ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10, pp.

2263–2272

A Novel Approach for Numerical Modeling of the CAS-OB

Process: Process Model for the Heat-Up Stage

Mika JÄRVINEN,1)* Aki KÄRNÄ,2) Ville-Valtteri VISURI,2) Petri SULASALMI,2) Eetu-Pekka HEIKKINEN,2)
Katja PÄÄSKYLÄ,2) Cataldo De BLASIO,1) Seppo OLLILA3) and Timo FABRITIUS2)

1) Aalto University, Department of Energy Technology, P.O. Box 14400, 00076 Aalto, Finland.
2) University of Oulu, Laboratory of Process Metallurgy, P.O. Box 4300, FI-90014, University of Oulu, Finland.
3) SSAB Europe, Rautaruukintie 155, FI-92101 Raahe, Finland.
(Received on April 16, 2014; accepted on June 30, 2014)

The objective of this work was to develop a process model for the CAS-OB (Composition Adjustment
by Sealed argon bubbling-Oxygen Blowing). The CAS-OB is designed to homogenize and control the steel
composition and temperature before the casting. In the heating mode (OB) studied here, a refractory bell
is lowered and submerged 30 cm below the liquid steel surface of the ladle and under this well-defined
sealed volume, oxygen gas is injected to oxidize solid aluminum particles that are fed and molten at the
surface. Under consideration were the melting of the solid aluminum particles, the oxidation of pure mol-
ten aluminum, and the oxidation of dissolved species, in this case Al, Mn, C and Si, and the solvent Fe.
We also considered the formation and oxidation of steel droplets formed in the blowing when they pass
through and react with the surface slag and also the reaction of pure aluminum on the top of the slag
layer. Based on our simulations, only 30–40% of the chemical energy can be used to heat up the steel. A
fraction of 0.8–0.85 of the O2 can be utilized in the process; these values correspond to those obtained in
previous work. The main part of the heating energy comes from the oxidation of the fed Al. FeO is primar-
ily an intermediate product of the reactions. The model was tested against industrial trials for steel tem-
perature and compositions of slag and steel, and it succeeded in capturing correct trends and absolute
accuracy within the analyzing accuracy.

KEY WORDS: CAS-OB; numerical modeling; heat-up stage.

0.75, and therefore this means that there is some O2 left over
1. Introduction to oxidize other species as well. Of course, some residual O2
The CAS-OB (Composition Adjustment by Sealed Argon will escape the system together with the dust and Ar via the
Bubbling with Oxygen Blowing) process was developed in de-dusting duct. Typically, heating rates of 10 K/min can be
the 1980s by Nippon Steel Corporation to improve on the obtained. This value is limited by the thermal stresses devel-
existing argon rinsing stations used for deoxidizing and oped in the wall structures in the ladle and bell. Therefore,
alloying molten steel. The CAS-OB process enables consis- accurate control of the heating is essential.
tently high alloy recoveries and the reheating of steel using As far as the authors are aware, there are no process mod-
the exothermic reaction between oxygen and aluminum. els available in the open literature for CAS-OB. There are
With this capability of good chemical composition control, some papers published on flow simulations in the process
steel homogeneity, and reheating, the CAS-OB becomes an
ideal buffer station in the secondary metallurgy of steelmak-
ing. The objective of the CAS-OB process is to homogenize
and control the steel composition and temperature. It has
been reported that the CAS-OB process enables a better
scheduling, improved temperature control, and higher inclu-
sion purity.1) Figure 1 presents a typical process treatment
schedule; the oxygen blowing stage is highlighted.
In the heating mode (OB) studied here, the refractory bell
is lowered and submerged 30 cm below the liquid steel sur-
face of the ladle and under this well-defined volume, oxygen
gas is typically injected at the rate of 2 300 m3/h (29 mol/s)
at the Ruukki Metals Oy, Raahe Works CAS-OB stations. At
the same time, solid aluminum particles are typically fed at
the rate of 40 kg/min (25 mol/s) (see Fig. 2). The molar ratio
of O2 to Al is then 1.16. The stoichiometric O2/Al ratio is
* Corresponding author: E-mail: mika.jarvinen@aalto.fi
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.54.2263 Fig. 1. Typical schedule of the CAS-OB process.2)

2263 © 2014 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10
Fig. 2. Parts of the CAS-OB station. 1. Supersonic O2 lance, 2. De-
dusting duct, 3. Al-feeding pipe, 4. Surface slag, 5. Ladle,
6. Porous plug for Argon bottom stirring, 7. Steel, 8. Bell,
9. Lance lifting system and 10. Bell lifting system.
(e.g.3,4)), but no reaction source terms are included in these.
The objective here was to develop a model that describes the
relevant unit processes in the CAS-OB process. At this
stage, the most important ones are the reactions taking place
at the lance gas jet impact area and the reactions between
metal droplets and slag and the related heat and mass trans-
fer. There is a significant amount of droplets formed during
the super-sonic lance blowing, and when these land on and
pass through the surface slag layer, a significant conversion
takes place, and droplets also act as an efficient media for
heat transfer. Melting of the solid aluminum, oxidation of
pure liquid aluminum, and oxidation/reduction of dissolved
species (in this case, Al, Mn, C and Si, and the dissolvent
Fe) were to be considered. Energy equations for the gas vol-
ume, liquid melt and different sections of the gas-liquid
interface will be solved to get their temperatures. Because a
significant fraction of the generated heat can be transferred
and accumulated into the ladle and bell structures, we also
developed simplified heat transfer models for these.
2. Description of the Model
Our simulation model is based on the numerical solution
of the time-dependent differential equations of species and
energy in the CAS-OB process. These are formulated for all
species and temperatures in all the important volumes and
reaction surfaces, including volumes of gas in the bell, liq-
uid steel bath, top slag layer, and metal droplets dispersed
in the slag, for a total of 48 unknown variables and an equal
number of equations to be solved. Chemical reactions may
occur at the jet hit depression area, the molten aluminum-
gas surface, the molten aluminum-slag surface, the alumi-
num particle oxygen surface, and the metal droplet-slag
surface. We also consider heat transfer in the bell and ladle
structures in order to have accurate heat-up and cooling
characteristics for the process. Figure 3 presents the princi-
ples of the model.
2.1. Modeling the Operation of the Top Lance
The driving force for the process is the injection of oxy-
gen via a supersonic oxygen top lance. The supersonic gas
jet produces a depression on the surface of the steel bath.
The depth and diameter of the depression are defined by the
momentum flux in the jet, lance distance H, and material
properties on both sides of the surface. We assume here that
© 2014 ISIJ
Fig. 3. Principles of the process model. G=gas, L=liquid, o= slag/
liquid Al surface, f = open eye, B1-4, bell calculation
nodes, L1-4 = ladle calculation nodes, S1-2 = top slag
nodes.
the surface in the depression is kept clean by the jet, referred
to as the free surface “f ”, and any slag formed is pushed to
the surrounding ring surface, the occupied surface “o” (see
Fig. 3). As the liquid aluminum is lighter than the slag, we
assume that it stays on the top of the slag layer.
The correlations proposed by Koria and Lange5) were
used here to calculate the dimensions of the depression. The
gas jet was assumed to be perpendicular to the surface. The
flow rate of the blown gas is measured and the jet velocity
is available based on our CFD simulations.6) These were cal-
culated for an AOD lance, but a similar approach was used
for the CAS-OB lance. The momentum flux leaving the noz-
zle can be calculated as follows.
πd 2
M = m J uJ = n ρG uJ2 = m G uJ = VG. NTP ρ NTP uJ ..... (1)
4
In our case, dn = 30.5 mm and the velocity at the nozzle
exit was obtained with CFD simulations, uJ = 475 m/s. From
these, the non-dimensional momentum flow rate can be cal-
culated as follows.5)
M
M = ............................... (2)
ρ L gH 3
The depth and diameter of the depression are then calcu-
lated as follows.5)
hf
= 4.469 M 0.66 ............................ (3)
H
df
= 2.813 M 0.282 ........................... (4)
H
Based on the findings of Sharma et al.,7) it was assumed that
the geometry of the depression is unaffected by reactions
and the interference of top slag. A typical lance height is
1.5 m, and as the bell diameter under the bell is 1.28 m, we
then have the typical geometry of the depression: hf = 104 mm
and df = 712 mm. We consider the increase in surface area
of the open eye due to the convex surface assuming the
spherical cap geometry here, and therefore S f = π ( a 2f + h2f )
where af is the radius of the depression perimeter af = 0.5df.
The surface under the bell is divided into two parts: free
surface Sf (open eye) and occupied area So by liquid; the sur-
face slag and aluminum are on the top of it. The free liquid
steel surface has no mass. The area covered by liquid slag
is assumed to have a constant thickness, hS. Based on the
2264
 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10
slag layer area and mass, the thickness of the liquid layer
can be calculated as follows.
m assumed to form droplets as soon as it is molten. We assume
hs = S ................................. (5)
ρ S So
Metal droplets are formed at the gas jet impact area while
blowing, and these eject from the bath and land on the sur-
rounding slag surface. The degree and mode of spattering is
defined by the blowing number NB8)
NB =
ρG uG2
............................ (6)
2 σ L gρL
The initial gas velocity uG for this specific CAS-OB geom-
etry was taken from CFD simulations.6) Based on these, the
centerline gas velocity attenuates from the nozzle level to
the surface vicinity before the flow turns, in this case by a
factor of 0.432. In addition, only a fraction of 0.447 can be
utilized to spatter the liquid.8) Therefore, the critical gas
velocity is equal to uG = 0.432 × 0.447 × uJ = 0.193 × uJ.
The rate of droplet formation RB (kg/s) is defined as fol-
lows:8)
RB N B3.2
= 0.2 ............... (7)
V (
2.6 × 106 + 2 × 10 −4 N 12 B )
wherein V is the lance blow rate in Nm3/s. At this point,
we only consider the constant blowing rate and the mass of
droplets in the slag-metal emulsion at time t is then calcu-
lated as
mD = min (τ D , t ) RB .......................... (8)
hS
wherein τ D = is the residence time of droplets in the slag
ut . D
and hs is the slag layer thickness. The terminal velocity of
the droplets ut.D was solved from the droplet force balance
analytically as follows. All numeral values are combined for
simplicity here.9)
1/1.4
⎛ d g ( ρ − ρ ) ⎛ d ρ ⎞0.6 ⎞
ut . D = 0.153 × ⎜ D M S
⎜
D S
⎟ ⎟ ..... (9)
⎜ ρS ⎝ μS ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
This equation is applicable in the range ReD = 1–1 000.
From the mass, we can solve the overall surface area of the
emulsified steel droplets as follows.
6 mD
SD = .............................. (10)
dD ρ L
2.2. Chemical Reactions
We consider the melting of pure solid aluminum, primary
oxidation reactions of pure liquid and dissolved aluminum
(Al and Al, respectively), and oxidation of Si, Mn, C, and
Fe. In addition to these, the secondary reactions of the metal
droplets in the slag are considered. Our main objective is to
develop an effective model to consider parallel surface reac-
tions with mass transfer limitations. (s), (l), and (S) refer to
solid, liquid, and slag, respectively. The following reactions
are considered in the gas jet impact area.
Al ( s ) ↔ Al ( L ) ............................. R0
2 Al ( L ) + 3 / 2 O2 ↔ Al 2 O3 ( S) ................ R1
2 Al ( L ) + 3 / 2 O2 ↔ Al 2 O3 ( S) ................ R2
Si ( L ) + O2 ↔ SiO2 ( S) ....................... R3
Mn ( L ) + 1 / 2 O2 ↔ MnO ( S) ................. R4
Fe ( L ) + 1 / 2 O2 ↔ FeO ( S) ................... R5
C + 1 / 2 O2 ↔ CO ( g ) ....................... R6
2265
The surface slag is formed in the above reactions R1–5.
In addition to steel droplets forming in the blowing, Al is
that the rate of Al droplet formation is equal to the differ-
ence between the rate of melting and dissolution. As the
density of the Al is lower than that of the top slag, liquid Al
is assumed to stay on the top of slag layer surface. The fol-
lowing reactions take place across the area SD formed by the
steel droplets when they fall through the surface slag layer.
FeO ( S) + 2 / 3 Al ( L ) ↔ Fe + 1 / 3 Al 2 O3 ( S) ...... R8
FeO ( S) + 1 / 2 Si ( L ) ↔ Fe + 1 / 2 SiO2 ( S) ........ R9
FeO ( S) + Mn ( L ) ↔ Fe + MnO ( S) ........... R10
FeO ( S) + C ↔ Fe + CO ( g ) ................. R11
In addition to these, important reactions are reduction of
FeO, SiO2, and MnO when pure liquid Al is “sprayed” on
the top of the slag layer. We assumed that these are imme-
diate and are limited by the delivery rate of Al and equilib-
rium.
FeO ( S) + 2 Al ( L ) ↔ 3 Fe + Al 2 O3 ( S) ........ R12
3 / 2 SiO2 ( S) + 2 Al ( L ) ↔ 3 / 2 Si + Al 2 O3 ( S) ... R13
MnO ( S ) + 2 Al ( L ) ↔ 3 Fe + Al 2 O3 ( S ) ....... R14
The rates of all chemical reactions were calculated by the
method presented in our previous publications.10–12) The rate
is derived based on the modified law of mass action using
activities. Unknown forward rate coefficients are used as
free variables that are set to sufficiently high values to guar-
antee mass transfer control and chemical equilibrium at the
reaction surface. As an example, the rate of reaction 1 is cal-
culated as follows and a similar approach is used for all the
others. Please see our previous work10–12) for more details on
this method.
⎛ a Al O ⎞
R1 = k f .1 ⎜ a 2Al aO1.52 − 2 3 ⎟ , where kf .1 → ∞. .......(11)
⎝ K1 ⎠
It is known that the rate of CO post-oxidation, R7 (not
considered here), is highly dependent on the H2/H2O content
of the gas.13) In typical hydro-carbon combustion applica-
tions, there is always H2/H2O present. But here, pure O2 is
used, and in principle these catalyzing gases are not present.
Under fully dry conditions, the rate of this reaction is very
slow, and therefore it is not reasonable to assume infinite
reaction kinetics. Instead, actual rate expression is required.
At the moment, as far as the authors are aware of, there is
no such equation available, so this reaction is not included
here. However, the role of the post-combustion of CO will
be studied later when validating the model with experi-
ments. Based on our previous experimental work,14) only a
small amount of C is released, so this reaction has no sig-
nificant importance for the process operation, and at the
moment, we assume that only CO is present in the system.
2.3. Conservation of Gaseous Species
Conservation equations of the gaseous oxygen in the gas
volume defined by the snorkel and liquid steel surface are
given below. Positive flow direction is towards the reaction
surface. There is also a flow of Ar out from the surface, but
as it is much smaller than the O2 flow, its effect on the gas
side bulk flow rate is neglected. However, the net flow of
O2 (i.e., the Stefan flow) is considered. We have used the
first-order upwind method to model the convective flux
here.15) Total mass flow rates are simply calculated by sum-
ming up the contributions from all reactions.
© 2014 ISIJ

m O2 ,in − m G ,out yO2
( ) (
−hO2 S f ρG yO2 − yO2 , f − max m G. f , 0 S f yO2 ) below the liquid steel surface. Therefore, the surface area of
( )
+ max −m G. f , 0 S f yO2 , f − hO2 So ρG yO2 − yO2 ,o ( )
− max ( m G.o , 0 ) So yO2 + max ( −m G.o , 0 ) So yO2 ,o = VG ρG
........................................ (12)
The total gas flow rate at the exit can be calculated from
the inlet mass flow rates and reaction rates in the process.
The continuously stirred tank reactor model was used here
as a first assumption to solve this.16) In this model, it is
assumed that the gas volume in the snorkel is fully mixed
and homogenous. Argon, CO, and the residual O2 flow out
from this volume by convection. The effect of diffusion is
assumed to be negligible at the exit as composition is fully
mixed. Conservation equations of gaseous oxygen at the liq-
uid steel surface and at the pure liquid Al surfaces are given
by the Eqs. (13) and (14), respectively.
( ) ( )
hO2 ρG yO2 − yO2 , f + max m G. f ,0 yO2 − max −m G. f ,0 yO2 . f
+ vO2 ,2 R2 + vO2 ,3 R3 + vO2 ,4 R4 + vO2 ,5 R5 + vO2 ,6 R6 = 0
........................................ (13)
( )
hO2 ρG yO2 − yO2 ,o + max ( m G.o , 0 ) yO2
− max ( −m G.o , 0 ) yO2 , f + vO2 ,1 R1 = 0
Here, ν j,k is the stoichiometric coefficient of species j in
reaction k. In addition to O2 and Ar, gas phase contains also
some CO as carbon is removed by oxidation from the liquid
surface and also when carbon reduces FeO(S) in the slag,
CO is formed. To consider the oxidation of C and the
formation of CO, conservation equations for these at the sur-
face and at the bulk gas are needed. The conservation equa-
tion of the dissolved C is presented later. The mass balance
of CO in the bulk gas and at the surface is as follows.
( )
−m G ,out yCO − hCO S f ρG yCO − yCO, f − max m G. f ,0 S f yCO
( )
+ max −m G. f ,0 S f yCO. f − hCO. D S D ρG ( yCO − yCO,D )
− max ( m G. D ,0 ) So yCO + max ( −m G. D ,0 ) So yCO. D = VG ρG
........................................ (15)
( )
hCO ρG yCO − yCO, f + max m G. f , 0 yCO ( )
− max ( −m )
, 0 yCO. f + vCO,6 R6 = 0
G. f
hCO. D ρG ( yCO − yCO, D ) + max ( m G. D , 0 ) yCO
− max ( −m G. D , 0 ) yCO. D + vCO,11 R11 = 0
For Argon, one more equation is required for each sur-
face, and here the sum of mass fraction is set to 1, and this
condition is implemented as additional residual for each
location to close the system at all positions.
2.4. Conservation of Metal and Slag Species
In the heating mode, solid Al particles are fed into the
process. These will be first molten and then oxidized for
heat generation. The rate of melting of a single spherical Al
particle can be estimated from a simple heat transfer con-
trolled model by assuming a spherical one-dimensional sys-
tem. One additional issue that complicates this system is the
buoyancy effect. As the density of Al is smaller than steel,
a significant part of the particle is above the steel surface.
© 2014 ISIJ
ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10
Based on the force balance of a spherical Al particle floating
in steel, only a fraction of 0.42 of the particle’s surface is
a sphere should be multiplied by a factor of 0.42 to correct
this effect. The fraction of the particle above the surface is
exposed to thermal radiation and melts, but as the gas blow
dyO2 rate is high, the molten Al is rapidly blown away and we
assume that this fraction does to contribute to Al dissolution.
dt
The analytical solution for the melting time of the Al sphere
is equal to
d2 ρ Al lm
τ m = Al ....................... (18)
8 λe ( T − Tm )
λ e is effective steel conductivity, assumed 60 W/mK here,17)
Tm is the melting temperature of Al 660°C, lm is the melting
heat of Al, and T is the local temperature, here TL. There is
also a solid steel crust formed in some cases during the early
stages of melting, as the melting temperature of Al is lower
than of steel.17) As the mixing here is very effective and all
molten material is rapidly blown away, the effect of crust
formation is neglected. There are particles at different stages
( ) of melting in the process at the same time. To be precise, the
population balances of different sizes of particles should be
solved. However, the melting time of a single Al particle is
relatively small when compared with the whole process time
(5–15 min). We could therefore assume that the average
......... (14)
melting rate of solid Al per unit mass, rm, is equal to rm =
1/τm . The rate of solid Al accumulation is defined as the dif-
ference between the input flow and the rate of melting
dm Al ( s )
m Al ( s ) − S Al ,melt = m Al ( s ) − rm m Al ( s ) = ...... (19)
dt
Molten Al is dissolved and blown away to the top of the slag
layer where it is then oxidized by gaseous O2, FeO(S),
SiO2(S) or MnO(S). The amount of molten Al on the top of
the slag layer is as follows; we assumed here that liquid Al
does not accumulate in the open eye area.
rm m Al( s ) − hAl S Al ρ L (1 − y Al ) + So R1v1, Al +
dm Al(l ) .... (20)
( ) So R12 v12, Al + So R13 v13, Al + So R14 v14, Al =
dt
where SAl is the total surface area of the Al particles that float
dyCO on the surface. It is calculated from the mass of solid Al as
6 m Al(8)
dt S Al = ............................. (21)
d Al ρ Al
Accumulation rate of dissolved Al is defined as the differ-
ence between the rate of pure Al dissolution from the surface
........ (16)
of Al particles and the rate of mass transfer to free surface
where it is oxidized.
(
−hAl S Al ρ L ( y Al − 1) − hAl S f ρ L y Al − y Al , f )
...... (17)
( ) ( )
− max m L , f , 0 S f y Al + max −m L , f , 0 S f y Al , f
−hAl , D S D ρ L ( y Al − y Al , D ) − max ( m L , D , 0 ) S D y Al ... (22)
d ( mL y Al )
+ max ( −m L , D , 0 ) SD y Al , D =
dt
( ) (
hAl ρ L y Al − y Al , f + max m L , f , 0 y Al )
.......... (23)
− max ( −m L, f )
, 0 y Al , f + v Al ,2 R2 = 0
hAl , D ρ L ( y Al − y Al , D ) − max ( m L , D , 0 ) y Al
........ (24)
+ max ( −m L , D , 0 ) y Al , D + v Al ,8 R8 = 0
The mass conservation equations of Si, Mn, C, and Fe at
the steel bath and at the free metal surface all have the same
2266
 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10

format. Only Si is presented here. m Ar ,in c p, Ar ( Tin, Ar − TL )

( ) (
−hSi S f ρ L ySi − ySi , f − max m L , f ,0 S f ySi ) −
m Al ( s )
(c p , Al ( s ) (Tm − Tin ) + lm (Tm ) + c p, Al (l ) (TL − Tm ) )
τm
( )
+ max −m L , f ,0 S f ySi , f − hSi ,D S D ρ L ( ySi − ySi ,D )
d ( mL y Si )
−α L .o So ( TL − To ) − α L . f S f TL − T f ( )
− max ( m L ,D ,0 ) S D ySi + max ( −m L ,D ,0 ) S D ySi ,D = −α wL SwL ( TL − TL1 ) − α L .o Se ( TL − TS1 )
dt
........................................ (25) −α B.sub Ssub ( TL − TB 2 )
( )
hSi ρ L ySi − ySi , f + max m L , f , 0 ySi ( ) − max ( − R2 , 0 ) v2, Al S f c p, Al T f − TL ( )
........... (26)
− max ( −m , 0) y
L, f Si , f + vSi ,3 R3 = 0 − max ( − R3 , 0 ) v3, Al S f c p,Si (T − T ) f L
... (31)
hSi , D ρ L ( ySi − ySi , D ) − max ( m L , D , 0 ) y Si
......... (27)
− max ( − R4 , 0 ) v4, Min S f c p, Mn (T − T ) f L

+ max ( −m L , D , 0 ) ySi. D + vSi ,9 R9 = 0 − max ( − R5 , 0 ) v5, Fe S f c p, Fe (T − T ) f L

The overall mass balance of the liquid steel can be solved

simultaneously by summing all individual mass balances of
− max ( − R6 , 0 ) v6,C S f c p,C (T − T )
f L

components. It is assumed that there is only one volume of
each slag component in the system, which means that Al2O3
that is formed (either at the free surface or at the free liquid
Al surface) ends up in the same place and only a single val-
ue of activity is required. Conservation equations of the slag
species are given as follows. Equations for MnO and FeO
are similar to SiO2, and therefore are not presented here. The
total mass of the slag can be calculated by summing all slag
components.
v Al2 O3 ,1 R1So + v Al2O3 ,2 R2 S f + v Al2 O3 8 R8 S D
dm Al2O3
+ v Al2O3 ,12 R12 So =
dt
vSiO2 ,3 R3 S f + vSiO2 ,9 R9 S D =
2.5. Energy Balances
One of the main objectives of the CAS-OB process is to
chemically heat up the steel melt effectively. Therefore, the
accurate prediction of the reactor temperature is an essential
requirement for the model. For this, energy equations for the
system are derived and implemented in the following. Reac-
tion enthalpies were taken from.18,19) Thermal radiation
between surfaces in the bell is considered; the effect of vol-
umetric radiation of the gas and dust is here excluded, but
could be considered later. The energy conservation equation
for gas in the bell is as follows.
( ) (
m O2 ,in c p,O2 Tin,O2 − TG + m Ar ,in c p, Ar T f − TG ) and manganese, respectively. The last term on the left is the
−α G.o So ( TG − To ) − α G. f S f (T − T ) − α S (T
G f
( )
dTG
+ R6 vCO,6 S f c p,CO T f − TG = mG c p,G
dt
+ R12 v12, Fe So c p, Fe ( To − TL ) + R13 v13,Si So c p,Si ( To − TL )
+ R14 v14, Min So c p, Mn ( To − TL )
⎛
nL
⎛ 11
⎞⎞
+ ∑ ⎜ max ⎜ RD yi + ∑ ( Rk vk ,i ) S D , 0 ⎟ ⎟ c p,i ( To − TL )η D
i =0 ⎝ ⎝ k =8 ⎠⎠
dTL
= m L c p. L
dt
......... (28) ⎛ 6α Dτ D ⎞
where η D = 1 − exp ⎜ − ⎟ is the droplet heat transfer
⎜ d D c p,L ρ L ⎟
⎝ ⎠
efficiency, i.e., how much of the available temperature dif-
dmSiO2 ference To-TL can be utilized when the droplet passes the
............. (29) slag. The larger the heat transfer coefficient and the smaller
dt
the droplet size and residence time, the better the efficiency.
The 1 term is the heat-up of argon to bulk liquid tempera-
ture. The 2 term describes the heat consumption for fed Al
particles to heat up and melt, and we assume here that the
required energy is taken from the liquid melt. The next three
terms are the convective heat flux to the surrounding surfac-
es. The 6 term is very important; it describes the heat loss
from the free steel/slag surface exposed to the surroundings,
Se is the surface area outside the bell and when the bell is
raised; Se equals the overall ladle surface area. 7 term is the
heat loss to bell when it is submerged. The following five
equations present the cooling of dissolved elements in the
case of a backwards reaction. The 13, 14, and 15 terms
describe the incoming heat from the reduced iron, silicon,
incoming heat from hot metal droplets exiting the slag. The
w w G − TB1 ) .. (30) term on the right side is the accumulation of heat. The ener-
gy balance for the free liquid steel surface, i.e., the open eye,
is as follows; we assume here that slag species are not
returned to the free surface from the top slag layer.

α L (TL − T f ) + α G (TG − T f ) − ( J f − J B1 ) − ∑ Rk Δhk (T f )

6
The first two terms describe the heat-up of oxygen and
argon to bulk gas temperature, respectively. All argon is k =2
assumed to pass through the open eye. The 3, 4, and 5 terms 6 nL +nG
... (32)
present the convective heat transfer to the slag surface, the
open eye, and the bell walls, respectively, and the 6 term is
+∑ ∑ max ( − Rk vi,k ,0)c p.i (TG/L − T f ) = 0
k =2 i =0
the heat-up of the CO formed to bulk temperature. The
right-hand side is the accumulation of heat in the gas. The Jf and JB1 are the radiosities of the free liquid surface and
energy equation for the liquid bulk melt was formulated as the internal wall area of the bell, respectively. These are
follows. solved from a separate thermal radiation model, presented
later. Energy equation for the surface slag element is a bit
more complex. We assume that both surface slag and the liq-
uid Al layer on the top of it are at the same temperature To.

2267 © 2014 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10
dm Al (l )
c p,Al (l ) (TL − To )
dt
+α L .o So (TL − To ) + α G.o So (TG − To ) − So ( J o − J B1 )
nL 11
+ ∑ RD yi c p, i (TL − To )η D − ∑ Rk S D Δhk (To )
i =0 k =8
− R12 So Δh12 (To ) − R13 So Δh13 (To ) − R14 So Δh14 (To )
nS
( ) (
7
+ ∑ ∑ Rk vk , i S f c p, i T f − To = m Al (l ) c p,Al (l ) + ms c p,s
i =0 k =1
The first term describes the heat-up of incoming Al to To,
and the following three terms are the convective and radia-
tive heat transfer rates. The 5 and 6 terms describe the heat-
up and reactions of the incoming metal droplets, respectively.
The 7, 8, and 9 terms are the reaction heat from Al oxidation
by the slag species, and the 10 term is the heat-up of the
incoming slag from the open eye reactions. The right side is
the accumulation rate of heat on the surface layer.
2.6. Heat Transfer Models for Ladle and Bell
This section describes the heat transfer mechanisms with-
in the bell and ladle structures, including thermal radiation
in the bell, convection heat transfer between gas and walls,
conduction of heat in the solid structures, and finally, accu-
mulation of the heat in the structures. We assumed that both
the ladle and the bell are formed of a steel shell covered by
a ceramic insulation on the inner side (see Figs. 3 and 4).
We also assume that only the gradients in the normal direc-
tion are important. Correct masses and surface areas are
used for the layers, leaving shell thickness to be solved.
Heat transfer within the wall material is described by a one-
dimensional energy equation:
∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂T
− ⎜k ⎟ = cp ρ ..................... (34)
∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂t
Energy equation is discretized by the control volume meth-
od. Only one average temperature in the tangential direction
is used for each layer. More nodal points could be solved to
get better accuracy, but then the thermal radiation model
becomes much more complex. For the ladle, the boundary
condition for the internal surface is liquid convection heat
transfer. At the outer surface, convection and radiation cools
the surface. For the bell, the external surface boundary con-
ditions are the same, but at the inner surface, we also con-
sider the thermal radiation heat transfer from the free steel
Fig. 4. Close description of the jet hit area during oxygen mode
(OB), bell is lowered and sub-merged 30 cm below the steel
surface to form a sealed environment. Aluminum particle
size dAl = 38 mm, metal droplet size dD = 1.5 mm. Alumi-
num on the slag surface is shown by a dark gray broken
line.
© 2014 ISIJ
and pure aluminum surfaces as follows:
∂T
−kS B1 = α Bell .in S Bell .in (TG − TB1 ) +
∂x
(
So ( J o Fo−B1 − J B1 Fo−B1 ) + S f J f Ff −B1 − J B1 Ff −B1 ) .... (35)
...(33)
(
= α Bell .in S Bell .in (TG − TB1 ) + So ( J o − J B1 ) + S f J f − J B1 )
B1 refers to the inner surface of the bell. Radiosities Jo, Jf
and JB1 are calculated as follows:19)
) dt
dTo
ε
( )
Eb (To )ε o FB1−o + Eb T f ε f FB1− f + Eb (TB1 ) B
1− ε B
J B1 = .... (36)
εB
ε o FB1−o + ε f FB1− f +
1− ε B
J o = Eb ( To ) ε o + J B1 (1 − ε o ) ................. (37)
( )
J f = Eb T f ε f + J B1 1 − ε f( ) ................ (38)
where Eb = σ T is the black body emissive power at temper-
4
ature T. View factors F were calculated based on,20) FB1–o =
So / SB1, FB1–f = Sf / SB1. Data for emissivity of the different
surfaces were taken from,20–22) ε o = 0.9, ε B1 = 0.28, and ε f =
0.4. A significant fraction of the heat is lost from the slag
surface outside the bell. This is calculated from the balance.
k S
hS
(
α L .o Se (TL − TS1 ) = S e (TS1 − TS 2 ) = ε eσ Se TS42 − Tatm
4
.... (39) )
Emissivity of the slag surface is calculated from the
data,22) ε e = 0.9.
2.7. Heat and Mass Transfer Coefficients
Heat and mass transfer coefficients play a very important
role in the model. They define the rate of the processes and
also partly define the controlling mechanisms. Without
proper values, the model cannot be reliably used. Heat and
mass transfer in the area where the lance jet hits was studied
in our recent paper.6) As a result, a new heat and mass trans-
fer correlation model was developed based on an experi-
mentally validated CFD model, Eq. (40).
hD
Shi = i = Sci0.42 GF ...................... (40)
Di
Where G = 0.037–0.0083H and F = 2Re0.5(1+0.005Re0.55)0.5
Di is the diffusion coefficient of species i. D is the nozzle
diameter. H is the vertical nozzle distance from the surface,
and Re is the nozzle Reynolds number.
As the Ar bubbles rise, the liquid steel is carried along,
and as a result, the melt will be mixed. The liquid rise veloc-
ity was obtained from our CFD simulations.3,6) The resi-
dence times τ of the liquid under the different surface
regions can be estimated as τo = (dBell /2 – af )/ uRise and τ f =
Rf asin(af /Rf ) / uRise, respectively. Rf is the curvature of the
depression, Rf = ( a 2f + h2f ) / ( 2h f ) Based on CFD simulations,
the velocity is equal to 0.8 m/s.3) We use the surface pene-
tration model proposed by Higby23) to calculate the mass
transfer during this contact period. Heat transfer coefficients
can be obtained by replacing Sh with Nu and Di with thermal
diffusivity. Equation (41) is used for metal side mass trans-
fer for metal-gas (f), metal-slag (o), and metal droplets-slag
(D).
Di
hi ,o / f / D = 2 ....................... (41)
πτ o / f / D
Heat and mass transfer coefficients are similar for falling
liquid steel droplets in the slag. We assume that liquid side
mass transfer controls the metal droplet-slag reactions R8–
11. On the slag side, oxides are present with high mass frac-
2268
 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10

tions, while on the liquid side mass fractions are at the ppm tions
level. As the droplet falls, an internal circulation is created N ⎛ j
ε M N ε kM2 ⎞
in the steel. The surface of the droplet is renewed the rate
defined by the slip velocity and droplet size and residence ( )
ln ( γ i ) = ln γ i0 + ∑ ⎜ i y j − 0.5∑
⎜
j =1 ⎝ M j
j

k =1 M j M k
y j yk ⎟ .... (48)
⎟
time is calculated as follows. ⎠
d For the slag phase, the Ban-Ya regular solution model is
τ D = D ................................ (42) used.27–30) The activity coefficient of species i is defined by
ut . D
⎛ ⎞
( )
N N
Slip velocity is calculated by Eq. (9). Heat and mass RT ln (γ i ) RS = ∑⎜α ij δ ij X 2j + ∑ α ij + α ik − α jk X j X k δ ij δ ik δ jk ⎟
transfer coefficients can then be calculated from Eq. (41) for j =1 ⎝ k =1 ⎠
the droplets. ........................................ (49)
Heat and mass transfer around the melting Al particles is
different from the metal droplets in slag or gas bubbles. This RT ln (γ i )s /l = RT ln (γ i ) RS + ΔGRS −l ............ (50)
is a case of liquid passing a solid sphere calotte. The mass
transfer coefficient was calculated from the Ranz-Marshall δ ij is equal to inverse Kronecker delta, X is equal to the cat-
correlation20) as follows ion fraction defined as the ratio of anions in species i and
h d anions in all slag species. NO,i is equal to the number of O
ShAl = Al Al = 2 + 0.6 Re 0.5 Sc Al
0.333
............ (43) atoms in one molecule of species.
DAl
yi
The heat transfer coefficient can be obtained by the analogy NO, i
xi NO, i Mi
replacing Nu with Sh and Sc with Pr, respectively. The Xi = N = N ................. (51)
Reynolds number is calculated from the rise velocity 0.8 m/s. yi
∑ i O, j ∑ M O, j
x N N
j =1 j =1
2.8. Activity of the Species j

Our system of species conservation equations was
derived on the mass fraction basis. It is therefore necessary
to write all activities based on mass fractions. The ideal gas
law is assumed to be valid for gases.
M p
ai = yi G G ........................... (44)
M i pN
Activity coefficients of dissolved species were calculated
based on the Unified Interaction Parameter (UIP) Model.24)
Wagner’s interaction model was first tested,25) but it was
found to be non-suitable, as a numerical solution often
jumps to non-dilute regions during the initial steps of itera-
tions where a non-physical trend is predicted. Interaction
parameters ε ij are given in Table 1; the references for these
are given in the Table 1.
Activity coefficients were defined as follows.
( ) ( )
N
ln ( γ i ) = ln ( γ Fe ) + ln γ i0 + ∑ ε ij x j
j =1
The key difference from Wagner’s model is the first term
on the right, i.e., the activity coefficient of the solvent,
which in this case is iron. It is defined as follows.
( )
N N
ln ( γ Fe ) = −0.5∑ ∑ ε kj x j xk ................ (46)
j =1 k =1
Substituting this into (45) and re-arranging gives us.
⎛ ⎞
( )
N N
ln ( γ i ) = ln γ i0 + ∑ ⎜ ε ij x j − 0.5∑ ε kj x j xk ⎟ ..... (47)
j =1 ⎝ k =1 ⎠ rates are modeled with linear trends, marking the point
Representing mole fractions in the terms of mass frac-
and activities are calculated as ai = γ i xi. Our system of slag
species are defined below, giving the interaction energies
and conversion Gibbs energies. The slag species are FeO,
Al2O3, MnO, SiO2, and CaO. Table 2 presents the properties.
2.9. Physical and Thermo-dynamical Properties
Physical and thermo-dynamical data was obtained
from.18,19,23) We used the effective diffusion model approach,15)
DL = 4×10–9 m/s, DG = 0.21×10–4 (T/298 K)1.5(p/101 325) m/s.
The viscosities of steel and slag were 0.0061 Pa s and
0.0709 Pa s, respectively.23)
2.10. Numerical Solution
The model for the CAS-OB process has a set of non-linear
differential equations defined above. The equations are inte-
grated with respect to time using the implicit Euler method.
The system is well-defined by 36+12 unknown variables
......... (45) and 36+12 non-linear equations. The full Newton method
was used to maximize the numerical efficiency.14) For the
best stability, the energy equations were solved semi-
explicitly, which means that when mass transfer and reac-
tions are solved, temperatures are kept constant, but the
solution method was implicit itself. In the real industrial
CAS-OB process, Al particles, O2, and Ar are fed with dif-
ferent time periods, mostly overlapping, but also partly at
different times and with varying rates. As we wanted to val-
idate the model with these real batches, we needed to con-
sider the feed rates and times accurately. In the model, feed
where changes are made. Examples of these are presented
below.

Table 1. First order molar interaction parameters for the UIP Table 2. Slag activity model parameters,27–30) conversion energy is
model, Henry’s law constants, Raoult reference state.24,26) between the regular solution state and Raoult state.

ε i,j Fe Al Si Mn C O Interaction energies α i,j of cations, J Conversion energy

Fe 0 0 0 0 0 0 FeO Al2O3 MnO SiO2 CaO RS-l, ΔG°, J

Al 0 6 6.9 2.8 6.7 –104 FeO 0 –41 000 7 110 –41 840 –31 380 –8 540 + 7.142 × T
Si 0 6.9 37 0 8.3 –17.3 Al2O3 –41 000 0 –83 680 –127 610 –154 810 46 719*
Mn 0 2.8 0 0 –0.5 0 MnO 7 110 –83 680 0 –75 310 –92 050 –86 860 + 51.465 × T
C 0 6.7 8.3 –0.5 11.4 –22.2 SiO2 –41 840 –127 610 –75 310 0 –133 890 +17 450 + 2.82 × T
O 0 –104 –17.3 0 –22.2 –13.4 CaO –31 380 –154 810 –92 050 –133 890 0 –40 880 – 4.703 × T
γ° 1 0.029 0.0013 1.3 0.57 1 * Calculated from the activity data available in slag atlas30)

2269 © 2014 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10

119/86 and 144/82. The errors resulting from these are 32%,
3. Results 27%, and 43% in Al balance. Of course in the model, all Al
The model is compared with process measurements can be found. Experiments and the model show that FeO is
obtained from the CAS-OB process at Ruukki Metals Oy, only an intermediate product and is reduced very effectively
Raahe Works, Finland. Initial steel temperature is typically from the slag. It must be noted that the representative anal-
~1 600°C, O2 flow is 2 300–2 600 m3/h, Al feed is 40–80 kg/ ysis of the slag is extremely difficult.
min, and Ar flow is 400–800 l/min. Initial Al particle size
was 38 mm, based on the measured average mass of used 3.1. Heating Rates
particles. One of the main objectives of the CAS-OB process is to
Although the distribution of steel droplets at their place of control the steel temperature before the continuous casting.
birth contains relatively large droplets in excess of 10 mm, The heat-up rate is typically limited to ~10–15 K/min due
these droplets are likely to disintegrate due to contact with to the risk of thermal cracking of the ladle or bell refracto-
the gas jet. The droplet break-up correlation proposed by ries.14) Figure 5 presents the heat-up rate and fed Al remain-
Koria and Lange31) yields that the upper size limit of the ing on the surface for the case A1 as an example.
non-disintegrating metal droplets is approximately 2–3 mm. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the heating rate rapidly reach-
Moreover, the residence time of large droplets in the slag is es a maximum level when O2 blowing is started, then keeps
very short, and the mass-transfer rate within the droplet is a constant level of ~10–12 K/min. There is also a peak in
relatively slow in comparison to small droplets. It may be the heating rate at the end of the blowing, as the cooling
expected that the effective average size of the droplets resid- effect of Al melting rapidly disappears. After the Al feed is
ing in the slag is on the order of few millimeters. In this stopped, the cooling begins and a cooling rate of 1.2–1.5 K/
work, a value of 1.5 mm was employed. min is reached with no Al melting effects. This corresponds
Throat diameter of the lance nozzle was 30.5 mm, and gas well to the observations from the real process, where typical
exit velocity was 475 m/s. Height of the ladle was 2.655 m free cooling rates were 1.5–2 K/min.14)
and liquid surface diameter 2.665 m. Height and diameter of
the bell were 1.5 and 1.28 m, respectively. In this work, we 3.2. Contribution Analysis
used the process data measured during January 2014 at In this part, we study the main heat generating reactions
Ruukki Metals Oy Raahe Works in Finland and simulated and where the energy is consumed. Figure 6 presents the
three Al killed steels. At first, a comparison and temperature
and composition predictions are presented, and then we car- Table 4. Melt and slag compositions before and after the heat-up,
ry out a deeper contribution analysis and energy balance A = Al-killed steel.
study on process characteristics in more detail for all cases.
Table 3 shows the feeding rates and steel temperature before Steel composition, ppm Slag composition, kg
and after the experiment. Table 4 presents the steel and slag t,
composition. Batch Al Si Mn C Al2O3 SiO2 MnO FeO CaO
min
As can be seen from Table 3, temperature predictions are
really good and errors are smaller than the accuracy of the A1 0 500 90 2 020 500 386 64 15 41 630
temperature measurements. The predictions in steel and slag Exp. 10 450 90 1 950 510 518 67 29 56 630
composition, Table 4, are not as good, but the main trends 960a 575b
are clear. Cases a and b present hypothetical situations Model 10 627 90 2 018 500 552 64 16 42 630
where we have assumed that a: solves the Al mass fraction,
A2 0 290 70 1 950 390 381 65 23 72 637
assuming that slag masses are correct; and b: solves Al2O3
mass, assuming that the fraction of Al is correct. It can be Exp. 9 470 90 1 830 390 502 72 38 105 637
seen that the simulated values are between the analyzed val- 976a 564b
ue and the estimated value, i.e., they are within the errors of Model 9 435 70 1 948 389 551 64 23 73 637
the balance limits. The analysis of the steel and slag com- A3 0 440 110 1 710 330 395 60 20 49 646
position is extremely challenging. For example, based on
the analysis of the case A1, there was 94 kg of Al fed into Exp. 12 490 110 1 580 334 534 61 34 66 646
the system, but only 64 kg can be found based on the anal- 1 267a 650b
yses of steel and slag. For other cases, these values were Model 12 643 109 1 707 330 629 60 20 49 646
a b
assumed that measured slag masses are correct, assumed that end steel
composition is correct
Table 3. Input data and temperature predictions, feed periods are
given as time intervals when materials are fed.

Temperatures Total input amounts Feed periods

time Steel mAl VO2

Batch t °C tO2 min tAl min
min ton kg Nm3
A1 0 1 620 119.6 94 67 5.33… 5.25…
Exp. 10.0 1 628 6.87 6.60
3
Model 10.0 1 628 2 633 m /min 69.6 kg/min
A2 0 1 611 118.1 119 67 6.00… 5.85…
Exp. 10.0 1 618 7.63 7.33
3
Model 10.0 1 619 2 465 m /min 80.4 kg/min
A3 0 1 603 120.3 144 91 7.4… 7.18…
Exp. 12.0 1 615 9.6 9.2 Fig. 5. Heat-up rate and fed Al at the surface, A1. 0–330 s: Ar-stirring/
sampling, 330–450 s: Al feeding and O2 blowing and 450–
3
Model 12.0 1 617 2 495 m /min 71.3 kg/min 600 s: Ar-stirring/sampling.

© 2014 ISIJ 2270

 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10
Fig. 6. Generation and consumption of heat, A1.
Fig. 7. Thermal efficiency and losses, A1.
contribution of different reactions and heat-loss terms in the
CAS-OB process for the case A1 as an example. It is impor-
tant to study these in order to make optimization and accu-
rate temperature control possible. Exothermic reaction terms
are positive and loss terms (including steel heat–up) are all
negative in sign. During the lance blowing, both Al and Fe
are oxidized, and then FeO will oxidize Al blown on the top
of the side slag layer. Some Si and Mn are also oxidized, but
these present only a minor fraction. This means that FeO is
primarily an intermediate product in the process. The data
given in Table 4 also supports this. Heat generation in a sin-
gle batch varies between 700 and 1 000 kWh. The efficiency
of energy use is discussed in more detail below.
As can be seen Fig. 6, there is a long waiting period first
when the temperature, steel and slag compositions are mea-
sured. During this time, the steel is cooling at the rate of
1.3 K/min and energy is lost which is shown in a positive
slope on the steel energy curve. When Al feeding is started,
both Al and Fe are oxidized. When FeO is formed and Al
is spattering on the slag layer, it is immediately oxidized by
FeO. Energy is transferred to steel, but also a significant
amount of heat is lost to the ladle and bell structures and
also a part is lost via the surface slag. Part of the energy is
transferred to the slag as it is pushed to the side, and of
course part of the reaction heat has already been removed at
the free surface by convection and radiation. As Fig. 6 show,
as soon as Al feeding and blowing is stopped, the heat accu-
mulated in the slag is recovered to steel.
3.3. Energy and O2 Efficiency
Finally, we study here the efficiency of energy utilization
and O2 consumption. As an example, in Fig. 7, “Loss” =
radiation loss through the top slag surface, “Steel” = heat
used to heat up steel, and “Ladle” and “Bell” = heat transfer
into the ladle and bell, respectively. “Gas” = energy required
to heat up O2 and Ar, and “Melting” = heat required to melt
the fed Al. Thermal efficiency is the fraction of heat used
to heat the steel.
2271
As can be seen in Fig. 7, thermal efficiency of the CAS-
OB treatment varies between 30–40%, and thus 60–70% of
the chemical energy is lost. Most of the energy is lost
through the slag surface, the bell structure, and the ladle
walls. To minimize these, thicker insulations would be
required and the slag surface should be covered with an
insulated lid whenever possible and, obviously, to keep the
free cooling periods to a minimum. It is known from
practice30) that the average free cooling rate is 1.5–2 K/min,
and the longer the waiting time, the larger the heat loss.
Simulated oxygen efficiencies A1–3 were 0.81, 0.84, and
0.85, respectively.
4. Conclusions
This paper presented a new approach to the model CAS-
OB process. More specifically, the oxygen blowing mode
(OB) was considered. Melting of the solid aluminum parti-
cles, oxidation of pure molten aluminum, and oxidation of
dissolved species, here Al, Mn, C, and Si, and the dissolvent
Fe were considered. We also implemented energy equations
for the liquid melt, the gas in the bell, and different sections
of the gas-liquid interface to be solved to get their temper-
atures. As a significant fraction of the generated heat can be
transferred and accumulated into the ladle and bell struc-
tures, simplified heat transfer models were developed to
take this into account. The new model gives information on
the heat-up rate and temperatures of the steel melt, gas, reac-
tion surfaces, and refractory walls. The model yielded accu-
rate predictions for steel composition, heating rate, and O2
efficiency. For the studied heats, the predicted heating rate
was 8–12 K/min versus the ~10 K/min measured average.14)
Based on our simulations, thermal efficiency of the process
is greatly affected by the length of the free cooling period;
typically 30–40% of the chemical energy can be used to heat
the steel. Only a fraction of 0.8–0.85 of the O2 can be uti-
lized in the process; these correspond to the values observed
in previous work.30) Most of the energy comes from the oxi-
dation of the fed Al, and FeO is primarily an intermediate
product of the reactions. The model was tested against
industrial trials, and it succeeded to capture both main trends
and high absolute accuracy. More validation experiments
will be carried out in the future. On-line gas analysis mea-
surements are also being planned.
Acknowledgements
This research is part of the Energy Efficiency & Lifecycle
Efficient Metal Processes (ELEMET) research program
coordinated by the Finnish Metals and Engineering Compe-
tence Cluster (FIMECC). Ruukki Metals Oy, Outokumpu
Stainless Oy, and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technol-
ogy TEKES are acknowledged for funding this work. The
support provided to this work by the Academy of Finland
(projects 258319 and 26495) is also acknowledged. We also
want to thank Mr Markus Möttönen and all the Ruukki
Metals Oy mill personnel for really nice co-operation during
the measurement campaign in Raahe. Pertti Kiiski, Vadim
Desyatnyk, Seppo Poimuvirta, Miika Ruutiainen, and Petrus
Kiiski are acknowledged for preparing all the required mea-
surement systems at Aalto.
List of symbols
a activity, –
af radius of the depression, m
cp specific heat capacity, J/kg K
d diameter, m
D diffusion coefficient, m2/s
f activity coefficient, –
g gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2
G geometry factor, –
© 2014 ISIJ
 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 10

ΔG Gibbs free energy, J/mole sub submerged

F view factor, flow factor, – S slag
h specific enthalpy, J/kg o slag surface
h mass transfer coefficient, m/s w wall
hf depth of the lance depression, m ∞ bulk condition
H lance height, m
J radiosity, W/m2 REFERENCES
k reaction rate coefficient, – 1) G. Stolte: Secondary Metallurgy, Verlag Stahleisen, Düsseldorf,
K equilibrium constant, – (2002), 117.
m mass, kg 2) K. Andersson, L. Nilsson, H. Breu and G. Stolte: Stahl Eisen, 115
m mass flow rate, kg/s (1995), No. 9, 59.
M momentum flow rate, N 3) T. Lehtola, E. Muurinen, R. Keiski and T. Kulju: SIMS 2010 Conf.,
Scandinavian Simulation Society, Oulu, (2010).
M non-dimensional momentum flow rate, – 4) C. E. Grip and L. Jonsson: Scand. J. Metall., 32 (2003), 113.
Nb blowing number, – 5) S. C. Koria and K. W. Lange: Steel Res., 58 (1987), 421.
Nu Nusselt number, – 6) A. Kärnä, M. Järvinen and T. Fabritius: Mater. Sci. Forum, 762
p pressure, Pa (2013), 686.
Pr Prandt number, – 7) S. K. Sharma, J. W. Hlinka and D. W. Kern: Iron Steelmaker, 24
(1977), 7.
rm rate of melting, 1/s 8) G. A. Subagyo, K. S. Brooks and G. A. Coley: ISIJ Int., 43 (2003),
R reaction rate vector, kg/m2 s 983.
RB droplet generation rate, kg/s 9) G. Brooks, Y. Pan, Subagyo and K. Coley: Metall. Mater. Trans. B.,
Re Reynolds number, – 36 (2005), 525.
10) M. P. Järvinen, S. Pisilä, A. Kärnä, T. Ikäheimonen, P. Kupari and
Ru gas constant, J/mol K T. Fabritius: Steel Res. Int., 82 (2011), 638.
S surface area, m2 11) S. E. Pisilä, M. P. Järvinen, A. Kärnä, T. Ikäheimonen, T. Fabritius
Sc Schmidt number, – and P. Kupari: Steel Res. Int., 82 (2011), 650.
Sh Sherwood number, – 12) M. P. Järvinen, A. Kärnä and T. Fabritius: Steel Res. Int., 80 (2009),
T absolute temperature, K 431.
13) G. L. Borman and K. W. Ragland: Combustion Engineering,
t time, s u velocity, m/s McGraw-Hill, New York, (1998), 121.
V volume flow rate, m3/s 14) S. Tuomikoski: Master’s thesis, University of Oulu, (2009).
x mole fraction, – 15) J. H. Ferziger and M. Peric: Computational Methods for Fluid
X cation fraction, – Dynamics, Springer- Verlag, Heidelberg, (1997), 140.
16) H. S. Fogler: Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, Prentice
y mass fraction, – Hall, New Jersey, (2004), 427.
Greek symbols 17) R. J. Fruehan: Ladle Metallurgy Principles and Practice, The Iron and
Steel Society, Warrendale, (1985), 13.
α convective heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K 18) Y. K. Rao: Stoichiometry and Thermodynamics of Metallurgical Pro-
α i,j interaction energy, J cesses, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1985), 880.
ε emissivity, – 19) HSC Chemistry for Windows Ver. 2.0, Outokumpu Research, Oy,
ε i,j interaction coefficient, – (1994).
20) F. P. Incropera and D. P. DeWitt: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
δi,j Kronecker delta, – Transfer, Wiley, New York, (1990), 794, 418.
γ activity coefficient, – 21) R. Siegel and J. R. Howell: Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 3rd ed.,
λ thermal conductivity, W/mK Taylor & Francis, Washington, (1992), 1039.
η heat transfer efficiency, – 22) S. Tsuda, T. Okazaki and A. Gwosdz: J. Powder Energ. System., 6
ρ density, kg/m3 (2012), 360.
23) F. D. Richardson: Physical Chemistry of Melts in Metallurgy, Vol.
σ surface tension, N/m 2, Academic Press, London, (1974), 149.
τ melting time, s 24) A. D. Pelton and C. W. Bale: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 17 (1986),
τD residence time, s 1211.
ν stoichiometric coefficient, – 25) G. K. Sigworth and J. F. Elliott: Met. Sci., 8 (1974), 298.
26) C. Bodsworth: Physical Chemistry of Iron and Steel Manufacture,
Subscripts symbols Longmans, London, (1963), 262.
b black body 27) S. Ban-Ya: ISIJ Int., 33 (1993), 2.
28) Y. Xiao, L. Holappa and M. A. Reuter: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 33
B bell (2002), 595.
D droplet 29) D. J. Sosinsky and I. D. Sommerville: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 17
f open eye (1986), 331.
G gas 30) M. Allibert, R. Parra, C. Saint-Jours and M. Tmar: Verein Deutscher
J jet Eisenhüttenleute: Slag Atlas, 2nd. ed., Verlag Stahleisen GmbH,
Düsseldorf, (1995), 225.
L liquid 31) S. C. Koria and K. W. Lange: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 10 (1983),
NTP normal temperature 298 K and pressure 101 325 Pa 160.
s surface, solid

© 2014 ISIJ 2272