Physical Modelling of Porous

Plug Stirred Ladle

SHRUTI SINGH | B.E. (Chemical Engineering)

Department of Chemical Engineering

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MESRA

835215

May – June (2019)

 EXPERIMENT AND ANALYSIS

The system consists of a plexiglass vessel containing tap water at room temperature and a
upper phase of hydraulic oil. Air was injected into the bath through porous plugs that are
located at the bottom of the vessel. Mixing time was evaluated with tracer method using
KCl solution as a tracer. To monitor local conductivity of water after the addition of tracer
over the plume, an electrical conductivity probe was placed at 80 mm above the bottom
and near the sidewall in the ladle. The output signal of electrical conductivity meter was
recorded by a personal computer through an NI-PXIe-107 data acquisition (DAQ) system
with a LabVIEW software.

PAGE 1
 Figure 1 : Model filled water with an upper phase of hydraulic oil (30 mm).

Choice of scale factor and working fluid:

Physical modelling (Scale factor):

Choosing an appropriate geometric scale factor is an important aspect of physical

modelling. The scale of the model and the operating parameters should be such that the
characteristics of the flow in the prototype is replicated in the model. Therefore, a 1/4th
scale-down physical model (available at TATA STEEL) of CAS-OB was used as shown in
Figure 1. Water and air were used to simulate liquid steel and argon gas respectively. Air
flow rates were calculated using well established [1] scaling equation:

Q m = λ2.5 Q p

PAGE 2
 Table 1 shows the similarities between the model and prototype.

LADLE PROTOTYPE MODEL (mm) Fluid used:

PARAMETER (mm)
Height 4300 1090 Water at 293 K and molten steel at 1873 K
have practically the same kinematic
Top Diameter 3951 980
viscosity. Therefore, water has been used to
Bottom 3754 940 simulate molten steel. Also, hydraulic oil
Diameter and air was used to simulate the
Porous Plug 100 25 corresponding fluids in the prototype, i.e.,
Diameter slag and argon gas, respectively. The
Thickness of 100 30 comparison is mentioned in Table 2.
Slag Phase
Table 1 : Similarity between model and prototype. Tracer Solution:
0.4M KCL solution was prepared as a tracer
FLUID PROTOTYPE MODEL using 500mL tap water and 15 gm of KCL
PROPERTY powder. The tracer thus prepared was
injected into the liquid bath using water
Working fluid Molten Steel Water
pump. To prevent clogging and to acquire
Temperature 1923 K 293 K better results, the solution was stirred
properly before injection.
Density 7014 kg/ m3 1000 kg/ m3

Viscosity 0.0064 kg/m-s 0.001 kg/m-s

DAQ and LabVIEW:

Kinematic 0.913*10-6 m2/s 1*10-6 m2/s The experimental data was recorded by
Viscosity using DAQ hardware and LabVIEW
software, made by National Instruments.
Injected gas Argon Air LabVIEW uses the software configuration
Density 1.28 kg/m3 1.204 kg/m3 information to recognize the hardware and
to set default DAQ parameter.
Upper phase Slag Hydraulic Oil
Density 2589 kg/m3 880 kg/m3
Kinematic 0.00014 m2/s 0.00015 m2/s
viscosity

PAGE 3
 Block Diagram:

The block diagram contains the graphical source code, also known as GCode or block
diagram code, for how the VI runs. The block diagram code uses graphical representations
of functions to control the front panel
Table 2 : Comparison between the physical properties of objects. Front panel objects appear as icon
the fluids used in the model and prototype.
terminals on the block diagram. Wires
connect control and indicator terminals to
Express VIs, VIs, and functions. Data flows through the wires in the following ways: from
controls to VIs and functions, from VIs and functions to indicators, and from VIs and
functions to other VIs and functions. The movement of data through the nodes on the
block diagram determines the execution order of the VIs and functions. This movement of
data is known as dataflow programming. The graphical code for this experiment is shown
in Figure 2.

Figure 2 : GCode for the experiment.

PAGE 4
Mixing time:
Mixing time is defined as the time from addition of tracer up to the time beyond which
the changes in conductivities were more or less than 5% of the steady state value. For each
case several measurements were performed, and the mean value was taken as the mixing
time. Measured mixing times were interpreted as the bulk mixing times. The present
approach therefore ensured that by the time the monitoring point reached a degree of
95% homogeneity, the bulk of the liquid was practically homogeneous. This is known as
the mixing time.

Figure 3 : Concentration vs Time curve obtained by DAQ hardware and

plotted by LabVIEW software.

PAGE 5
Experimental procedure:
1. The ladle was filled with water coming from the supply line up to an appropriate
liquid height.
2. The conductivity probe was fixed near the ladle wall opposite to the porous plug
under use and near the drain.
3. Oil was filled poured on the top up to a depth of 30 mm. This step was skipped
while experimenting without oil.
4. The conductivity meter was stabilized by switching it on before the beginning of
the experiment, and readings were taken using LabVIEW.
5. KCL solution was prepared as mentioned earlier.
6. Air supply and pressure was controlled by the air regulating valve.
7. Water was agitated with the help of air entering at a controlled flow rate (with the
help of rotameters) from the porous.
8. Before injecting tracer, it was necessary to stabilize the agitating the for at least 3-5
minutes, so that the flow is in steady state condition.
9. Once the steady state is reached, the tracer (solution of KCL) was injected by using
a water pump system.
10. The conductivity probe records the change in conductivity with time. LabVIEW
records the response from the DAQ hardware and a concentration variation curve
was plotted against time in the system.
11. After the specified number of samples were recorded, a report was automatically
saved in the system in a MS-Excel file.
12. The data was analyzed and the mixing time for 95% homogenization was noted.
13. The flow rate was varied from 1 to 24 LPM with respect to different porous plug
configurations. Each flow rate was tested twice to ensure a statistically reliable
value.
14. Experiments were performed for different configurations of model operation as
mentioned below.

PAGE 6
 Porous Plug Configurations

Figure 4 : Layout of the 3 Porous Plugs in the model.

The above picture shows the layout of the porous plugs used in the model of the ladle. We
use different combinations of the porous plugs and analyze the effect of each combination
on the mixing time. The combinations used are:

 Porous Plug 1
 Porous Plug 2
 Porous Plug 3
 Porous Plug 1 and 2
 Porous Plug 1 and 3
 Porous Plug 2 and 3
 Porous Plug 1, 2 and 3.

We use these combinations to analyze the time required for mixing 0.4M KCl solution in
680L of water with and without oil (hydraulic) phase.

PAGE 7
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The operating variables for the study of CAS-OB water modelling used were tuyeres
configurations and gas flow rate. One variable was kept constant with respect to the other
variable which was varied, and the mixing time was determined. The effect of variables has
been examined by using mixing time behavior for different operating conditions. Mixing
time was plotted against the different gas flow rates for single, dual and triple porous
plugs. The flow rate was varied from 1 to 24 LPM using dynamic similarity consideration.

1. Gas flow rate

The argon gas flow rate is kept equal through all the tuyeres located at the bottom of the
vessel. This is like a situation where the total energy is distributed equally among the
virtual cells of liquid metal surrounding each plume generated by respective gas flow
through tuyeres. If a cell can be assumed like a fluid motion caused by a single gas plume,
then intracellular mixing will depend upon the eddy turbulence generated at the cells
interface. To have better bulk mixing within the bath the cells should interact with each
other. A linear flow energy gradient across the vessel creates a favorable condition for cell
to cell interaction by breaking the barrier in fluid flow caused by equal flow through all
the tuyeres. [2]

Kinetic energy loss in turbulence may affect the mixing quality as well as quantity because
higher turbulence creates less plume buoyant energy to stir the bath and it creates dead
zones.

2. Tuyere Configuration
Different tuyere configurations were used. These were : single plugs, dual plugs and triple
plugs. The introduction of bottom blowing increases splashing on the walls but decreases
the amount of spitting. [3] [4]

Configuration of three nozzles results the shortest mixing times when gas flow rate is low.
Many researchers [5] [6] [7] [8] have earlier reported that eccentrically (or asymmetrically)
arranged nozzles give shorter mixing times. Furthermore, many studies [9] [5] [10] have
previously shown that at a given flow rate, an increase in the number of tuyeres increases
the mixing time. According to Oymo and Guthrie, [5] the explanation could lie in the
reduction of symmetry planes, which in turn reduces barriers to mixing. According to
Ghosh and Singh [11], and Koria and Lange [12], tuyere configuration had no significant
effect on the mixing time but increasing number of tuyeres decreased mixing times
sharply.

PAGE 8
 Single Porous Plug

Figure 5 : Comparison between mixing times with and without upper oil phase when porous plug 1 is used.

Figure 3 : Comparison between mixing times with and without upper oil phase when porous plug 2 is used.

PAGE 9
Figure 4 : Comparison between mixing times with and without upper oil phase when porous plug 3 is used.

We can see that the mixing time for water with oil phase is more than for one without it.
The mixing time decreases for increasing flow rates up to a certain limit. This limit is
called the critical flow rate which is subject to the configuration of the tuyeres
configuration. Beyond this flow rate, the mixing time increases and then gradually starts
to decrease. The mixing times are lesser for porous plug 2 which is at least distance from
the center. As the plugs move farther from the center the mixing times increase as we can
see in the case of porous plugs 1 and 3 (refer to figure 1).

PAGE 10
 Dual Porous Plugs

Figure 5 : Comparison between mixing times with and without upper oil phase when porous plugs 1 & 2 are used.

Figure 6 : Comparison between mixing times with and without upper oil phase when porous plugs 1 & 3 are used.

PAGE 11
Figure 6 : Comparison between mixing times with and without upper oil phase when porous plugs 2 & 3 are used.

We can see that the mixing time for water with oil phase is more than for one without it.
The mixing time decreases for increasing flow rates up to a certain limit. This limit is
called the critical flow rate which is subject to the configuration of the tuyeres
configuration. Beyond this flow rate, the mixing time increases and then gradually starts
to decrease. The mixing times are lesser for porous plug 1 & 2 which are at least distance
from the center. As the plugs move farther from the center the mixing times increase as
we can see in the case of porous plugs 1 & 3 and 2 & 3 (refer to figure 1). The mixing time
for each flow rate is also less as compared to when only single porous plugs were used.

PAGE 12
 Triple Porous Plugs

Figure 7 : Comparison between mixing times with and without upper oil phase when porous plugs 1, 2 & 3 are used.

We can see that the mixing time for water with oil phase is more than for one without it.
The mixing time decreases for increasing flow rates up to a certain limit. This limit is
called the critical flow rate which is subject to the configuration of the tuyeres
configuration. Beyond this flow rate, the mixing time increases and then gradually starts
to decrease. The mixing times are very less for each flow rate when three porous plugs are
used simultaneously as compared to single and dual porous plugs (refer to figure 1).

Problems faced:
Higher flow rates could not be analyzed in the case of upper phase due to oil sticking to
the surface of the probe and giving inaccurate results. Therefore, the critical flow rate
could not be determined.

PAGE 13
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary
Physical modelling of gas stirred ladles is a very important area of research in the field of
modern steel-making. Physical models provide insights into liquid metal flows and the
associated mass transfer. This method helps in improving the quality of steel produced for
faster evolution of the steel-making process. The research reported above helped in
familiarizing with the ideas associated with physical modelling, mixing time and data
acquisition techniques available.

Conclusions
(1) Mixing time decreases with an increase in gas flow rate up to a critical flow rate.
(2) Beyond the critical flow rate, mixing time increases and then gradually begins to
decrease.
(3) Bottom tuyere configurations 1, 2 & 3 (triple porous plugs) in the vessel was found
to give the lowest mixing index compared to other tuyere configurations studied.
(4) Bottom tuyere configuration 1&2, 1&3, 2&3 (dual porous plugs) were found to be
better with respect to mixing using single tuyere configuration.

PAGE 14
 REFERENCES

[1] K. K. a. G. A. IRONS, "An Extended Model for Slag Eye Size in Ladle Metallurgy," ISIJ
International, 2008.

[2] S. N. L. S. K. A. C. B. a. S. P. Vikas SINGH, "A Novel Bottom Stirring Scheme to Improve BOF
Performance through Mixing and Mass Transfer Modelling," p. 6, 2009.

[3] T. M. J. F. E. O. V. T. P. S. a. J. J. H. M. J. Luomala, ISIJ International, 2002.

[4] M. J. L. E. O. V. H. T. T. L. J. F. T. P. S. a. J. J. H. T. M. J. Fabritius, ISIJ International, 2002.

[5] D. O. a. R. I. L. Guthrie, " Proc. Mixed Gas Blowing 4th Process Technology Conference," 1984.

[6] C. R. a. M. P. K. Koch, ISIJ International, 1996.

[7] G. A. a. R. H. Eric, " Metall. Mater. Trans.," 1999.

[8] M. P. M. S. a. K. K. C. Roth, " Steel Res," 1995.

[9] K. S. T. N. Y. K. K.-I. S. a. T. E. K. Nakanishi, Proc. of 65th Steelmaking Conf, 1982.

[10] H. H. R. J. F. a. J. I. R. Matway, Proc. Mixed Gas Blowing 4th Process Technology Conf., 1984.

[11] D. N. G. a. R. P. Singh, Trans. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn., 1988.

[12] S. C. K. a. K. W. Lange, Proc. 5th Int. Iron and Steel Cong. (Proc. of 6th Process Technology
Conf., 1986.

PAGE 15
[13] D. O. a. R. I. L. Guthrie, Proc. Mixed Gas Blowing 4th Process Technology Conf., 1984.

PAGE 16