12 views

Uploaded by anuragkk

- Part 5 67 Evaluation and Selection of Corrosion Inhibitors Pag 1169 11782
- Normalizing heat treatment.pdf
- Sas
- J.fluids.engineering.2009.Vol.131.N7
- Laminar transitional and turbulent flow of yield stress fluid
- Unsteady Laminar Flow Over a Cylinder
- Fluent manual
- Multi-scale Time Integration for Transient Conjugate Heat Transfer
- Turbulence Modeling
- CMTA11.pptx
- Full Text 01
- PART-5-67-EVALUATION-AND-SELECTION-OF-CORROSION-INHIBITORS-PAG-1169-11782.pdf
- Performance Analysis of Double Pipe Heat Exchanger using Convergent - Divergent-Divergent Spring Turbulators
- DD11 _ 1.0332 Steel - Equivalent, Chemical Composition,
- TAU- DLR Deutsh Software Flow Aero Solver
- 20mncr5en19
- The Growth of a Cylinder Wake in Turbulent Flow
- 83_10_SinghSN
- 1-I_gb.pdf
- 2 - Flow in Pipes Closed Conduits [Compatibility Mode]

You are on page 1of 10

‘‘C’’ Inserts in Cooling Cold-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 ent designs. For example, the base convectors have 16 short

and equal numbers of long ﬁns on each side, whereas the

COLD-ROLLED coils are annealed in the batch anneal- intermediate convectors may have 20 short and long ﬁns

ing furnace (BAF) for obtaining the desired properties and each on both sides. The top convectors, on the other hand,

mechanical strength to render the cold-rolled sheets ame- have 16 long ﬁns only on one side with the ﬁn thickness

nable to subsequent forming operations (e.g., deep drawing nearly double those of the previous two types. Figure 1(b)

of auto body parts). In the BAF, the coils are stacked inside shows the top view of a typical base convector plate.

a furnace and annealed for long hours (40 to 50 hours) in a The stacking as well as the destacking of coils is a time-

hydrogen atmosphere. There are three stages in the anneal- consuming process, which may take 30 to 45 minutes for a

ing cycle, namely, heating, soaking, and cooling. The coils single stack depending upon the number of coils. In order

are heated to a temperature of 720 °C and kept for soaking to reduce the time loss during stacking and destacking, the

at that temperature for a certain time before they are cooled intermediate convectors can be replaced by ‘‘C’’ inserts

at a slower rate ﬁrst (up to 500 °C) and then at a faster rate (CIs). Figure 2(a) shows a CI with typical dimension. The

using a bypass cooling system until the hot spot (core) of arrangement of CIs is such that between two coils, there are

the coils reaches 160 °C. four CIs at diametrically opposite locations making a 90

It is the coil cooling and storage unit (CCSU) in which deg angular distance (refer to Figure 2(b) for arrangement).

the coils are made to pass through a ﬁnal cooling step so The present work investigates the effect of using CIs on the

that the hot spot temperature comes down to around 50 °C. cooling time of coils in CCSU as compared to the practice

Thereafter, the coils may be taken to the skin pass mill with convectors by predicting the cooling time of coils.

(SPM) for ﬁnal property and surface ﬁnish compliance. Cooling of the coils is done by passing dehumidiﬁed air

In the CCSU, identical coil stacks are built after ﬁnishing from the bottom of the stack through the eyes of the coils

the cooling cycle on the annealing bases at the BAF. Figure and the convector plates (or the CIs). After stacking, each

1(a) shows a typical stack conﬁguration for a CCSU base stack is covered by a single hood in order to collect the

with four coils. The ﬁrst coil of the stack is placed on a dehumidiﬁed air that has passed the convectors or CIs. To

bottom convector plate (CP). An intermediate convector avoid oxidation of the outer layers, the relative humidity of

plate is placed between each two coils of a stack. A top the recirculated air for cooling the coils has to be less than

convector plate is placed above the top coil of a stack. 29 pct.

These three types of convector plates normally have differ-

II. METHODOLOGY

TATHAGATA BHATTACHARYA, DEBADI CHAKRABORTY, and

VIKAS SINGH, Researchers, are with Research and Development, Tata A. Overview

Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, PIN 831001, India. Contact e-mail:

tathabhatt@yahoo.com Extensive work[1–18] has been carried out on the process

Manuscript submitted September 2, 2005. of batch annealing furnaces, but there appears to be very

Fig. 1—(a) Typical CCSU stack arrangement with convectors between the coils. CIs can also be kept in place of the intermediate convectors. (b) Top view of

the base convector of a CCSU stack. The dotted line shows the peripheral locations where velocity measurements were carried out in the physical model.

fer process is somewhat similar to the BAF. The present

work involves experimental and numerical analysis of heat

transfer and ﬂuid ﬂow in a stack of coils. The analysis was

employed to compare the effectiveness of convectors and

CIs in cooling the coils. The heat-transfer model was used

to predict the cooling time of coils. 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. A ﬂow model using the so-

called hydraulic resistance concept was developed for esti-

mating the ﬂow distribution through convectors or CIs. A

commercial CFD package, Fluent,[19] was employed to

obtain the velocity distribution through the ﬂow passages

of convectors and CIs. The actual velocity measurements

were compared with the CFD simulation. The information

from the ﬂow models was used to calculate the average

heat-transfer coefﬁcients for a coil. The heat-transfer coef-

ﬁcients were used to tune and validate the heat-transfer

model. Plant trials were conducted to record the temper-

ature of a particular point of a coil with time when CIs were

used. The prediction of cooling time from the heat-transfer

model was compared with the measurements from the

plant trials.

The estimation of the distribution of ﬂow exiting each of

the convectors and CIs has been obtained from measure-

ments on a full scale physical model. The experimental

setup consists of four identical coils stacked on a bottom

convector. The coils have been made from plywood board

Fig. 2—(a) Different views of a CI used in CCSU. (b) The radial arrange-

ment of the CIs on the top surface of a coil. Another coil sits on top of

with scrap cold-rolled sheets as the inner and outer cylin-

these CIs, making a passage for the air in between two coils. All dimen- drical surfaces. The convector plates have also been fabri-

sions are in millimeters. cated from plywood board, and the ﬁns have been made

from wood with very high surface ﬁnish so as to offer the The measurements were taken for three different ﬂow rates

same ﬂow resistance as that of the actual convectors made each for convectors and CIs. In the case of intermediate

up of weldable steel plates. The equivalent roughnesses of convectors, the velocities were measured for both sides of

galvanized sheet steel and plywood are comparable (0.12 to the convector plate along the periphery of the coils. The

0.15).[20] The fabrication using plywood and wood made average velocity was calculated at a particular convector or

the coils and the convectors lighter and easy to handle. CI, and the average ﬂow was then calculated from the ﬂow

The CIs are also fabricated from wood with dimensions area. For intermediate convectors, the average ﬂow was

as shown in Figure 2(a). The experimental setup has been calculated by taking the mean of the average ﬂows of both

shown in Figure 3(a) with actual dimensions. sides of the convector plate.

The air ﬂow was supplied from a blower through pipe,

which was ﬁtted at the bottom chamber of the stack. A C. Estimation of Flow Distribution Using

grate was placed at the eye of the bottom convector to make Hydraulic Resistance

the ﬂow uniform when it passed through the ﬁrst convector

and coil. The ﬂow delivered by the blower was calculated A ﬂow model was developed for predicting the ﬂow

from the difference of water column in a ‘‘U’’-tube man- distribution through convector plates using the hydraulic

ometer. The cover on the stack is ﬁtted with small windows resistance concept. The various resistances offered by var-

at different heights in order to access the convectors and the ious ﬂow paths such as diverging slots between two radial

CIs during velocity measurements. At each level, there ﬁns on the convector plate and the tube-like part at the inner

were six windows. Velocity measurements were carried surface of coils have been shown in Figure 3(b) using dif-

out through these windows using a vane-type anemometer ferent shades. The resistance network thus formed has been

at peripheral locations of a coil on the convector plate (refer depicted in Figure 3(c).

to Figure 1(b) for measurement locations) and also periph- The following relations have been used with some mod-

erally in the gap between two coils when CIs were used. iﬁcations for the resistances[21] offered by different ﬂow

paths.

(a) For ﬂow through the tube region of the coil, i.e., for

resistances R2, R4, R6, and R8 in this case,

Pin

R ¼ ð128mLÞ ðpD4 Þ [1]

P

where m 5 viscosity of air ﬂowing, L 5 length of ﬂow path,

D 5 hydraulic diameter of ﬂow path, Pin 5 pressure at inlet

to the ﬂow path, and P 5 average pressure of the ﬂow

path 5 [(Pin 1 Pout)/2].

(b) For ﬂow on the convectors, the resistance equation

for the rectangular cross section has been used in approx-

imation.

Therefore, resistances R1, R3, R5, and R7 can be calcu-

lated from the equation

h iP

2 in

R ¼ a ðCmLÞ ðknA YÞ [2]

P

where a 5 a tuning parameter; C 5 a constant (=2824.859,

if all parameters are in SI units); m 5 viscosity of air

ﬂowing; L 5 length of ﬂow path; k 5 1 for base convector,

2 for intermediate convectors; n 5 number of long ﬁns on

one side of convector plate; A 5 average cross sectional

area of the ﬂow path; Y 5 correction factor for height-to-

width ratio of the ﬂow path cross section, e.g., Y 5 1 for

square cross section;[21] Pin 5 pressure at inlet to the ﬂow

path; and P 5 average pressure of the ﬂow path 5 [(Pin 1

Pout)/2].

In reality, the ﬂow path between two ﬁns is a diverging

slot obstructed by a midbar (short ﬁn), as shown in Figure

1(b). The tuning parameter a differs for base and intermedi-

ate 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

Fig. 3—(a) Experimental setup of the physical model with convectors. CIs ﬂow with regular geometries. The P for any ﬂow path has

were also kept in place of the intermediate convectors. (b) The various

resistances offered by different ﬂow paths in a stack with four coils. (c) been calculated by the iterative method using the correction

The ﬂow resistance network to estimate ﬂow through different convectors from the previous iteration. It may be noted that the resist-

for a four coil stack. All dimensions are in millimeters. ance of the cylindrical tube of the coils is far less than that

of the resistances through the convectors. Therefore, the where Pk represents the shear production term:

minimum pressure drop occurs through the inner cylindri-

cal core formed by the stack of coils, and it will be shown @U i @Uj @U i

Pk ¼ nt 1 [9]

in Section IV that the maximum ﬂow leaves through the top @xj @xi @xj

convector since air ﬂow takes the least resistant path. The

mathematical model for CIs can also be developed similarly. With the exception of the low-Reynolds number k-e

models, the damping functions f1, f2, and f3 are equal to

one. The model coefﬁcients in the standard k-e model are

D. Estimation of Velocity Distribution using CFD given subsequently:

A commercial CFD software package (FLUENT)[19] has Cm ,C1 ,C2 ,sm ,se 5 ð0:09,1:44,1:92,1:0,1:3Þ [10]

been used to predict the velocity proﬁles inside the ﬂow

passage through different convectors and CIs under steady- A detailed description of this model can be found in Launder

state conditions. This program is a ﬁnite volume code, which and Spalding.[23]

uses a cell-centered, nonstaggered grid. The Reynolds- Figures 4(a) and (b) show the computational domain for

averaged Navier–Stokes equations and the transport equa- convectors and CIs, respectively. The geometry was

tions of the turbulent quantities are solved by the pressure meshed using structured hexahedron cells. No slip boun-

correction algorithm SIMPLE[22] (semi-implicit method for dary conditions were used for the walls speciﬁed by the top

pressure-linked equation). In the current study, the ﬂuid is and bottom coils and also for the side walls of convector

considered as incompressible. The ﬂuid properties are ﬁns and CIs. In the case of convectors, the outer surfaces of

assumed to be constant. The governing equations as given the included T-shaped short ﬁns are also considered for no-

by Eqs. [3] and [4] describe the ﬂow through the ﬂow slip boundary conditions. The air ﬂow rate was speciﬁed at

passage between two coils in a stack. the inlet and ambient pressure was applied as the outlet

Mass Conservation: boundary condition.

50 [3] Measurement of Coils

@xj

The spatial and temporal thermal proﬁle of any coil is

Momentum conservation: obtained through the heat balance of the control volume

method in the cylindrical coordinate. A computer program

was written for the same. Owing to the cylindrical symme-

@U j U i 1 @p @ @U i

¼ 1 n ui uj [4] try of the coils, only the rz plane is analyzed. It is assumed

@xj r @xi @xj @xj

that there is no temperature gradient in the u direction.

where ui uj is the unknown Reynolds stresses. Convective boundary conditions have been used at the four

The standard k-e model was used to model the turbulent

ﬂow ﬁeld. In this model, two entities that are used for

describing turbulence are introduced: the speciﬁc kinetic

turbulent energy k and its dissipation e. For both entities,

differential transport equations are introduced, which are

solved in addition to the other Eqs. [3] and [4]. Using the

Boussinesq hypothesis, the Reynolds stresses can be

described as follows:

@U i @U j 2

ui uj ¼ nt 1 kdij [5]

@xj @xi 3

k2

n t ¼ Cm f m [6]

e

The kinetic turbulent energy k and its dissipation e are

determined using the following transport equations, respec-

tively:

@U j k @ nt @k

5 n1 1 Pk e [7]

@xj @xj sk @xj

Fig. 4—(a) The geometry of the divergent ﬂow passage between two long

@U j e @ nt @e e ﬁns on the convector plate. The obstructing midbar and short ﬁns (making

5 n1 1 ðC1 f 1 Pk C2 f 2 eÞ [8] a T shape) could also be seen in the ﬁgure. (b) The geometry of the ﬂow

@xj @xj se @xj k passage between two CIs separated radially by 90 deg on top of a coil.

boundaries, i.e., at the in, out, top, and bottom surfaces of where Nu is the Nusselt number, Kg is the thermal conduc-

the coil. The grid arrangement along with a typical heat tivity of ﬂuid (i.e., air), and Dh is the hydraulic diameter of

balance for any internal node (control volume) has been the ﬂow passage deﬁned by 4(area/perimeter). The heat-

shown in Figure 5. It should be noted that there are nodes transfer coefﬁcient at the inner surface has been obtained

at the surface (half node), corner (quarter node), and at the from the following Nusselt number correlation (due to

interior (full node). The alternating-direction implicit Dittus–Boelter) for ﬂow through circular ducts:[25]

(ADI)[15,24] method was used for obtaining the sets of linear

algebraic equations. In ADI formulation, heat ﬂows in the Nu 5 0:023Re0:8 Pr0:3 [12]

r direction for half of the time-step, and it ﬂows in the where Pr 5 Prandl number for air, Re 5 Reynolds number 5

z direction for the other half. The resulting linear algebraic VDh/n, V 5 average velocity, and n 5 kinematic viscosity

equations are solved by the tri-diagonal matrix algorithm of air.

(TDMA). The following Nusselt number correlation (due to

A suitable Initial temperature proﬁle (i.e., at time t 5 0) Gnielinski) for ﬂow through cylindrical annuli is used for

of the coil has been used because the coils have a temper- calculating the heat-transfer coefﬁcient at the outer surface

ature gradient owing to the thermal history at the BAF. Two of coil:[26]

thermal conductivities have been used, Kr and Kz, for radial

and axial directions, respectively. The main barrier to trans- ðf =2ÞðRe 1000ÞPr

Nu 5

forming heat from the coils is the low radial thermal con- 1 1 12:7ðf =2Þ0:5 ðPr2=3 1Þ [13]

ductivity, which depends upon the sheet thickness and air 2

gap between sheets. The radial conductivity varies from f 5 ð1:58 ln Re 3:28Þ

5 to 12 pct of the axial conductivity.[16] The low radial where Re and Pr are the same as mentioned earlier.

thermal conductivity decreases production rates and causes In the case of ﬂow through the convectors (i.e., through

high thermal gradients in the steel coils. The simulations the diverging slot between two ﬁns) or CIs, the correlations

were performed with a time-step of 100 seconds, and 51 for ﬂow in rectangular ducts (due to Sleicher and Rouse)

nodes were used in both the r and z directions after check- may be used:[26,27]

ing for the grid and time-step independency.

Empirical correlations have been used to determine Nu 5 5 1 0:015Rea Prb

the heat-transfer coefﬁcients at the inner, outer, top, and a 5 0:88 0:24=ð4 1 PrÞ [14]

bottom surfaces of the coils. The heat-transfer coefﬁcient ð0:6PrÞ

is deﬁned by b 5 0:333 1 0:5e

NuK g Because the diverging slot on the convector can be

h5 [11]

Dh thought of as made up of many rectangular cross sections

along the radial direction, the local Nusselt number and

hence the local heat-transfer coefﬁcients were calculated

for the case of convector plates, and then they were aver-

aged to be used as the bottom and top heat-transfer coef-

ﬁcients 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. For this measure-

ment, a multipoint type hybrid chart recorder was used

along with some K-type contact thermocouples, 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. This was done for both the

convectors and CIs. In the case of the coil used for valida-

tion of the heat-transfer model, an input ﬂow rate (less than

the maximum capacity of 10,100 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, refer to Table II). The calculated heat-transfer

coefﬁcients for the coil under the aforementioned inputs

were tuned later to validate the model. This will again be

discussed in Section III.

A. The Flow Distribution

Fig. 5—(a) Cross section of a coil showing different nodes and the nomen-

clature adopted for the mathematical model. (b) A typical interior element Tables I and II show the percentage of ﬂow distribution

(I,J) and the heat balance for the volume element. in the physical model through the convectors and the CIs,

Table I. Percentage Distribution of Air Flow through Different Convectors for Three Different Input Flow

Rates in the Physical Model

Percentage Distribution

Total Flow (m3/hr) Base Convector CP 2 CP 3 CP 4 Top Convector

1775 (200-mm WC) 10 10 18 20 42

2173 (300-mm WC) 10 11 18 20 41

2509 (400-mm WC) 13 17 23 21 26

Range (approximately) 10 to 13 10 to 17 18 to 23 20 to 21 26 to 42

Table II. 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) Base Convector CI 2 CI 3 CI 4 Top Convector

1775 (200-mm WC) 9 14 19 18 40

2173 (300-mm WC) 10 17 21 19 33

2509 (400-mm WC) 9 16 20 19 36

Range (approximately) 9 and 10 14 to 17 19 to 21 18 to 19 33 to 40

were used between coils 2 and 3 for a ﬂow rate of 2173 m3/h (300-mm WC). Fig. 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. Error bar is

8 pct of the experimental value.

obvious from these data that the maximum percentage of observed that the peripheral velocity distribution for CIs

ﬂow leaves through the top convector and the reverse hap- was nearly uniform (refer to Figure 6).

pens through the bottom convector. This result is expected, Figures 7 and 8 compare the ﬂow model (hydraulic

since the resistance to ﬂow through the central core of the resistance) and the physical model results through each

stack is less due to its circular geometry, and the ﬂow goes convector for two ﬂow rates: 2509 and 2173 m3/h (blower

vertically upward taking the least resistant path. For this pressure difference of 400- and 300-mm water column

reason, the maximum of the ﬂow leaves through the top (WC), respectively). There is good agreement between

convector (CP 5 here for a four coil stack). The bottom the observed and the calculated values of ﬂow distribution

convector has only one side exposed to the ﬂow and thereby at least for three convectors. Some discrepancies may be

offers less normal ﬂow area compared to the other convec- attributed to the fact that the average pressure P may not be

tors. It should be noted from Tables I and II that the ﬂow proper in the equation for hydraulic resistance (Eqs. [1] and

distributions are nearly reproducible, because the range of [2]). The tuning parameter a is 250 for the bottom CP and

distribution for a particular convector or CI is very close. 300 for intermediate CPs for all ﬂow rates. Therefore, the

This is particularly evident in the case of CIs, where it was mathematical model can be used to get a rough idea regarding

the ﬂow distribution for situations where we do not have that of a CI. Therefore, the velocity through the CI would

experimental data, for example, if more coils with different be higher as compared to the CP for the same ﬂow rate.

dimensions are used in the stack and if convectors/CIs with This observation provides a clue to the better effective-

different dimensions are placed. ness of using the CIs compared to the convectors because

Figures 9 and 10 show the average velocities obtained for higher velocity means higher heat-transfer coefﬁcient and,

three different ﬂow rates at different CP and CI positions, hence, faster cooling. This issue is again discussed with an

respectively, in the physical model. The velocities at each example of cooling time of a particular coil in Section C.

CP/CI increase as the input ﬂow rates increase. The com-

parisons of the average velocity of air passing through CPs B. The Velocity Distribution

and CIs have been shown in Figure 11 for a ﬂow rate of

2509 m3/h. It is quite evident that the air passes through the The results obtained from the CFD model are discussed

top and bottom of the coils at higher velocities when the in this section. The velocity distribution obtained through

intermediate convectors are replaced by the CIs. The effec- the numerical simulation gives a better insight of the ﬂow

tive available normal ﬂow area at the outlet between two phenomena taking place between two coils in a stack.

coils (1500-mm o.d.) for a convector is nearly 1.78 times 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). Similar contour plots are shown in Figures 13(a) and

(b) for a CI, located on top of the base coil, at the mid and

convectors obtained by the mathematical model (hydraulic resistance con-

cept) and the physical model measurements for a ﬂow rate of 2173 m3/h.

Error bar is 8 pct of the experimental value. Fig. 10—Average velocities through different CIs for three ﬂow rates in the

physical model.

Fig. 9—Average velocities at the outlet of ﬂow passages (at coil OD)

through different convector positions (base to top) for three ﬂow rates in Fig. 11—Comparison of average velocity of air passing through convectors

the physical model. and CIs for a ﬂow rate of 2509 m3/h in the physical model.

exit planes of the ﬂow passage. It is clearly visible from the C. The Heat-Transfer Model

preceding plots that the maximum velocity at the outlet is

As outlined earlier in Section II–E, two sets of temper-

nearly 10 pct higher for CIs as compared to convectors.

ature measurement data were used to validate the mathe-

Table III compares velocities at the outlet of the ﬂow pas-

matical model for heat transfer in the coil. The initial

sage for experimental measurements in the physical model temperature proﬁle has been generated by running the

and the prediction from the CFD model. There is good heat-transfer code and setting the initial temperatures of

agreement between the actual measurements and prediction all nodes to a high value (as if, it is simulating the cooling

at lower ﬂow rates. Although the prediction values for aver- cycle after soaking in BAF) with high heat-transfer coefﬁ-

age exit air velocity are always below the measured values, cients, and then interrupting the program after a suitable

we must mention that the agreement between these two temperature condition has been reached (e.g., when the hot

become poorer as we increase the air ﬂow rate. For lower spot has reached 160 °C after a speciﬁed time as obtained

ﬂow rates, the difference is as low as 5 pct from the mea- from the annealing cycle curves for the BAF). The initial

surements; however, for higher ﬂow rates, this discrepancy heat-transfer coefﬁcients obtained assuming a total input

is nearly 30 pct. The reason for this is perhaps that at higher ﬂow and a ﬂow distribution are tuned to validate one set

velocities, the degree of turbulence may not be captured of temperature proﬁle data. This tuned model is then

properly by the present turbulence model. This validated applied to predict the temperature proﬁle of another set of

CFD model would enable the parametric analysis for selec- data. Figure 14 shows the model predictions and actual

tion of a suitable design of a convector/CI in future. measurements along with the temperature proﬁle of the

Fig. 12—Velocity (m/s) distribution at a plane (a) located 24 mm from bottom, (b) located 14 mm from bottom (i.e., mid plane), and (c) at the outlet of the

divergent ﬂow passage between two long ﬁns in the case of CP 1. The total input ﬂow rate entering the stack was assumed to be 1775 m3/h (200-mm WC) in

the simulation.

Fig. 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. The total

input ﬂow rate entering the stack was assumed to be 1775 m3/h (200-mm WC) in the simulation.

hot spot of the same coil. There was good agreement mind that the predicted values of the heat-transfer coefﬁ-

between the predicted and the measured temperatures. This cient are not exact.[28] The results obtained by various

validation of the plant data provides conﬁdence in the use experimenters, even under carefully controlled conditions,

of the mathematical model. differ appreciably. In turbulent ﬂow, the accuracy of a heat-

As has been discussed earlier, it is expected that CIs will transfer coefﬁcient predicted from any available equation or

be very efﬁcient in cooling the coils. The plot of local heat- graph is no better than 620 pct. In the transition region,

transfer coefﬁcients along the radial direction has been where the experimental data are scant, the accuracy of the

shown in Figure 15, where the use of the CI has been Nusselt number predicted from available information may

compared with the use of the convector on top of the base be even lower.

coil of a stack for a total input ﬂow rate of 10,100 m3/h For validation of the model in the present case, the tuned

(which is maximum in a base in the plant). The plot clearly heat-transfer coefﬁcients are 22, 17, 38, and 20 W/(m2 K)

shows that the heat-transfer coefﬁcient at any radial loca- for in, out, top, and bottom surfaces of the coil, respec-

tion is much higher if the CP is replaced by the CI. In the tively. Correspondingly, the computed values from empiri-

same plot, the isolated asterisk with a high value of heat- cal equations are 23.32, 1.83, 27.93, and 18.52 W/(m2 K),

transfer coefﬁcient is for the presence of midbar (refer to respectively, assuming a ﬂow rate of 10,100 m3/h and a

Figure 1(b)) on the convector plate, which tries to restrict suitable ﬂow distribution for the CI. This shows that only

the ﬂow by reducing the cross section of the ﬂow path, thus the heat-transfer coefﬁcient at the outer surface has been

increasing the velocity suddenly due to this sudden contrac- tuned extensively, whereas the other three agree reasonably

tion, and hence, the local heat-transfer coefﬁcient shoots up well. Therefore, the computed values from the empirical

at that radial location. equations of the heat-transfer coefﬁcient can be used to

In the application of any empirical equation for forced obtain a fair idea about the heat-transfer coefﬁcients for

convection to practical problems, it is important to bear in any coil in the stack, at least, in the three surfaces. So, by

using them, the temperature proﬁle of any coil can be rea-

sonably predicted by the heat-transfer model.

Table III. Actual and Predicted Velocities for a Particular

Convector and CI at the Outlet of the Flow

Figure 16 shows the temperature contours of the coil

Passage for Different Flow Rates after 36 hours. It is evident from Figures 14 and 16 that

the hot spot of the coil reaches 50 °C after 36 hours of

Average Velocity cooling. We can also compare the time for the hot spot to

(m/s) at the Outlet reach 50 °C if the convectors are used in the stack. From

the previous discussion, it is imperative to say that the hot

Flow Passage Total Flow (m3/h) Actual Predicted

spot of the coil will take up much more time if the con-

Base convector 1775 (200-mm WC) 0.461 0.42 vectors are used. With the use of the CI, the effective heat-

2173 (300-mm WC) 0.540 0.511 transfer area at the top or bottom of a typical coil goes up

2509 (400-mm WC) 0.874 0.589 from nearly 75 pct (for the CP) to 95 pct.

Cls on the top of 1775 (200-mm WC) 0.776 0.735 Therefore, there is a possibility of reduction of cooling

the base coil 2173 (300-mm WC) 1.161 0.90 time of coils if CIs are used in place of convectors. In the

2509 (400-mm WC) 1.254 1.041

absence of a proper predictive model, the coils were kept

for 40 to 50 long hours on the cooling bases irrespective of

and actual measurements of temperature for two different locations on the

coil. Location 1 is 480 mm below the top edge and location 2 is 280-mm- Fig. 15—Local heat-transfer coefﬁcients along the radial direction on top

inside from outer edge on the top surface of the coil. The predicted temper- of a base coil for the case of convectors (CP) and CIs. The isolated asterisk

ature proﬁle of the hot spot of the coil is also shown here (-m-). The hot is for the presence of the midbar on the convector plate, which reduces the

spot reaches 50 °C after nearly 36 h of cooling. ﬂow area.

coefﬁcient and makes the cooling process faster. More-

over, the effective heat-transfer area is higher in the case

of CIs.

3. The mathematical model can be used to predict the tem-

perature proﬁle of any coil provided the heat-transfer

coefﬁcients are properly tuned. The empirical equations

used for computation of the heat-transfer coefﬁcient give

reasonably good values.

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.

REFERENCES

1. S.S. Sahay: J. Phys. IV, 2004, vol. 140, pp. 809-17.

2. S.S. Sahay, A.M. Kumar, and A. Chatterjee: Ironmaking and Steel-

Fig. 16—Different contour plots showing spatial temperature distribution making, 2004, vol. 31, pp. 144-52.

after different hours of cooling of the coil obtained from the heat-transfer 3. B. Sarkar, B.K. Jha, and A. Deva: J. Mater. Eng. Performance, 2004,

model. vol. 13, pp. 361-65.

4. J. Shi and D. Cui: Mater. Manuf. Processes, 2003, vol. 18, pp. 51-66.

5. S.S. Sahay and A.M. Kumar: Mater. Manuf. Processes, 2002, vol. 17,

the coil tonnage and grade. For example, the coil for which pp. 439-53.

the mathematical model was validated was kept for 50 6. R.D.F. Antunes, M. Das Gracas, and M.M. Cesar: Metal. Mater. ABM,

2002, vol. 57, pp. 18-23.

hours on the cooling base before it was sent to storage or 7. P.K. Roy, S.M. Merchant, and S. Kaushal: J. Electron. Mater., 2001,

SPM. Therefore, we can clearly appreciate the fact that vol. 30, pp. 1578-83.

there could have been a savings of nearly 14 hours if the 8. S.S. Sahay, A.M. Kumar, S.B. Singh, A.N. Bhagat, and M.S.S. Sharma:

cooling time was optimized with a mathematical model. Tata Search, 2001, pp. 39-46.

For a typical four coil stack (strip width 1485 mm), cooling 9. X. Peng, X. Wang, Z. Ru, and Q. Cao: J. Univ. Sci. Technol. Beijing,

2000, vol. 22, pp. 223-26.

down from the 160 °C hot spot temperature to the 50 °C hot 10. A. Buckley, A.J. Moses, and L. Trollope: Ironmaking and Steelmaking,

spot temperature in the CCSU takes nearly 47 hours if con- 1999, vol. 26, pp. 477-82.

vectors are used for stacking.[29] For the same strip width, 11. C.J. Kang and C.D. Huang: Technol. Training (Taiwan), 1999, vol. 24,

the present mathematical model provides nearly 45 hours to pp. 1-10.

12. A. Fouarge, L. Chefneux, M. Cambier, and H. Meunier: Cahiers d’In-

cool if CIs are used. So, with the use of CIs, the cooling time formations Techn., 1995, vol. 92, pp. 945-51.

is expected to be reduced. This can only be realized with the 13. K. Steck, K.F. Huttebraucker, and H. Fischer: METEC Congr. 94, 2nd

proper application of the mathematical model to accurately Eur. Continuous Casting Conf., 6th Int. Rolling Conf., Dusseldorf,

predict the cooling time while using CIs. Germany, 1994, vol. 2, pp. 319-22.

14. W. Scheuermann, P. Wittler, and T. Bovalina: Metallurgical Plant and

Technology International, 1993, vol. 16, pp. 140-42, 144, 146, 148,

D. Application of the Heat-Transfer Model 150.

15. R.I.L. Guthrie: Engineering in Process Metallurgy, Oxford University

A lookup table has been constructed with the off-line Press, New York, NY, 1989.

data produced for the cooling time of several thousand coils 16. A.R. Perrin, R.I.L. Guthrie, and B.C. Stonehill: Iron Steelmaker, 1988,

having different dimensions. The standard cooling time vol. 15, pp. 27-33.

data for a particular stack could be viewed through the 17. Y. Jaluria and K.E. Torran Computational Heat Transfer, 1st ed.,

Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC, 1986.

look-up table as soon as a stack of coils was built. This 18. K.V.V. Iyer: Steel India, 1984, vol. 7, pp. 43-53.

suggested cooling time would be used by the operator to 19. FLUENTÒ 6.1 User’s Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH, 2003.

determine the duration of cooling for a particular stack. The 20. I.E. Idelchik: Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, 3rd ed., CRC Press,

undercooling or overcooling of coils, thus, can be mini- Boca Raton, FL, 1994.

mized by reducing the human intervention. 21. A. Roth: Vacuum Technology, 3rd ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.

22. S.V. Patankar: Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere,

New York, NY, 1980.

23. B.E. Launder and D.B. Spalding: Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng.,

IV. CONCLUSIONS 1974, vol. 3, pp. 269-89.

24. M.N. Ozisik: Finite Difference Methods in Heat Transfer, 2nd ed.,

The following conclusions can be drawn in view of the CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995.

observations made in the preceding sections. 25. F.P. Incropera and D.P. DeWitt: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass

Transfer, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1990.

1. The air ﬂow distribution through different convectors or 26. S. Kakac and Y. Yener: Convective Heat Transfer, 2nd ed., CRC Press,

CIs in a stack falls within a close range for different Boca Raton, FL, 1995.

input ﬂow rates. The distribution is therefore independ- 27. L.C. Burmeister: Convective Heat Transfer, 2nd ed., John Wiley &

ent of the ﬂow rate entering a base. Sons, New York, NY, 1993.

28. F. Kreith and M.S. Bohn: Principles of Heat Transfer, 6th ed., Harper

2. The velocity of air on the top or bottom of any coil and Row, New York, NY, 2000.

increases if intermediate convectors are replaced by 29. Performance Guarantee Test Results for Tata Steel: Technical Manual

CIs. Therefore, it results in an increased heat-transfer for Batch Annealing Furnace, LOI Thermoprocess Gmbh, Germany, 2000.

- Part 5 67 Evaluation and Selection of Corrosion Inhibitors Pag 1169 11782Uploaded byLeonardo Fabián Arboleda Mosquera
- Normalizing heat treatment.pdfUploaded bysmani170
- SasUploaded byNandan Jha
- J.fluids.engineering.2009.Vol.131.N7Uploaded byНильва Александр
- Laminar transitional and turbulent flow of yield stress fluidUploaded byLeslie Quintana
- Unsteady Laminar Flow Over a CylinderUploaded bybrettbook
- Fluent manualUploaded byPau Miralles Ferras
- Multi-scale Time Integration for Transient Conjugate Heat TransferUploaded bywael
- Turbulence ModelingUploaded byzahid
- CMTA11.pptxUploaded byeyezakeye
- Full Text 01Uploaded byMouad El Basit
- PART-5-67-EVALUATION-AND-SELECTION-OF-CORROSION-INHIBITORS-PAG-1169-11782.pdfUploaded byVanessa Rios Nolaya
- Performance Analysis of Double Pipe Heat Exchanger using Convergent - Divergent-Divergent Spring TurbulatorsUploaded byIJIRST
- DD11 _ 1.0332 Steel - Equivalent, Chemical Composition,Uploaded byBeytullah Kurnalı
- TAU- DLR Deutsh Software Flow Aero SolverUploaded byilyesingenieur
- 20mncr5en19Uploaded byDaniel Riveros
- The Growth of a Cylinder Wake in Turbulent FlowUploaded byJayesh Mahajan
- 83_10_SinghSNUploaded byParul Chadha
- 1-I_gb.pdfUploaded byPradeep Joshua
- 2 - Flow in Pipes Closed Conduits [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byfyqah
- 10.1016@j.icheatmasstransfer.2017.03.010Uploaded byTej Swaroop
- DS s Lecture Flow of Fluids Through Fluidised Beds2Uploaded byluthfi
- bulk modification of LM25 (AL -7.5 % -SI ALLOY).docxUploaded bySanthosh Krishna
- 305.6.pptxUploaded byStephen Au
- JURNAL PERPANUploaded byAri Heindra
- Caesar II App GuideUploaded byVenkat Rangan
- 10255842%2E2015%2E1015527Uploaded byMohammed Al-Azawy
- Bryar KhaleleUploaded byBryar Kalary
- A Comparison Study of Cavitating Flow in a Ventricular Assist Device Using Laminar and Turbulent Model.pdfUploaded byAaron Huang
- Ing Meca Notas2 2016Uploaded byFermin Mora

- UGC NETUploaded byanuragkk
- Growing the Best Phalaenopsis Part 1Uploaded byMihai Victor
- Sample Basics Grammar BookUploaded byApril Joy Ballener
- French 2013Uploaded byAmanda Thiérry
- FT EMBA RankingsUploaded byCanberk Dayan
- IFC Registration formUploaded byanuragkk
- The Grand DesignUploaded bylmaruster
- UGC NETUploaded byanuragkk
- hydro_electric_powerUploaded byanuragkk
- panchatantraUploaded byShiva Krishna
- Unit Conversion Sheet- Beta 1Uploaded byanuragkk
- A M Ssbauer Study of Electric Arc Furnace Salgs (2)Uploaded byanuragkk

- Tambahan Analisa Dimensional1Uploaded byNana Supriatna
- Npsa in Pumps Ansi Hi 9 6-3-1997Uploaded byLuis Garrido Marín
- 149655073-Nodal-Analysis.pptUploaded bySuhail Al-serri
- PeerlessUploaded byRizal
- NPSH Calculating ItUploaded byJerry Mateo
- Fluid Machinary(EME011)Uploaded bysebin
- Pump Suction CharacteristicsUploaded byvermaakash22
- 4. BOPs and Their ControlUploaded byYoun Seok Choi
- Topic 1- Latest Sem Dec-mac 2014Uploaded bysonghahoon
- Navier StokesUploaded byrituneshm
- Wave Reflection: Small and Large Scale Experiments on Wave Absorbing Quay WallsUploaded byRaul Strugar
- Winglet Multi-objective Shape OptimizationUploaded byDerek
- Evaluation of Surface-Ship Resistance and Propulsion Model-Scale Database for CFD ValidationUploaded bySalma Sherbaz
- A Finite-Volume Algorithm for All Speed FlowsUploaded byles_les
- Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics_SF AnwerUploaded byKishore Chand
- Bpsc Ae 2018 SyllabusUploaded bysaurav kumar
- IPR (BP Lunch & Learn)Uploaded byMohamedSadek
- Valve TypesUploaded byarther20044
- Ahmed Body FlowUploaded bySumit Dhall
- Lab Report 4 ThermoUploaded byazamat
- Fluid Mechanics and Machinery 2E (Kothandaraman & Rudramoorthy)-13.pdfUploaded byajaykrishna_99
- Fluid Mechanics 1Uploaded byMohammed Assadawi
- River Hydraulics, US Army Corps of EngineersUploaded byDipro Sarkar
- Diffusor VortexUploaded byRicardo Divila
- Airfoil and wing analysisUploaded byJose Guillermo Balbuena Galvan
- Pres4_Aerodynamics.pdfUploaded byjonthemes
- IJRI-TE-03-010 CFD ANALYSIS ON EJECTOR COOLING SYSTEM WITH VARIABLE THROAT GEOMETRY.pdfUploaded byAji
- Resolução Mecânica Dos Fluidos Fox 8ª EdiçãoUploaded byluizedulove
- CHAPTER FIVE.pdfUploaded byjutll
- 1-paracaidas.pdfUploaded byDavid Soriano