This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

-Rolled Coils

TATHAGATA BHATTACHARYA, DEBADI CHAKRABORTY, and VIKAS SINGH The coil cooling and storage unit (CCSU) is used to cool cold-rolled coils to the temper rolling temperature after the annealing cycle is over at the batch annealing furnace (BAF) in a cold rolling mill (CRM). In the CCSU, the coils are kept on the cooling bases for any ﬁxed time irrespective of the grade and tonnage. Therefore, the need for a mathematical model to accurately predict the cooling time of the coils was felt. The current study involves experimental and numerical analysis of a stack of coils with respect to heat transfer and ﬂuid ﬂow. A comparative study was carried out to ascertain the relative merits of convectors and ‘‘C’’ inserts (CIs) in the cooling the coils. The air ﬂow distribution for the case of different convectors and CIs was measured by means of a full scale physical model. Two different mathematical models were applied to model the ﬂuid ﬂow and ﬂow distribution through the stack of coils. The ﬁrst ﬂow model uses the hydraulic resistance concept for estimating the air ﬂow rate distribution, whereas the second ﬂow model uses commercial computational ﬂuid dynamics (CFD) software and predicts the velocity distribution in the ﬂow path between two coils in a stack. The predictions from these two models compare well with the experimental data. The ﬂow models were used to calculate the average heat-transfer coefﬁcient in different ﬂow passages in a stack. The heat-transfer coefﬁcients thus obtained were used to tune and validate a two-dimensional transient heat-transfer model of coils. The heat-transfer model predicts the cooling time of coils accurately and also suggests a possible reduction of cooling time if CIs are used in place of convectors.

I.

INTRODUCTION

COLD-ROLLED coils are annealed in the batch annealing furnace (BAF) for obtaining the desired properties and mechanical strength to render the cold-rolled sheets amenable to subsequent forming operations (e.g., deep drawing of auto body parts). In the BAF, the coils are stacked inside a furnace and annealed for long hours (40 to 50 hours) in a hydrogen atmosphere. There are three stages in the annealing cycle, namely, heating, soaking, and cooling. The coils are heated to a temperature of 720 °C and kept for soaking at that temperature for a certain time before they are cooled at a slower rate ﬁrst (up to 500 °C) and then at a faster rate using a bypass cooling system until the hot spot (core) of the coils reaches 160 °C. It is the coil cooling and storage unit (CCSU) in which the coils are made to pass through a ﬁnal cooling step so that the hot spot temperature comes down to around 50 °C. Thereafter, the coils may be taken to the skin pass mill (SPM) for ﬁnal property and surface ﬁnish compliance. In the CCSU, identical coil stacks are built after ﬁnishing the cooling cycle on the annealing bases at the BAF. Figure 1(a) shows a typical stack conﬁguration for a CCSU base with four coils. The ﬁrst coil of the stack is placed on a bottom convector plate (CP). An intermediate convector plate is placed between each two coils of a stack. A top convector plate is placed above the top coil of a stack. These three types of convector plates normally have differTATHAGATA BHATTACHARYA, DEBADI CHAKRABORTY, and VIKAS SINGH, Researchers, are with Research and Development, Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, PIN 831001, India. Contact e-mail: tathabhatt@yahoo.com Manuscript submitted September 2, 2005.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

ent designs. For example, the base convectors have 16 short and equal numbers of long ﬁns on each side, whereas the intermediate convectors may have 20 short and long ﬁns each on both sides. The top convectors, on the other hand, have 16 long ﬁns only on one side with the ﬁn thickness nearly double those of the previous two types. Figure 1(b) shows the top view of a typical base convector plate. The stacking as well as the destacking of coils is a timeconsuming process, which may take 30 to 45 minutes for a single stack depending upon the number of coils. In order to reduce the time loss during stacking and destacking, the intermediate convectors can be replaced by ‘‘C’’ inserts (CIs). Figure 2(a) shows a CI with typical dimension. The arrangement of CIs is such that between two coils, there are four CIs at diametrically opposite locations making a 90 deg angular distance (refer to Figure 2(b) for arrangement). The present work investigates the effect of using CIs on the cooling time of coils in CCSU as compared to the practice with convectors by predicting the cooling time of coils. Cooling of the coils is done by passing dehumidiﬁed air from the bottom of the stack through the eyes of the coils and the convector plates (or the CIs). After stacking, each stack is covered by a single hood in order to collect the dehumidiﬁed air that has passed the convectors or CIs. To avoid oxidation of the outer layers, the relative humidity of the recirculated air for cooling the coils has to be less than 29 pct. II. A. Overview Extensive work[1–18] has been carried out on the process of batch annealing furnaces, but there appears to be very

VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006—1015

METHODOLOGY

CIs can also be kept in place of the intermediate convectors. The present work involves experimental and numerical analysis of heat transfer and ﬂuid ﬂow in a stack of coils. Experimental Measurement of Flow Distribution The estimation of the distribution of ﬂow exiting each of the convectors and CIs has been obtained from measurements on a full scale physical model. 1016—VOLUME 37B. Fluent.Fig.[19] was employed to obtain the velocity distribution through the ﬂow passages of convectors and CIs. making a passage for the air in between two coils. The experimental setup consists of four identical coils stacked on a bottom convector. The dotted line shows the peripheral locations where velocity measurements were carried out in the physical model. B. The heat-transfer model was used to predict the cooling time of coils. because the heat-transfer process is somewhat similar to the BAF. The analysis was employed to compare the effectiveness of convectors and CIs in cooling the coils. The heat-transfer coefﬁcients were used to tune and validate the heat-transfer model. The convector plates have also been fabricated from plywood board. The coils have been made from plywood board with scrap cold-rolled sheets as the inner and outer cylindrical surfaces. 1—(a) Typical CCSU stack arrangement with convectors between the coils. 2—(a) Different views of a CI used in CCSU. little literature available for CCSU. A ﬂow model using the socalled hydraulic resistance concept was developed for estimating the ﬂow distribution through convectors or CIs. The air ﬂow distribution for the case of different convectors and CIs was estimated by means of a full scale physical model in which velocity measurements were carried out. DECEMBER 2006 . All dimensions are in millimeters. The information from the ﬂow models was used to calculate the average heat-transfer coefﬁcients for a coil. The prediction of cooling time from the heat-transfer model was compared with the measurements from the plant trials. (b) Top view of the base convector of a CCSU stack. Plant trials were conducted to record the temperature of a particular point of a coil with time when CIs were used. (b) The radial arrangement of the CIs on the top surface of a coil. and the ﬁns have been made METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B Fig. A commercial CFD package. The actual velocity measurements were compared with the CFD simulation. Another coil sits on top of these CIs.

The measurements were taken for three different ﬂow rates each for convectors and CIs. The P for any ﬂow path has been calculated by the iterative method using the correction from the previous iteration. For intermediate convectors. The experimental setup has been shown in Figure 3(a) with actual dimensions. (b) For ﬂow on the convectors. At each level.e. 2 for intermediate convectors. C 5 a constant (=2824. A 5 average cross sectional area of the ﬂow path. (c) The ﬂow resistance network to estimate ﬂow through different convectors for a four coil stack.g. Â Ã Pin R ¼ ð128mLÞ ðpD4 Þ [1] P where m 5 viscosity of air ﬂowing.859. CIs were also kept in place of the intermediate convectors. (b) The various resistances offered by different ﬂow paths in a stack with four coils. k 5 1 for base convector.12 to 0.[21] Pin 5 pressure at inlet to the ﬂow path.from wood with very high surface ﬁnish so as to offer the same ﬂow resistance as that of the actual convectors made up of weldable steel plates. n 5 number of long ﬁns on one side of convector plate. and P 5 average pressure of the ﬂow path 5 [(Pin 1 Pout)/2]. (a) For ﬂow through the tube region of the coil. e. there were six windows. The following relations have been used with some modiﬁcations for the resistances[21] offered by different ﬂow paths. for resistances R2. and P 5 average pressure of the ﬂow path 5 [(Pin 1 Pout)/2]. The various resistances offered by various ﬂow paths such as diverging slots between two radial ﬁns on the convector plate and the tube-like part at the inner surface of coils have been shown in Figure 3(b) using different shades. The resistance network thus formed has been depicted in Figure 3(c). DECEMBER 2006—1017 Fig.15). R6.[20] The fabrication using plywood and wood made the coils and the convectors lighter and easy to handle. the velocities were measured for both sides of the convector plate along the periphery of the coils. L 5 length of ﬂow path. as shown in Figure 1(b). The average velocity was calculated at a particular convector or CI. Velocity measurements were carried out through these windows using a vane-type anemometer at peripheral locations of a coil on the convector plate (refer to Figure 1(b) for measurement locations) and also peripherally in the gap between two coils when CIs were used. Y 5 1 for square cross section. m 5 viscosity of air ﬂowing. i. R5. METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B . The cover on the stack is ﬁtted with small windows at different heights in order to access the convectors and the CIs during velocity measurements. 3—(a) Experimental setup of the physical model with convectors. and is used for tuning the model with data sets obtained from the ﬂow measurements in the physical model since the original equations are ideal for laminar ﬂow with regular geometries. The equivalent roughnesses of galvanized sheet steel and plywood are comparable (0. All dimensions are in millimeters. and R8 in this case. the resistance equation for the rectangular cross section has been used in approximation. and the average ﬂow was then calculated from the ﬂow area. if all parameters are in SI units). A grate was placed at the eye of the bottom convector to make the ﬂow uniform when it passed through the ﬁrst convector and coil. R4. the ﬂow path between two ﬁns is a diverging slot obstructed by a midbar (short ﬁn). The air ﬂow was supplied from a blower through pipe. Therefore. and R7 can be calculated from the equation h i 2 YÞ Pin R ¼ a ðCmLÞ ðknA [2] P where a 5 a tuning parameter. The CIs are also fabricated from wood with dimensions as shown in Figure 2(a). Estimation of Flow Distribution Using Hydraulic Resistance A ﬂow model was developed for predicting the ﬂow distribution through convector plates using the hydraulic resistance concept. L 5 length of ﬂow path. C... D 5 hydraulic diameter of ﬂow path. the average ﬂow was calculated by taking the mean of the average ﬂows of both sides of the convector plate. In reality. It may be noted that the resistance of the cylindrical tube of the coils is far less than that VOLUME 37B. The ﬂow delivered by the blower was calculated from the difference of water column in a ‘‘U’’-tube manometer. R3. The tuning parameter a differs for base and intermediate convectors. In the case of intermediate convectors. which was ﬁtted at the bottom chamber of the stack. resistances R1. Pin 5 pressure at inlet to the ﬂow path. Y 5 correction factor for height-towidth ratio of the ﬂow path cross section.

1:44. [3] and [4] describe the ﬂow through the ﬂow passage between two coils in a stack. Therefore. E. which uses a cell-centered. and f3 are equal to one. Estimation of Velocity Distribution using CFD A commercial CFD software package (FLUENT)[19] has been used to predict the velocity proﬁles inside the ﬂow passage through different convectors and CIs under steadystate conditions. The standard k-e model was used to model the turbulent ﬂow ﬁeld. The obstructing midbar and short ﬁns (making a T shape) could also be seen in the ﬁgure. For both entities. Owing to the cylindrical symmetry of the coils. differential transport equations are introduced. In the current study. DECEMBER 2006 . respectively. f2. Heat-Transfer Modeling and Temperature Measurement of Coils The spatial and temporal thermal proﬁle of any coil is obtained through the heat balance of the control volume method in the cylindrical coordinate. the minimum pressure drop occurs through the inner cylindrical core formed by the stack of coils. which are solved in addition to the other Eqs. The mathematical model for CIs can also be developed similarly. [3] and [4]. A computer program was written for the same. It is assumed that there is no temperature gradient in the u direction.1:3Þ [10] A detailed description of this model can be found in Launder and Spalding.C1 .C2 . where Pk represents the shear production term: @Uj @U i @U i 1 Pk ¼ nt @xj @xi @xj [9] D.of the resistances through the convectors. 4—(a) The geometry of the divergent ﬂow passage between two long ﬁns on the convector plate. Using the Boussinesq hypothesis. In the case of convectors. the Reynolds stresses can be described as follows: @U j @U i 2 Àui uj ¼ nt À kdij 1 [5] @xj @xi 3 the eddy (turbulent) viscosity vt is obtained from n t ¼ Cm f m k2 e [6] The kinetic turbulent energy k and its dissipation e are determined using the following transport equations. the ﬂuid is considered as incompressible. respectively: ! @U j k @ nt @k 1 Pk À e 5 n1 [7] @xj sk @xj @xj @U j e @ 5 @xj @xj ! nt @e e 1 ðC1 f 1 Pk À C2 f 2 eÞ [8] n1 se @xj k Fig.1:0. This program is a ﬁnite volume code.sm . two entities that are used for describing turbulence are introduced: the speciﬁc kinetic turbulent energy k and its dissipation e.1:92. The model coefﬁcients in the standard k-e model are given subsequently: À Á Cm . Mass Conservation: @U j 50 @xj Momentum conservation: @U j U i 1 @p @ @U i ¼À 1 n À ui uj @xj @xj r @xi @xj [4] [3] With the exception of the low-Reynolds number k-e models. The geometry was meshed using structured hexahedron cells.[23] Figures 4(a) and (b) show the computational domain for convectors and CIs. The Reynoldsaveraged Navier–Stokes equations and the transport equations of the turbulent quantities are solved by the pressure correction algorithm SIMPLE[22] (semi-implicit method for pressure-linked equation). and it will be shown in Section IV that the maximum ﬂow leaves through the top convector since air ﬂow takes the least resistant path. (b) The geometry of the ﬂow passage between two CIs separated radially by 90 deg on top of a coil. the outer surfaces of the included T-shaped short ﬁns are also considered for noslip boundary conditions. Convective boundary conditions have been used at the four where ui uj is the unknown Reynolds stresses. only the rz plane is analyzed. METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B 1018—VOLUME 37B. In this model.se 5 ð0:09. The governing equations as given by Eqs. The ﬂuid properties are assumed to be constant. the damping functions f1. The air ﬂow rate was speciﬁed at the inlet and ambient pressure was applied as the outlet boundary condition. No slip boundary conditions were used for the walls speciﬁed by the top and bottom coils and also for the side walls of convector ﬁns and CIs. nonstaggered grid.

J) and the heat balance for the volume element. respectively. and 51 nodes were used in both the r and z directions after checking for the grid and time-step independency. VOLUME 37B.e. top. and Dh is the hydraulic diameter of the ﬂow passage deﬁned by 4(area/perimeter). refer to Table II). and then they were averaged to be used as the bottom and top heat-transfer coefﬁcients in the heat-transfer model. The heat-transfer model was validated against actual temperature measurements carried out in the plant for a coil in which CIs were used for stacking. i. air).100 m3/h per base in the plant) and a ﬂow distribution were assumed (which falls in the range of the physical model ﬁndings for ﬂow distribution using CIs.27] Nu 5 5 1 0:015Rea Prb a 5 0:88 À 0:24=ð4 1 PrÞ b 5 0:333 1 0:5e ðÀ0:6PrÞ [14] Because the diverging slot on the convector can be thought of as made up of many rectangular cross sections along the radial direction. A suitable Initial temperature proﬁle (i. III. at the in. the correlations for ﬂow in rectangular ducts (due to Sleicher and Rouse) may be used:[26. The resulting linear algebraic equations are solved by the tri-diagonal matrix algorithm (TDMA). The heattransfer coefﬁcient at the inner surface has been obtained from the following Nusselt number correlation (due to Dittus–Boelter) for ﬂow through circular ducts:[25] Nu 5 0:023Re0:8 Pr0:3 [12] where Pr 5 Prandl number for air.. Re 5 Reynolds number 5 VDh/n. outer.. (b) A typical interior element (I. The following Nusselt number correlation (due to Gnielinski) for ﬂow through cylindrical annuli is used for calculating the heat-transfer coefﬁcient at the outer surface of coil:[26] Nu 5 ðf =2ÞðRe À 1000ÞPr 1 1 12:7ðf =2Þ0:5 ðPr2=3 À 1Þ À2 [13] f 5 ð1:58 ln Re À 3:28Þ where Re and Pr are the same as mentioned earlier. The alternating-direction implicit (ADI)[15.. Two thermal conductivities have been used. 5—(a) Cross section of a coil showing different nodes and the nomenclature adopted for the mathematical model. and bottom surfaces of the coil. the local Nusselt number and hence the local heat-transfer coefﬁcients were calculated for the case of convector plates. The grid arrangement along with a typical heat balance for any internal node (control volume) has been shown in Figure 5. DECEMBER 2006—1019 .e. at time t 5 0) of the coil has been used because the coils have a temperature gradient owing to the thermal history at the BAF.. a multipoint type hybrid chart recorder was used along with some K-type contact thermocouples. This was done for both the convectors and CIs. The calculated heat-transfer coefﬁcients for the coil under the aforementioned inputs were tuned later to validate the model. for radial and axial directions.[16] The low radial thermal conductivity decreases production rates and causes high thermal gradients in the steel coils. The simulations were performed with a time-step of 100 seconds. through the diverging slot between two ﬁns) or CIs. Kg is the thermal conductivity of ﬂuid (i. The Flow Distribution Fig. heat ﬂows in the r direction for half of the time-step. In ADI formulation. top. and bottom surfaces of the coils. Kr and Kz. For this measurement. which depends upon the sheet thickness and air gap between sheets. METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B Tables I and II show the percentage of ﬂow distribution in the physical model through the convectors and the CIs. The main barrier to transforming heat from the coils is the low radial thermal conductivity.e.24] method was used for obtaining the sets of linear algebraic equations. corner (quarter node). an input ﬂow rate (less than the maximum capacity of 10. This will again be discussed in Section III. The radial conductivity varies from 5 to 12 pct of the axial conductivity. In the case of ﬂow through the convectors (i. In the case of the coil used for validation of the heat-transfer model. and the temperature data of some locations on the coil were recorded for nearly 40 hours. The heat-transfer coefﬁcients were calculated for any coil of the stack for different input ﬂow rates and ﬂow distribution. V 5 average velocity. and it ﬂows in the z direction for the other half. Empirical correlations have been used to determine the heat-transfer coefﬁcients at the inner. The heat-transfer coefﬁcient is deﬁned by h5 NuK g Dh [11] where Nu is the Nusselt number.e.boundaries. out. and n 5 kinematic viscosity of air. and at the interior (full node). It should be noted that there are nodes at the surface (half node). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A.

There is good agreement between the observed and the calculated values of ﬂow distribution at least for three convectors. where it was 1020—VOLUME 37B. Fig.Table I. This is particularly evident in the case of CIs. The tuning parameter a is 250 for the bottom CP and 300 for intermediate CPs for all ﬂow rates. [1] and [2]). 7—Comparison of percentage distribution of ﬂow through different convectors obtained by the ﬂow model (hydraulic resistance concept) and the physical model measurements for a ﬂow rate of 2509 m3/h.and 300-mm water column (WC). Percentage Distribution of Air Flow through Different Convectors for Three Different Input Flow Rates in the Physical Model Percentage Distribution Total Flow (m3/hr) 1775 (200-mm WC) 2173 (300-mm WC) 2509 (400-mm WC) Range (approximately) Base Convector 10 10 13 10 to 13 CP 2 10 11 17 10 to 17 CP 3 18 18 23 18 to 23 CP 4 20 20 21 20 to 21 Top Convector 42 41 26 26 to 42 Table II. and the ﬂow goes vertically upward taking the least resistant path. respectively). Therefore. the mathematical model can be used to get a rough idea regarding METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B . Error bar is 8 pct of the experimental value. 6—The measured velocities at different peripheral locations when CIs were used between coils 2 and 3 for a ﬂow rate of 2173 m3/h (300-mm WC). DECEMBER 2006 observed that the peripheral velocity distribution for CIs was nearly uniform (refer to Figure 6). because the range of distribution for a particular convector or CI is very close. Percentage Distribution of Air Flow Through Different CI Location for Three Different Input Flow Rates in the Physical Model Percentage Distribution Total Flow (m3/hr) 1775 (200-mm WC) 2173 (300-mm WC) 2509 (400-mm WC) Range (approximately) Base Convector 9 10 9 9 and 10 CI 2 14 17 16 14 to 17 CI 3 19 21 20 19 to 21 CI 4 18 19 19 18 to 19 Top Convector 40 33 36 33 to 40 Fig. Figures 7 and 8 compare the ﬂow model (hydraulic resistance) and the physical model results through each convector for two ﬂow rates: 2509 and 2173 m3/h (blower pressure difference of 400. respectively. the maximum of the ﬂow leaves through the top convector (CP 5 here for a four coil stack). since the resistance to ﬂow through the central core of the stack is less due to its circular geometry. for three different input ﬂow rates. This result is expected. The bottom convector has only one side exposed to the ﬂow and thereby offers less normal ﬂow area compared to the other convectors. Some discrepancies may be attributed to the fact that the average pressure P may not be proper in the equation for hydraulic resistance (Eqs. It is obvious from these data that the maximum percentage of ﬂow leaves through the top convector and the reverse happens through the bottom convector. For this reason. It should be noted from Tables I and II that the ﬂow distributions are nearly reproducible.

respectively. 9—Average velocities at the outlet of ﬂow passages (at coil OD) through different convector positions (base to top) for three ﬂow rates in the physical model. 10—Average velocities through different CIs for three ﬂow rates in the physical model.78 times that of a CI. The comparisons of the average velocity of air passing through CPs and CIs have been shown in Figure 11 for a ﬂow rate of 2509 m3/h. 8—Comparison of percentage distribution of ﬂow through different convectors obtained by the mathematical model (hydraulic resistance concept) and the physical model measurements for a ﬂow rate of 2173 m3/h. the velocity through the CI would be higher as compared to the CP for the same ﬂow rate.) for a convector is nearly 1. in the physical model. Fig.d. if more coils with different dimensions are used in the stack and if convectors/CIs with different dimensions are placed. B. at the mid and Fig. The velocities at each CP/CI increase as the input ﬂow rates increase. METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B Fig. This observation provides a clue to the better effectiveness of using the CIs compared to the convectors because higher velocity means higher heat-transfer coefﬁcient and. Similar contour plots are shown in Figures 13(a) and (b) for a CI. faster cooling. The velocity distribution obtained through the numerical simulation gives a better insight of the ﬂow phenomena taking place between two coils in a stack. 11—Comparison of average velocity of air passing through convectors and CIs for a ﬂow rate of 2509 m3/h in the physical model. This issue is again discussed with an example of cooling time of a particular coil in Section C. Fig. DECEMBER 2006—1021 . Error bar is 8 pct of the experimental value. located on top of the base coil. Figures 12(a) through (c) show the velocity distribution at different planes in one of the ﬂow passages of a convector plate for a total stack input ﬂow rate of 1775 m3/h (200-mm WC). The effective available normal ﬂow area at the outlet between two coils (1500-mm o. The Velocity Distribution The results obtained from the CFD model are discussed in this section. hence. Therefore. Figures 9 and 10 show the average velocities obtained for three different ﬂow rates at different CP and CI positions. for example. It is quite evident that the air passes through the top and bottom of the coils at higher velocities when the intermediate convectors are replaced by the CIs.the ﬂow distribution for situations where we do not have experimental data. VOLUME 37B.

the difference is as low as 5 pct from the measurements. two sets of temperature measurement data were used to validate the mathematical model for heat transfer in the coil. 12—Velocity (m/s) distribution at a plane (a) located 24 mm from bottom. Although the prediction values for average exit air velocity are always below the measured values. and (c) at the outlet of the divergent ﬂow passage between two long ﬁns in the case of CP 1. we must mention that the agreement between these two become poorer as we increase the air ﬂow rate. There is good agreement between the actual measurements and prediction at lower ﬂow rates.. The total input ﬂow rate entering the stack was assumed to be 1775 m3/h (200-mm WC) in the simulation. The total input ﬂow rate entering the stack was assumed to be 1775 m3/h (200-mm WC) in the simulation. Figure 14 shows the model predictions and actual measurements along with the temperature proﬁle of the Fig. For lower ﬂow rates. The reason for this is perhaps that at higher velocities. This tuned model is then applied to predict the temperature proﬁle of another set of data. DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B . 1022—VOLUME 37B. and then interrupting the program after a suitable temperature condition has been reached (e. 13—Velocity (m/s) distribution (a) on the midplane and (b) at the outlet of the ﬂow passage between two CIs located on top of the base coil. when the hot spot has reached 160 °C after a speciﬁed time as obtained from the annealing cycle curves for the BAF). The initial temperature proﬁle has been generated by running the heat-transfer code and setting the initial temperatures of all nodes to a high value (as if.g. mid plane). (b) located 14 mm from bottom (i. Table III compares velocities at the outlet of the ﬂow passage for experimental measurements in the physical model and the prediction from the CFD model. for higher ﬂow rates.exit planes of the ﬂow passage. The Heat-Transfer Model As outlined earlier in Section II–E. C.e. The initial heat-transfer coefﬁcients obtained assuming a total input ﬂow and a ﬂow distribution are tuned to validate one set of temperature proﬁle data. this discrepancy is nearly 30 pct. This validated CFD model would enable the parametric analysis for selection of a suitable design of a convector/CI in future. the degree of turbulence may not be captured properly by the present turbulence model. however. It is clearly visible from the preceding plots that the maximum velocity at the outlet is nearly 10 pct higher for CIs as compared to convectors. it is simulating the cooling cycle after soaking in BAF) with high heat-transfer coefﬁcients. Fig..

whereas the other three agree reasonably well. We can also compare the time for the hot spot to reach 50 °C if the convectors are used in the stack.93. 27. at least. The plot of local heattransfer coefﬁcients along the radial direction has been shown in Figure 15. it is imperative to say that the hot spot of the coil will take up much more time if the convectors are used. the isolated asterisk with a high value of heattransfer coefﬁcient is for the presence of midbar (refer to Figure 1(b)) on the convector plate. There was good agreement between the predicted and the measured temperatures. As has been discussed earlier. and bottom surfaces of the coil. METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B Fig. Actual and Predicted Velocities for a Particular Convector and CI at the Outlet of the Flow Passage for Different Flow Rates Average Velocity (m/s) at the Outlet Flow Passage Base convector Cls on the top of the base coil Total Flow (m3/h) 1775 2173 2509 1775 2173 2509 (200-mm (300-mm (400-mm (200-mm (300-mm (400-mm WC) WC) WC) WC) WC) WC) Actual 0. out.254 Predicted 0. In the application of any empirical equation for forced convection to practical problems. it is expected that CIs will be very efﬁcient in cooling the coils. and hence.42 0. which tries to restrict the ﬂow by reducing the cross section of the ﬂow path. Location 1 is 480 mm below the top edge and location 2 is 280-mminside from outer edge on the top surface of the coil. 14—The validation of the mathematical model showing the predicted and actual measurements of temperature for two different locations on the coil.511 0. the temperature proﬁle of any coil can be reasonably predicted by the heat-transfer model.90 1. the computed values from empirical equations are 23. Correspondingly. differ appreciably. 17.100 m3/h and a suitable ﬂow distribution for the CI. it is important to bear in Table III.hot spot of the same coil. The predicted temperature proﬁle of the hot spot of the coil is also shown here (-m-).041 mind that the predicted values of the heat-transfer coefﬁcient are not exact. 1.874 0. This shows that only the heat-transfer coefﬁcient at the outer surface has been tuned extensively. The hot spot reaches 50 °C after nearly 36 h of cooling. respectively. there is a possibility of reduction of cooling time of coils if CIs are used in place of convectors.161 1. the effective heattransfer area at the top or bottom of a typical coil goes up from nearly 75 pct (for the CP) to 95 pct. DECEMBER 2006—1023 .52 W/(m2 K). For validation of the model in the present case.540 0. in the three surfaces. the accuracy of the Nusselt number predicted from available information may be even lower. Therefore. the tuned heat-transfer coefﬁcients are 22. With the use of the CI. where the experimental data are scant. In the same plot. The isolated asterisk is for the presence of the midbar on the convector plate. the coils were kept for 40 to 50 long hours on the cooling bases irrespective of Fig. 38.735 0. In turbulent ﬂow. thus increasing the velocity suddenly due to this sudden contraction.461 0. and 20 W/(m2 K) for in. which reduces the ﬂow area.[28] The results obtained by various experimenters. 15—Local heat-transfer coefﬁcients along the radial direction on top of a base coil for the case of convectors (CP) and CIs.589 0. From the previous discussion.776 1. assuming a ﬂow rate of 10. top. where the use of the CI has been compared with the use of the convector on top of the base coil of a stack for a total input ﬂow rate of 10. and 18. The plot clearly shows that the heat-transfer coefﬁcient at any radial location is much higher if the CP is replaced by the CI. respectively. Figure 16 shows the temperature contours of the coil after 36 hours. the accuracy of a heattransfer coefﬁcient predicted from any available equation or graph is no better than 620 pct.100 m3/h (which is maximum in a base in the plant). Therefore. the computed values from the empirical equations of the heat-transfer coefﬁcient can be used to obtain a fair idea about the heat-transfer coefﬁcients for any coil in the stack. This validation of the plant data provides conﬁdence in the use of the mathematical model. VOLUME 37B. In the transition region. It is evident from Figures 14 and 16 that the hot spot of the coil reaches 50 °C after 36 hours of cooling.83. even under carefully controlled conditions. by using them.32. the local heat-transfer coefﬁcient shoots up at that radial location. So. In the absence of a proper predictive model.

Harper and Row. 6th ed.J. 2nd ed. Singh. Bhagat. X. DeWitt: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. New York. The undercooling or overcooling of coils. 19. Mater. Continuous Casting Conf. 13.E. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. 1-10. vol. Electron.C. pp. 269-89. 1990. the cooling time is expected to be reduced. 2000. The velocity of air on the top or bottom of any coil increases if intermediate convectors are replaced by CIs. and H. A. M. Kakac and Y. 2000. Perrin. NY.F. 2000.L. 1984.S. 1995.M. Kumar. and M. D. 26.D. 10. Elsevier. 2nd ed. Deva: J. 3. 945-51. pp. 144. pp. 1995. 5. Cesar: Metal. 2002. 3. 8. vol. CRC Press.V. Ru. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions can be drawn in view of the observations made in the preceding sections. 2004.. 2004. Cui: Mater. 22. B. B. 3rd ed.. B. Cambier. Wang. Rolling Conf. Manuf. pp.N. P. 4. The cooling time is expected to be brought down by the use of CIs and the actual cooling time can be accurately predicted with the application of the mathematical model. and A. vol.I. A. vol. Eng. Das Gracas.M. Mech. can be minimized by reducing the human intervention.P.E. 17.I. 3rd ed. Boca Raton. 2003. S.. NY.C. NY. 16. Torran Computational Heat Transfer. New York. FL. R. cooling down from the 160 °C hot spot temperature to the 50 °C hot spot temperature in the CCSU takes nearly 47 hours if convectors are used for stacking. 30. 7. vol. 1993. M. Trollope: Ironmaking and Steelmaking. 43-53. Fouarge. 24.S. Roy. Moses. 809-17. Mater. 16—Different contour plots showing spatial temperature distribution after different hours of cooling of the coil obtained from the heat-transfer model. Scheuermann. and T. Merchant. vol. Boca Raton. 11. Kreith and M. Launder and D. pp. IV. Idelchik: Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance. 1. 39-46. K. 7. FL. 2. 23. 319-22. and B. Sahay. 51-66. A.. 150. 26. X. vol. Hemisphere. 2.. CRC Press.B. Univ. 1. John Wiley & Sons. J. John Wiley & Sons. Training (Taiwan). Performance Guarantee Test Results for Tata Steel: Technical Manual for Batch Annealing Furnace.S. vol.K. 2nd ed. 1990.. M. Fluent Inc. the present mathematical model provides nearly 45 hours to cool if CIs are used. 1994.V. Patankar: Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. The standard cooling time data for a particular stack could be viewed through the look-up table as soon as a stack of coils was built. Phys. Sharma: Tata Search.S. Kang and C. the effective heat-transfer area is higher in the case of CIs. vol.N. 25. Germany. CRC Press. Chatterjee: Ironmaking and Steelmaking. Huang: Technol. 2002. The distribution is therefore independent of the ﬂow rate entering a base. Application of the Heat-Transfer Model A lookup table has been constructed with the off-line data produced for the cooling time of several thousand coils having different dimensions. Huttebraucker. New York. 477-82. Mater. 14. the coil tonnage and grade. Kaushal: J. Meunier: Cahiers d’Informations Techn.R. L. vol. pp.M. A. Lebanon. 18.E.. 140-42. pp. vol. pp. Appl.. Incropera and D. REFERENCES Fig. Moreover. 148.J. Sahay and A. A.K. 1993. Guthrie: Engineering in Process Metallurgy. K. NH. 18. 57. Spalding: Comput. P. FLUENTÒ 6. S. Cao: J. 1986. Y.S. 22. A. and M. Sahay. For example. 92. and L. LOI Thermoprocess Gmbh. I. This suggested cooling time would be used by the operator to determine the duration of cooling for a particular stack. vol. Meth. FL. W. NY.. thus. 27. pp. vol. 3rd ed. The mathematical model can be used to predict the temperature proﬁle of any coil provided the heat-transfer coefﬁcients are properly tuned. 13. Wittler. 94. A. C. S. vol. Boca Raton. 21. Yener: Convective Heat Transfer. Roth: Vacuum Technology. New York. Steck. Fischer: METEC Congr. Beijing. Jaluria and K. 2001. Performance. Sci. Kumar: Mater. F. The empirical equations used for computation of the heat-transfer coefﬁcient give reasonably good values. 18-23. This can only be realized with the proper application of the mathematical model to accurately predict the cooling time while using CIs. F. 146. Oxford University Press. pp. 4. 1988. Peng. Processes. Therefore. 1999..D.M. 2004. 2001.S. 27-33. Kumar. vol. 1578-83. 17.F. Chefneux. 24. we can clearly appreciate the fact that there could have been a savings of nearly 14 hours if the cooling time was optimized with a mathematical model. 1st ed. Amsterdam. 2. pp. 2003.1 User’s Guide. Sahay: J.M. 361-65. 15. 6. DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B . and Q. 439-53. Germany. A. pp. Burmeister: Convective Heat Transfer. Manuf. it results in an increased heat-transfer 1024—VOLUME 37B. Ozisik: Finite Difference Methods in Heat Transfer. Dusseldorf. R. Washington. IV. Sarkar. For a typical four coil stack (strip width 1485 mm). DC. 1999. Stonehill: Iron Steelmaker. Bovalina: Metallurgical Plant and Technology International. S. the coil for which the mathematical model was validated was kept for 50 hours on the cooling base before it was sent to storage or SPM.coefﬁcient and makes the cooling process faster. So.B. K. 140. 144-52. and H. Technol. 16.S. vol. 9. 15. Shi and D. Iyer: Steel India. NY. L.. Antunes. pp.L. 1994. S. 12. 29. pp. Buckley. Jha. 1974.. pp. Therefore. Eng. Bohn: Principles of Heat Transfer. New York. 1995. 31. S. 223-26. and S.V. The air ﬂow distribution through different convectors or CIs in a stack falls within a close range for different input ﬂow rates. Guthrie. pp. 1989. ABM. S. 28. pp. 1980. S. 6th Int. Processes. 2nd Eur. 20. with the use of CIs.[29] For the same strip width. Z.. and A.. 3. R.P.

- Mit Turbulent Jets
- Impact
- Grain Growth in Alpha-Brass
- ageing.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S0022309303003223-main
- Seismic Velocities From Surface Measurements. C Hewitt Dix
- 1
- Effect of sintering on optical, structural and photoluminescence properties of ZnO thin films prepared by sol–gel process
- Defect Equilibrium and Complex Formation in CdTe(Sn)
- Shock
- 432-436
- CFD of Droplet in a Sd
- avinash.pdf
- low temperature annealing of amorphous silicon
- [Xx]Rhen,FMF(2010,322,1572)FePt Pre Print
- Heat Transfer End semester Exam Paper
- SM 15 17 XI Physics Unit-1 Section-A
- Engg physics research
- Gal an Is
- How to Avoid Cracks in Thin Films During Annealing
- Physics Bitsat 2010 Sample Test 3
- EASA Module 2
- Cane85
- Ansys-Journal_and_batch_file-run_simulation
- Projectile Motion
- HLC_VI
- Acta Mater Vol 60 2012-Heat Treated Pearlite
- PDF W2004 RLAB Heat Dissipation of Hot Wire
- 1405.5933
- Design and Application of CFD - Fluent
- A Comparative Experimental and Numerical Study To

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd