot impinging jet design. The study was done for a jet

inclination angle of

3° and the results were compared with the non-inclined jet. The results showed that the

maximum wall pressure gradient increased as the Rem increased and the z/d decreased,

as shown in Figure 4-13. It was also seen that the maximum pressure gradient was

independent of jet inclination for low main jet Reynolds numbers [Rem=11000]. For the

higher main jet Reynolds number of Rem=20000 and Rem=30000, the inclined jet

maximum pressure gradient was somewhat higher than that of non-inclined jet [Figure

4-

14]. However, the maximum wall pressure was not affected by an inclination angle
of

3°for all tested z/d [Figure 4-11]. The simulation results of Elsaadawy et al. [2004] also

showed that the maximum wall pressure does not change significantly by changing the

jet inclination between 0° and 30° at Re=11000.


Chapter 5: Conclusions and Future Work

5.1 Conclusions

This thesis experimentally investigated the behaviour of two air knife

geometries: a single-slot impinging jet (conventional air knife) and a multiple-slot

impinging jet composed of one main jet and two inclined auxiliary jets discharging air

at a lower velocity in comparison with the main jet, for different continuous hot-dip

galvanizing process parameters such as main jet Reynolds number (Rem), auxiliary

jet Reynolds number (Rea), plate-to-nozzle ratio (z/d), and jet inclination angle (α). The

experimental results were then used to examine the computational study of Tamadonfar

[2010].

For the single-slot impinging jet, the maximum wall pressure and the maximum

wall pressure gradient decreased with increasing z/d at constant Rem. Whereas the

maximum wall pressure and maximum wall pressure gradient increased with increasing

Rem. Comparing the results of the tilted and not-tilted (horizontal) single-slot

impinging jet showed that the maximum wall pressure did not change with an inclination

angle of 3° for the tested range of Reynolds numbers. However, the maximum pressure

gradient of the inclined impinging jet for high Reynolds numbers was higher than the

maximum pressure gradient of the non-inclined impinging jet.

Similarly, the maximum wall pressure and maximum wall pressure gradient of

the multiple-slot impinging jet decreased with increasing z/d and decreasing Rem.

However, increasing the auxiliary jet Reynolds number (Rea) resulted in a decrease in

the maximum
wall pressure. Comparison between the single-slot and multiple-slot impinging jet

showed that the maximum wall pressure of the multiple-slot impinging main jet was

higher than that of the single-slot impinging jet. However, the maximum pressure

gradient of the multiple-slot impinging main jet was less than the maximum wall

pressure gradient of the single-slot impinging jet. In addition, the length of the main jet

potential core for the multiple-slot impinging jet was slightly less than that of the

single-slot impinging jet.

Comparison between the numerical results of Tamadonfar [2010] and the

experimental results showed that the value of the simulated maximum wall pressure

for the single-slot impinging jet was greater than the experimentally measured

maximum wall pressure except for z/d=6. Based on the numerical results, the plate at

z/d=8 was still in the potential core of the jet, so the numerical results could not

successfully predict the length of the potential core of the jet. It seems that the

simulation could not accurately simulate the instabilities in the shear layer, flapping

of the jet and small pressure perturbations at the impingement zone which combined

to produce a source of the energy dissipation. Similarly, the maximum wall pressure of

the multiple-slot impinging jet obtained from the simulations of Tamadonfar [2010]

was higher than the experimental maximum pressure. The trends of the numerical

results agreed with the experimental results at z/d≥8 for all tested Rem. The effect of the

auxiliary jet on the experimentally measured pressure profiles at high x/d for z/d≤6,

which showed the presence of a secondary pressure peak, was not observed in the

numerical results. Besides, inconsistent with the experimental results, the computational

results showed that by increasing Rea the


maximum wall pressure increased. In the simulated flow field, the auxiliary jet flows

merged with the main jet flow field at lower z/d and formed one flow field which also

helped in increasing the main jet flow field momentum. As a result, some differences

(higher maximum pressure and not detecting the second peak pressure) have been

observed between the simulated and experimental results for the multiple-slot

impinging jet. In experimental measurements at z/d<6, the pressure field associated with

the two auxiliary jets and the main jet could still be identified on the plate.

5.2 Future Work

The use of multiple-slot jets for coating weight control in continuous

galvanizing is a new idea, and there are some numerical studies on this. On the other

hand, there are no experimental studies which focus on multiple-slot impinging jet

applications in the hot-dip galvanizing process. This study was the first which

attempted to study multiple- slot impinging jets experimentally. As a result, there are a

lot of studies remaining to be completed. In order to determine the final coating weight,

the shear stresses at the wall must be measured. A new technique should be developed to

enhance the plate boundary layer measurements at high jet velocities. There are still

considerable studies which can be done on studying the effect of the different

parameters such as s/d, a, or Rea on wall pressure and shear stress profile and

consequently the final coating weight. In this work the value of Rea for both auxiliary

jets was kept the same, but in future studies the effect of non-symmetric Rea can be

examined. In addition, there was no attempt to study the noise generation of multiple-

slot impinging jet in this thesis. Therefore, studies should be


carried out in order to characterize the noise generation with multiple-slot impinging

jet as a function of different process parameters.


References

Ahn, K. J. & Chung M. K. (2006). A noble gas wiping system to prevent the edge
overcoating in continuous hot-dip galvanizing. ISIJ International. 46(4), 573-578.

Arthurs, D., (2007). Noise generation in the gas wiping process.Master of Science
dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.

Barata, J. M. M., & Durao, D. F. G. (2004). Laser-Doppler measurements of impinging


jet flows through a crossflow. Experiments in Fluids, 36(5), 665–674.

Behnia, M., Parneix, S., Shabnay, Y., Durbin, P. A. (1999). Numerical study of turbulent
heat transfer in confined and unconfined impinging jets. International Journal of
Heat and Fluid Flow, 20, 1–9.

Camci, C., Herr, F., 2002. Forced convection heat transfer enhancement using a
selfoscillating impinging planar jet. Journal of Heat Transfer, 124(4), 770–782.

Cho, T.-S., Kwon, Y.-D., & Kwon, S.-B. (2009). A study of the influence of air-knife
tilting on coating thickness in hot-dip galvanizing. Journal of Thermal
Science,
18(3), 262–267.

Corporation, T., Monica, S., & Corporation, A. S. (1976). An Analytical Description


of the Jet Finishing Process for Hot-Dip Metallic Coatings on Strip.
Metallurgical Transactions B, 7(4), 607–618.

Dubois M., (2011). Galvatech 2011 Conference Proceedings: HDG Process


Technologies - Wiping, June 21 – 24, 2011, Genova, Italy, Associazione Italiana
di Metallurgia.

Durst, F., Jovanovic, J., Sender, J. (1995). LDA measurements in the near-wall region
of a turbulent pipe flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 295, 305–335.

Durst, F., Kikura, H., Lekakis, I., Jovanovi, J., & Ye, Q. (1996). Wall shear stress
determination from near-wall mean velocity data in turbulent pipe and channel
flows. Experiments in Fluids, 20.

Durst, F., Zanoun, E.-S., & Pashtrapanska, M. (2001). In situ calibration of hot
wires close to highly heat-conducting walls. Experiments in Fluids, 31(1), 103–
110.

Ellen, C. H. and C. V. Tu (1984). An analysis of jet stripping of liquid coatings. Journal


of Fluids Engineering-Transactions of the ASME, 106(4), 399-404.

89
89
Elsaadawy, E. a., Hanumanth, G. S., Balthazaar, a. K. S., McDermid, J. R., Hrymak, a.
N., & Forbes, J. F. (2007). Coating Weight Model for the Continuous Hot-Dip
Galvanizing Process. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, 38(3), 413–
424.

Fairweather, M., & Hargrave, G. (2002). Experimental investigation of an


axisymmetric, impinging turbulent jet. 1. Velocity field. Experiments in Fluids,
33(3), 464–471.

Gosset, A., & Buchlin, J.-M. (2007). Jet Wiping in Hot-Dip Galvanization. Journal of
Fluids Engineering, 129(4), 466.

Hammad, K.J., Milanovic, I. (2011). Flow structure in the near-wall region of a


submerged impinging jet. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 133 (9), p 091205 (9
pp.).

Kim, G. Y., Park H. D., Lee, E., Chung, W. C. (2010). Gas Wiping Apparatus Having
Multiple Nozzles. Patent number- US20100031879.

Kubacki, S., & Dick, E. (2009). Convective heat transfer prediction for an
axisymmetric jet impinging onto a flat plate with an improved k-ω model.
International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, 19(8), 960–
981.

Kubacki, S., Dick, E. (2011). Hybrid RANS/LES of flow and heat transfer in round
impinging jets. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 32, 631-651.

Kweon, Y.-H., & Kim, H.-D. (2011). Study on the wiping gas jet in continuous
galvanizing line. Journal of Thermal Science, 20(3), 242–247.

Li, H-L., Chiang, H-W. D., Hsu, C-N., (2011). Jet impingement and forced convection
cooling experimental study in rotating turbine blades. International Journal of
Turbo and Jet Engines, 28, 147–158.

Loureiro, J. B. R., & Freire, A. P. S. (2012). On the dynamic behavior of turbulent


impinging jets. THMT-12. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium
On Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer Palermo, Italy, 24-27, 1–12.

Marder, A. R. (2000). The metallurgy of zinc-coated steel. Progress In Materials Science,


45(3): 191 -27 1.

Maurel, S., & Solliec, C. (2001). A turbulent plane jet impinging nearby and far from
a flat plate. Experiments in Fluids, 31(January 2000), 687–696.

90
90
Mehta, R., Bradshaw. P., (1979). Design Rules for Small Low-Speed Wind
Tunnels.Aeronautical Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society.83, 443–449.

Myrillas, K., Gosset, a., Rambaud, P., & Buchlin, J. M. (2009). CFD simulation of gas-
jet wiping process. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 166(1), 93–97.

Myrillas, K. Gosset, A., Rambaud, P., Anderhuber, M., Mataigne, J.-M., Buchlin, J.-M.
(2011). Technique for delaying splashing in jet wiping process. Chemical
Engineering and Processing, 50(5-6), 466–70.

Tamadonfar, P., (2010). Numerical investigation of multiple-impinging slot jet in the


gas- jet wiping of liquid zinc coating. Master of Science dissertation, McMaster
University, Hamilton, ON.

Thornton, J.A., Graff, M.F., 1976, An analytical description of the jet finishing
process for hot-dip metallic coating on strip, Metallurgical Trans. B, 7B, 607-618

Tu, C. V. (1993). Strip coating device having jet strippers to control coating thickness.
Patent number 5,254,166.

Tu, C. V. (1994). Stripping liquid coatings. Patent number 5,360,641.

Tu, C. V. and Wood, D. H. (1996). Wall pressure and shear stress measurements beneath
an impinging jet. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,13(4), 364-373.

White F. M., Fluid Mechanics, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston p. 580.

Yoneda, H., (1993). Analysis of air-knife coating. Master of Science dissertation,


University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Yoon, H. G. and Chung, M. K. (2010). Development of novel air-knife system to


prevent check-mark stain on galvanized strip surface. ISIJ International, 50(5),
752-759.

Zhe, J., & Modi, V. (2001). Near Wall Measurements for a Turbulent Impinging Slot Jet.
Journal of Fluids Engineering, 123(1), 112.

Zu, Y. Q., Yan, Y. Y., & Maltson, J. (2009). Numerical Study on Stagnation Point Heat
Transfer by Jet Impingement in a Confined Narrow Gap. Journal of Heat
Transfer, 131(9), 094504.

Coleman, H.W., Steele, W.G., (1999). Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for
Engineers, 2nd Edition. Wiley-Interscience.
Appendix A: Dimensions of Impinging Jets

In this section, the dimensions of each part of the single-slot and multiple-

slot impinging jet have been presented.

A.i Single-Slot Impinging Jet

Figure A-1: Isometric view of the single-slot impinging jet.


Figure A-2: Single-slot impinging jet plenum.
Figure A-3: Single-slot impinging jet top cap.
Figure A-4: Single-slot impinging jet nozzle flange.
Figure A-5: Single-slot impinging jet bottom cap.
A.ii Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet

Figure A-6: Isometric views of multiple-slot impinging jet.


Figure A-7: Top cap of the multiple-slot impinging jet
Figure A-8: Main jet plenum of the multiple-slot impinging jet.
Figure A-9: Auxiliary jet plenum of the multiple-slot impinging jet.

100
1001
Figure A-10: Main jet nozzle flange of the multiple-slot impinging jet.
Figure A-11: Auxiliary jet side flange of the multiple-slot impinging jet.
Figure A-12: Auxiliary jet front flange of the multiple-slot impinging jet.
Figure A-13: Bottom cap of the multiple-slot impinging jet.
Appendix B: Wall Pressure Profiles

In this section, the wall pressure profiles of single-slot impinging jet and

the multiple-slot impinging jet are presented in the dimensional scale.

B.i Single-Slot Impinging Jet

8000 z/d=6
7000 z/d=8
z/d=10
pressure (Pa)

6000 z/d=12
5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
x (mm)
Figure B-1: Wall pressure distribution at U=113m/s for all z/d for the short nozzle
single- slot impinging jet at α=0°.
26000 z/d=12
24000 z/d=10
22000 z/d=8

pressure (Pa)
20000 z/d=6
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
x (mm)
Figure B-2: Wall pressure distribution at U=200 m/s for all z/d for the short nozzle
single- slot impinging jet at α=0°.

60000 z/d=12
z/d=10
50000 z/d=8
pressure (Pa)

z/d=6
40000

30000

20000

10000

0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
x (mm)
Figure B-3: Wall pressure distribution at U=300 m/s for all z/d for the short nozzle
single- slot impinging jet at α=0°.
8000 z/d=12
z/d=10
7000
z/d=8

pressure (Pa)
6000 z/d=6

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
x (mm)
Figure B-4: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at U=113 m/s for short
nozzle single-slot impinging jet at α=3°.

25000 z/d=12
z/d=10
z/d=8
pressure (Pa)

20000
z/d=6

15000

10000

5000

0
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
x (mm)
Figure B-5: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at U=200 m/s for short
nozzle single-slot impinging jet at α=3°.
70000 z/d=12
z/d=10
60000
z/d=8

pressure (Pa)
50000
z/d=6

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
distance (mm)
Figure B-6: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at U=300 m/s for short
nozzle single-slot impinging jet at α=3°.
B.ii Multiple-Slot Impinging Jet

5000
z/d
Pressure (Pa)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
x (mm)
Figure B-7: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at Um=90 m/s and Ua=55 m/s
for multiple-slot impinging jet.
9000
z/d=4
8000 z/d=6
Pressure (Pa)

7000 z/d=8
z/d=10
6000 z/d=12
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x (mm)
Figure B-8: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at Um=113 m/s and Ua=55 m/s
for multiple-slot impinging jet.
z/d=4
10000 z/d=6

Pressure (Pa)
z/d=8
8000 z/d=10
z/d=12
6000

4000

2000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x (mm)
Figure B-9: Wall pressure distribution for different z/d at Um=130 m/s and Ua=55 m/s
for multiple-slot impinging jet.

8000
Ua=75 m
Pressure (Pa)

7000 Ua=65 m
Ua=55 m
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distance (mm)
Figure B-10: Wall pressure distribution for different Ua at Um=113 m/s and z/d=4
for multiple-slot impinging jet.

110
1101
7000 Ua=55 m/s
Ua=65 m/s
6000

5000
Pressure (Pa)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distance (mm)

Figure B-11: Wall pressure distribution for different Ua at Um=113 m/s and z/d=6
for multiple-slot impinging jet.

Ua=55 m/s
6000
U
a =65 m/s

5000
Pressure (Pa)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Distance (mm)

Figure B-12: Wall pressure distribution for different Ua at Um=113 m/s and z/d=8
for multiple-slot impinging jet.
Appendix C: Uncertainty Analysis

The uncertainties associated with the present experimental results are discussed

in this section. According to Coleman and Steels [1999], for a variable (r) which is

functions of J independent measured variables (Xi):

r  f ( X 1 , X 2 , ..., X (C-1)
J)

the overall uncertainty in variable (r), (  r ), can be found by using the Kline and

McClintok method given as:

J (C-2)
r       2
i
i 1 Xi

where i  r and  X is the uncertainty for each measured variable.


X i i

C.i Flow Velocity Uncertainty

The flow velocity at the exit of the nozzle was calculated by using the

following equation which is for compressible flow through an isentropic and lossless

nozzle:

 1 
U  c. 2   P s (C-3)
1
 P 


 1  P 

where c is the speed of sound in air,  is the ratio of specific heats of air, Ps is the static

pressure in the plenum and P is the ambient pressure. Air can be assumed as an ideal gas

with  =1.40. The speed of sound in air is calculated as:

c  (C-4)
RT

where R is the ideal gas constant [R=287.04 J/(kg.K)] and T is the ambient temperature in

Kelvin. Therefore, the equation (C-3) can be written as:

 1 ௠
2 RT   Ps  P  (C-5)
U 1
  
  1  P  

The independent variables used in equation (C-5) which affect the uncertainty in

U are: the ambient temperature (T), the ambient pressure (P∞), and the static pressure

in the nozzle plenum (Ps). Therefore, expanding equation (C-2) for the three

introduced

variables, we obtain:

2 2 2
U  U  U  U (C-6)
   
T
 P  P
  s    
U T P
 s P 
Substituting the equation (C-5) into equation (C-6) and simplifying, equation (C-3) leads

to the following [Arthurs, 2012]:

  

2 2
    
  
1  2  P  1 Ps  
 2   P 2
2
     s    2  
2
 
U 1   T 2  2 P   2 P  
 

 

U  2T    1

1 
  


  Ps  P       Ps  P   Ps  P 
   
Ps  P  

   
  
   


  P P    P P 
(C-7)

The ambient temperature was measured by the thermocouple with the

resolution of 0.1 K. The maximum temperature variation during the experiment was  T

 2K . The
variation in the ambient pressure is estimated to be  P  0.1kPa . The static pressure

within the nozzle plenum was measured using a Validyne DP-15 pressure transducer

with an accuracy of ±2.5% over the full scale. Different pressure transducer diaphragms

were used for different measurement Reynolds number [Table 3-1]. The uncertainty

in the static pressure within the plenum for the pressures of 4.97, 7.91, 10.5, 26.23,

and 65.44

kPa are 0.0124, 0.02, 0.026, 0.065, and 0.164 kPa respectively. By substituting the
values
in the equation (C-7), the relative uncertainty in flow velocity ( U ) was found to be
U

less than 0.336%.

The diaphragms of the pressure transducer were calibrated with the

special pressure calibrator. Figure C-1 shows the calibration diagram.


Figure C-1: Calibration Diagram for diaphragm number 30 (P=1.25 psi or 8.6 kPa).

C.ii Experimental Setup Uncertainty

In this study the geometric variables such as, the nozzle width, inclination

angle, and the impingement distance were measured by tools with known error range.

Table [C-

1] presents the uncertainty in measurement of the setup geometry parameters.

Table C-1: Uncertainty in the geometry parameters of the experimental setup.

Geometry Parameter

z (impingement distance)

d, a (main jet and auxiliary jet gap width)

x (measurement distance)