Optimization of Continuous Casting Using Simulation: Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Materials and Manufacturing Processes
ISSN: 1042-6914 (Print) 1532-2475 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lmmp20
Optimization of Continuous Casting Using

Simulation
M.S. Kulkarni & A. Subash Babu
To cite this article: M.S. Kulkarni & A. Subash Babu (2005) Optimization of Continuous Casting
Using Simulation, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 20:4, 595-606, DOI: 10.1081/
AMP-200041874
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/AMP-200041874
Published online: 07 Feb 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 50
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lmmp20
Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 09 September 2015, At: 20:34
Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 20: 595–606, 2005
Copyright © Taylor & Francis, Inc.
ISSN: 1042-6914 print/1532-2475 online
DOI: 10.1081/AMP-200041874
OPTIMIZATION OF CONTINUOUS CASTING USING

SIMULATION
M. S. Kulkarni
Operations Management Group, NITIE, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 20:34 09 September 2015
A. Subash Babu
Industrial Engineering and OR, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India
This paper describes the development and use of an integrated system of metamodels
and simulation experiments for managing quality in a continuous casting system.
A systematic procedure was developed to satisfy the necessary process conditions
connected to one or more process parameters. The values of these parameters are
to be determined such that all the process conditions are satisfied simultaneously to
ensure that the product will have the desired quality. This procedure utilizes a set
of metamodels, simulation experiments, and an index called the “undesirability index”
for quality, which establishes a functional relationship between the input variables or
process parameters and the quality criteria. This system, when applied to the data
pertaining to a case, demonstrated that the methodology developed could be used to
effectively manage product quality.
Key Words: Casting speed; Continuous casting; Critical process conditions; Critical quality
conditions; Metamodels; Mold flux; Multi-response optimization; Process models; Quality model;
Robust solution; Sensitivity analysis; Simulation; Simulation-based optimization; Undesirability index.
1. INTRODUCTION
The basic operation of a continuous casting system is to convert liquid steel
of a given composition into a strand of desired shape and size through a group of
operations such as mold operation, spray cooling zone, straightener operation, etc.
Researchers and practitioners have done numerous studies and developed models to
understand the interaction between the steel being cast and the process parameters
[1–10]. In these studies, much emphasis has been placed on determining how
different steels behave at elevated temperatures under conditions similar to those
during actual casting. This includes prediction of solidus temperature, prediction of
zero ductility temperature, liquid impenetrable temperature, prediction of thermal
strain, and prediction of critical stress. All these past efforts have significantly helped
Received April 2004; Accepted August 2004

Address correspondence to M. S. Kulkarni, Consultant, Operations Management Group,
NITIE, Vihar Lake Road, Mumbai 400087, Maharashtra, India; Fax: 91-22-28573251; E-mail:
msk@nitie.edu; A. Subash Babu, Professor, Industrial Engineering & OR, IIT Bombay, Powai,
Mumbai 400076, Maharashtra, India; E-mail: subash@me.iitb.ac.in
595
596 KULKARNI AND SUBASH BABU
to understand different aspects of a typical continuous casting system effectively,

but perhaps independently. However, the performance of a continuous casting
system in terms of quality and productivity depends upon how well various stages
of a continuous casting system are controlled and integrated. To meet this need,
a system of process models was developed and validated by Kulkarni and Subash
Babu [11]. Subsequently, Kulkarni and Subash Babu [12, 13] developed another
integrated system consisting of metamodels, which demonstrated its usefulness by
being as accurate as the earlier system and at the same time very efficient as it dealt
with fewer equations. These two systems were found to be capable of providing
support to process engineers of a continuous casting system. Different experiments
carried out using these systems provided motivation to develop a system to assess
and improve the quality of products. To ensure that the product that comes out
of the continuous casting system is of desired quality, the system was developed
using the concept of critical process conditions, allowable process parameter ranges,
simulation, experimentation, and heuristic-based procedures, the details of which are
presented in this paper.
2. A SYSTEM FOR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

This system consists of two modules, namely, product quality module and
process simulation module. The latter deals with establishing critical process
conditions and the former with assessing product quality.
2.1. Product Quality Module

Since continuous casting is an intermediate process, the quality requirements
have to be specified as desired by the next stage process and end product
requirements. Causes leading to quality defects in continuous casting can be
classified into three categories, namely, faulty casting practice, incorrect process
variable settings, and steel composition. There are a number of quality-related
process attributes, attribute-related conditions, and condition-related parameters,
which should be considered for defect prevention. Using these attributes, 17 major
conditions were identified from the literature [14]. Satisfying these caster-related
conditions would maximize the probability that the end product of the continuous
casting system is of desired quality. These 17 conditions are presented below in a
very brief manner.
Condition 1. Flux viscosity plays an important role in lubrication and heat
extraction from the mold. Frictional force, mold wall temperature fluctuation,
occurrence of pin holes, flux film thickness variation, and heat transfer fluctuation
are minimum when the product of viscosity () and casting speed (Vc) lie between
1.0 and 3.0. Therefore, the condition that must be satisfied during viscosity selection
for mold powder was stated as
1 ≤ · Vc ≤ 3 (1)
where is in poise and Vc in m/min.

USING SIMULATION IN CONTINUOUS CASTING 597
Condition 2. In the case of crack-sensitive grades of steel, it is necessary that

the heat be extracted at a lower rate. On the other hand, steels prone to sticker
breakouts require that the heat be extracted at a higher rate in the mold. This
necessity is taken care of by deciding the proper solidification temperature (Tsol of
the mold powder. The following two equations were considered as limiting criteria
for selecting mold powder for crack-sensitive and sticker-sensitive grades of steel,
respectively.
Tsol
1157 for crack-sensitive grades (2)
00472
Tsol
1050 for sticker-sensitive grades (3)
00072
where is in poise and Tsol is in C.

Condition 3. The ideal value of powder consumption that will ensure proper
lubrication is 0.3 Kg/m2 . However, powder consumption in the range of 0.15 to
0.45 Kg/m2 has been found to give satisfactory results. The condition that was used
as a criterion for determination of mold flux properties for the optimum powder
consumption (Q) was stated as
015 ≤ Q ≤ 045 (4)
where
Q = 1952 − 02461Vc − 0044 − 000107Tsol (5)
Condition 4. Since powder consumption is also related to mold oscillation

parameters, it is necessary that the oscillation parameter values be selected for
optimum powder consumption of 0.15 to 0.45 Kg/m2 (i.e., 015 ≤ Q ≤ 045). The
flux consumption was calculated as follows.
03
2 60
Q = 074 Vc2 −05 + 017 for 008 < %C < 016 (6)
s f
03
2 60
Q = 070 Vc2 −05 + 022 for 016 < %C < 008 (7)
s f
where Q is in Kg/m2 , s = stroke length in mm, f = frequency in cpm, = flux

viscosity in poise, Vc = casting speed in m/min.
Condition 5. One of the important factors in determining surface quality is
the pitch of oscillation marks. Keeping the maximum allowable value as 25 mm, the
limiting condition was stated as
Pitch < 25 mm (8)

where
pitch = Vc/f (9)
f = frequency in cpm, Vc = casting speed in mm/min.

Condition 6. The depth of oscillation marks has a large effect on transverse
cracking tendency of steel during casting. The limiting value for mark depth was
400 microns. The condition to be satisfied while parameter design was stated as
mark depth < 400 microns (10)

where
05
s
mark depth (in microns) = 600 (11)
f
s = stroke length in cm, and f = stroke frequency in cycles per second.

Condition 7. It is advantageous that the average flow of the liquid mold
powder is always in the direction of the moving steel shell during the entire
oscillation cycle, as this will lead to a reduction in the shear stress at the shell
surface. This can be ensured by keeping the mold velocity (Vm) greater than the
casting speed (Vc). The criterion to satisfy these conditions was stated as
Vm/Vc > 12 (12)
Condition 8. The mold powder melting rate needs to be carefully decided,

as it is important to ensure the presence of a liquid slag pool on top of the steel
level for the prevention of contamination by unfused slag particles and to avoid
shell sticking. The optimum value of pool drain rate and liquid flux density is to
be determined for optimum mold flux consumption of 0.15 to 0.45 Kg/m2 . Flux
consumption as a function of drain rate was calculated as follows.

Rp Volume
Q= (13)
Vc Surface area
where Rp = pool drain rate in m/min, Q = powder consumption in Kg/m2 , =

liquid flux density in Kg/m3 , Vc = casting speed in m/min, surface area in m2 ,
volume in m3 .
Condition 9. The oscillation parameters should be such that optimum
powder consumption is achieved. This means that the condition 015 ≤ Q ≤ 045
should be satisfied. The flux consumption was calculated as follows.
−05
Tsurf Lm
Q=K √ 60 s (14)
Tsol Vc s f Vc
where Q is in Kg/m2 , Tsurf = strand surface temperature in C, Tsol = powder

solidification temperature in C, Lm = mold length in meters, Vc = casting speed in
m/min, s = stroke length in meters, f = frequency in cpm, viscosity in Pa. s, K is a
constant = 0.251.
Condition 10. As the shell leaves the mold, it should be thick enough to
withstand the ferrostatic pressure of liquid steel in the core. If the stresses arising
due to bulging and thermal strains exceed a critical value, then cracking may occur
at the solidus front, leading to formation of internal cracks. To avoid this, the strand
should not leave the mold with a shell thickness smaller than a minimum value so
that the total stress is less than the critical stress for cracking. The criterion that was
used to prevent excessive stress in the shell is
T < 095 c (15)
where, T = total stress in shell in MPa, c = critical stress for cracking in MPa and
is a function of steel composition. The multiplying factor 0.95 gives a safety factor
for selecting casting parameters.
Conditions 11 and 12. During continuous casting, the mold may get
distorted and change shape due to internally generated thermal stresses. These
stresses arise due to local thermal expansion of the mold wall, particularly near
the meniscus. Since most of the mold materials exhibit high distortion and rate of
wear above 300 C due to low strength and hardness, the mold hot face temperature
(Thot should be kept below 300 C. On the cooling channel side of the mold, i.e., at
the cold face, it is desirable to keep the cold face temperature (Tcold below 150 C
for preventing nucleate boiling heat transfer. The conditions to be satisfied were
stated as
Thot < 300 C (16)

Tcold < 150 C (17)
The hot and cold face temperatures were calculated as a function of mold heat flux
through the mold, cooling water temperature, mold thermal conductivity, cooling
water velocity, and hydraulic diameter of the cooling channels.
Condition 13. Since the mold plays an important role in heat extraction as
well as strand support, its length should not be smaller than a critical value. The
criterion for minimum mold length was stated as
Minimum Lm > wide face dimension03 (18)
where, Lm = mold length in meters and wide face dimension is in meters.

Condition 14. The stress criterion at spray exit is similar to that at the mold
exit. However, the contribution of different parameters will be different than in the
case of mold exit stress. The critical criterion was stated as
T < 095 c (19)
where T = total stress in shell in MPa, c = critical stress for cracking in MPa.
Condition 15. In order to avoid stresses due to bulging, reheat after spray
zone should be minimized. Reheat beyond 100 C can cause formation of midway
cracks. This chance is even greater for those grades with low values of critical stress
for crack formation. The limiting value of reheat that can be used as a condition to
be satisfied was stated as
Reheat < 80 C (20)
Condition 16. Apart from other constraints, there is a physical limitation

that has to be met during casting. The distance below the meniscus at which the
strand solidifies completely is called the metallurgical length. This length should not
be greater than the machine length, as the strand cutting operation starts after this
location. The criterion to be satisfied was stated as
Metallurgical length ≤ machine length (21)
Condition 17. From the point of view of controlling the hot face and cold
face temperatures, cooling water velocity plays an important role, as it is one of
the important parameters that control the heat extraction through the mold. The
conditions to be satisfied were as follows for shrinkage and crack-sensitive grades,
respectively.
Vw > 4029Pw −0282 (22)

Vw > 3577Pw −0334 (23)
where Pw = cooling water pressure in K Pa and Vw = cooling water velocity in

m/sec.
These conditions were identified as “critical conditions” because, even if only
one condition is not satisfied, the end product may suffer in terms of certain defects.
In the continuous casting process, products with desired quality can be obtained
by maintaining the process parameters such that all critical conditions are satisfied.
This problem belongs to the category of multi criteria optimization, where one often
encounters problems in which there are several criteria to be satisfied for each setting
of process parameters. Optimal condition for one response may not be optimal for
other responses and sometimes may even be practically impossible to achieve. Even
if one critical condition is not satisfied, there is a risk that the associated product
is not of good quality. When more critical conditions are not satisfied, then the
corresponding risk is higher. Therefore, one needs to have a method of determining
the optimum values of the process parameters to prevent defect-causing conditions.
This task is performed in the second module, which is discussed next.
2.2. Process Simulation Module

The approach used involves simulating different process scenarios for different
values of casting speed. When the process scenarios are simulated, it is possible that
some critical conditions may be satisfied and some may not. To quantify the degree
of conformance of all 17 critical conditions, the undesirability index, is used. For
the undesirability index, a two-valued metric was selected such that if the simulated
scenario does not satisfy a critical condition, then a score of 1 is assigned, otherwise
0. The total undesirability is the sum of all individual index values. Thus, the total
undesirability index represents a measure of product quality that can be expected

when conditions are not satisfied. Now it is required to reduce the undesirability
index, for which it is necessary that more critical conditions get satisfied. Eventually,
this score should become 0, meaning that all the 17 critical conditions are satisfied.
To achieve this goal, a heuristic procedure was developed and integrated with the
system. This heuristic procedure makes repeated use of the critical conditions, the
undesirability index, and generated values of process parameters by simulation, until
the desired quality of the product is ensured. The heuristic procedure was applied
in a step-by-step manner. The steps of the heuristic procedure are described using a
specific example of casting a billet of En8 steel with 269 × 269 mm cross-section.
1. Select all the process parameters of relevance and identify the range of
values, acceptable for each parameter. The process parameters and their ranges are
given in Table 1.
2. Select a large value of casting speed. For this casting speed, generate
scenarios represented by process parameter values using uniformly distributed
random numbers for each parameter, taking into account the respective range.
Using these generated values, check whether the associated scenario satisfies each
of the 17 critical conditions. If the process parameters related to a quality
criterion fulfill the respective critical condition, i.e., if they satisfy that criterion,
the undesirability index is 0 for that condition, otherwise it takes the value 1. The
total undesirability is the sum of all index values related to all 17 conditions. Thus,
the total undesirability index represents how well a generated scenario satisfied
all 17 critical conditions. This step is to be repeated a specified number of times
by generating a scenario during each simulation run. A number of cycles “c” of
simulation, with each cycle having a specified number of runs “r,” are carried out
by keeping the speed and range of values constant as set in steps 1 and 2.
3. At the end of r × c number of simulation runs, if no scenario leads to
0 value for the undesirability index, it means that the corresponding casting speed is
too high. Therefore, reduce the casting speed by multiplying the speed (set in step 2)
by a scale-down factor (say 0.95) and repeat steps 2 and 3 until a scenario is found
that satisfies all the conditions. Record this casting speed and the corresponding
parameter values and rerun the simulation.
Table 1 Ranges of parameter values for simulation
Range of Range of
Parameters values Units Parameters values Units
Flux Viscosity 1–4 poise Cooling water velocity 5–20 m/sec

Frequency 100–200 cpm Hydraulic diameter 0.01–0.03 m
Stroke 5–15 mm Mold thickness 5–15 mm

Flux solidus temperature 1050–1200 C Cooling water temperature 25–35 C
Flux Drain rate 1–4 mm/min Spray zone length 4–6 m

Flux density 2000–3000 Kg/m3 Spray zone temperature 1000–1150 C
Mold length 600–900 mm Spray zone end pitch 150–300 mm
Table 2 Feasible solutions obtained at the end of every cycle of simulation
Values of parameters obtained at the end of each cycle
Parameters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Viscosity 1.73 1.82 1.04 1.95 1 1.72 1.99 1.87 1.88 1.67
Frequency 173 182 104 195 100 172 199 187 188 167
Stroke 9.7 6.2 6.2 6.3 6 9.6 6.3 9.9 6.3 9.3
Flux solidus temperature 1082 1075 1072 1080 1050 1076 1079 1093 1079 1093
Drain rate 1.6 2.9 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.9 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.5
Flux density 2069 2053 2048 2064 2001 2057 2063 2093 2062 2093
Mold length 722 717 715 721 700 718 720 730 720 730
Cooling water velocity 11.5 12.2 13.8 13.1 14.6 14.4 13.4 12.5 12.6 11
Hydraulic diameter 0.021 0.022 0.026 0.024 0.027 0.027 0.025 0.023 0.023 0.02
Mold thickness 12 13 15 14 7 12 14 14 14 12
Cooling water temperature 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Spray zone length 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2 5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
Spray zone temperature 1029 1022 1020 1027 1000 1024 1027 1039 1026 1039
Spray end pitch 208 206 206 208 200 207 208 211 207 211
4. All such scenarios with an undesirability score of 0 are called feasible

solutions. Record all these feasible solutions for the concerned casting speed.
5. Now each cycle of simulation runs can be identified with the following
two conditions.
a. There is a single scenario having the undesirability score of 0. Under this
condition, we know the particular casting speed and the values of the parameters
that will satisfy all 17 conditions.
b. There are multiple scenarios having the undesirability score of 0. Under
this condition, we know the particular casting speed and alternate values that each
parameter can take to satisfy all 17 conditions. Store or record these scenarios, i.e.,
values of each set of parameters, at the end of all the cycles.
For the example problem, a simulation experiment involving 10,000 runs was
carried out during each of the 10 cycles with a different starting solution for each
cycle. The solutions or scenarios satisfying all the critical conditions obtained at the
end of step 5 are shown in Table 2. The maximum casting speed at which all the
conformance conditions were satisfied was 0.95 m/min.
Table 3 Minimum and maximum values of each of the parameters
Parameter Min Max Parameter Min Max
Viscosity 1 1.99 Cooling water velocity 11 14.6

Frequency 100 199 Hydraulic diameter 0.02 0.027
Stroke 6 9.9 Mold thickness 7 15
Flux solidus temperature 1050 1093 Cooling water temperature 26 26
Drain rate 1.5 2.9 Spray zone length 5 5.2
Flux density 2001 2093 Spray zone temperature 1000 1039
Mold length 700 730 Spray end roll pitch 200 211
Table 4 Percentage of runs leading to nonconformance
Simulation cycles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% Nonconformance 58.5 62.3 59.6 63.0 56.8 58.2 60.5 61.4 62.3 59.6
At the end of step 5, each parameter takes different ideal values as shown in
the rows of Table 2. Find the range (R) for each parameter, which is the difference
between the maximum and minimum of the ideal values of the respective parameter.
These values are given in Table 3.
6. Now reset the range for each parameter using the range of values obtained
in step 5. Keeping the casting speed as obtained at the end of step 5 (i.e.,
0.95 m/min), repeat the simulation experiment involving a number of cycles “c”
and for each cycle, a number of runs “r” as before. During each run, values for
parameters or scenarios are to be generated using uniform distribution. These values
are used to evaluate the critical condition values and to see whether the 17 critical
conditions are satisfied. For the example problem, considering all 10,000 runs in
each cycle, the percentage of runs in which all 17 conditions were not satisfied was
recorded for all 10 cycles considered, as shown in Table 4.
From the results given in Table 4, it can be seen that about 60% of runs
do not satisfy all 17 critical conditions. Therefore, the nonconformance percentage
needs to be reduced. To achieve this, it was felt necessary to reduce the range of
parameter values used for generating the simulated values of process parameters.
The middle point “M” of the range “R” for each parameter was determined and the
modified range of each parameter was set as M ± 025 (R). For the example under
consideration, the values of mid point and the modified range for each parameter
obtained in this manner are shown in Table 5.
Further, simulation experiments consisting of 10 cycles, of 10,000 runs each,
were carried out using the range of values of parameters derived by using the values
in Table 5. The corresponding percentages of nonconformance obtained at the end
of this experiment are shown in Table 6.
Results presented in Table 6 reveal that the nonconformance percentage
ranges from 6.7 (cycle 5) to 7.2 (cycle 6). Since it was felt necessary to further reduce
this nonconformance percentage, the ranges of parameters were taken as M ±020
Table 5 Mean and modified range of values for each of the parameters
Mean Range Mean Range

Parameter (M) (R) Parameter (M) (R)
Viscosity 1.495 0.247 Cooling water velocity 12.8 0.9

Frequency 99.5 24.75 Hydraulic diameter 0.023 0.0017
Stroke 7.95 0.975 Mold thickness 11 2
Flux solidus temperature 1071.5 10.75 Cooling water temperature 26 0
Drain rate 2.2 0.35 Spray zone length 5.1 0.05
Flux density 2047 23 Spray zone temperature 1019.5 9.75
Mold length 715 7.5 Spray end roll pitch 205.5 2.75
Table 6 Percentage of solutions leading to nonconformance
% Nonconformance 6.8 7.1 6.8 6.9 6.7 7.2 6.9 6.7 7.0 7.1
Table 7 Mean and modified range of values for each of the parameters
Mean Range Mean Range

Parameter (M) (R) Parameter (M) (R)
Viscosity 1.495 0.198 Cooling water velocity 12.8 0.72

Frequency 99.5 19.8 Hydraulic diameter 0.023 0.0014

Stroke 7.95 0.78 Mold thickness 11 1.6
Flux solidus temperature 1071.5 8.6 Cooling water temperature 26 0
Drain rate 2.2 0.28 Spray zone length 5.1 0.04
Flux density 2047 18.4 Spray zone temperature 1019.5 7.8
Mold length 715 6 Spray end roll pitch 205.5 2.2
(R) instead of M ±025 (R). The modified ranges of values of the parameters are
shown in Table 7.
Using these modified ranges of values, a simulation experiment was carried
out as before and the corresponding values of nonconformance percentage obtained
are shown in Table 8.
It can be seen in Table 8 that the percent nonconformance is about 1% and
if considered satisfactory, the simulation can be stopped. The corresponding casting
speed of 0.95 m/min and the process parameters values shown in Table 7 can be
considered the final range of values. However, during actual caster operation, the
casting speed varies during a cast. Therefore, we need to carry out a sensitivity
analysis using different casting speeds, as described in step 7 below.
7. Different casting speeds in the range 0.8 to 1.0 m/min were considered
and using the data given in Table 7, simulation experiments as explained above
were conducted to find out the percentage of nonconformance. This will indicate
the robustness of the solution. The results are given in Table 9.
From the results shown in Table 9, even if the casting speed varies from 0.85
to 0.95 m/min, the quality of the product is not likely to be affected significantly.
However, the casting speed at 1 m/min leads to nonconformance of about 30%,
whereas at 0.8 m/min it is about 90%, which certainly could be a very detrimental
situation. This also is in agreement with industry data [14] for casting speed, which
is 0.88 m/min for the same steel and cross section.
Table 8 Percentage of solutions leading to nonconformance
% Nonconformance 1.2 1.1 0.97 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.95 1.1 1.0 0.98
Table 9 Percentage nonconformance for variation in casting speed
% Nonconformance for simulation cycles
Vc, m/min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.00 31.5 30.6 31.8 30.4 31.3 30.3 32.1 31.5 31.0 32.6
0.99 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.2 4.8 3.9 5.0 4.6 4.3
0.95 1.2 1.1 0.97 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.95 1.1 1.0 0.98
0.90 1.1 1.1 0.97 1.2 1.1 0.98 1.3 1.1 1.3 0.95
0.85 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.98 1.2 1.3 0.95 0.98 1.1
0.81 11.9 11.7 12.1 12.0 11.3 11.5 12.6 12.4 11.3 12.9
0.80 89.9 90.1 89.8 89.9 90.0 89.9 90.2 89.8 90.1 89.8
3. CONCLUSION
An integrated methodology developed for selecting optimum values of process
parameters has been presented in this paper. This system uses a systematic
procedure for selecting proper parameter values in a continuous casting system.
An example case study of En8 steel of 269 × 269 mm crosssection was considered
to demonstrate the methodology. It was observed that the solution obtained not
only satisfies all the conditions but also is reasonably robust. The robustness was
checked by varying the casting speed for the same scenario. The results show
that the solution obtained for one particular casting speed, using the integrated
methodology, was also valid for a reasonable range of casting speed. It was noticed
that the methodology could be successfully employed for managing quality of a
continuous casting process.
REFERENCES
1. Won, Y.M.; Han, H.N.; Yeo, T.J.; Oh, K.H. Analysis of solidification cracking using
the specific crack susceptibility. ISIJ International 2000, 40, 129–136.
2. Kim, K.H.; Yeo, T.J.; Oh, K.H.; Lee, D.N. Effect of carbon and sulphur in
continuously cast strand on longitudinal surface cracks. ISIJ International 1996, 36,
284–289.
3. Suzuki, H.G.; Nishimura, S.; Nakayama, Y. Improvement of hot ductility of
continuously cast carbon steels. Trans. ISIJ 1984, 24, 54–59.
4. Weinberg, F. The ductility of continuously cast steel near the melting point—hot
tearing. Met. Trans. B 1979, 10, 219–227.
5. Hannerz, N.E. Critical hot plasticity and hot cracking in continuous casting with
particular reference to composition. Trans. ISIJ 1985, 25, 149–158.
6. Nakagawa, T.; Umeda, T.; Murata, J.; Kamimura, Y.; Niwa, N. Deformation
behaviour during solidification of steels. ISIJ International 1995, 35, 723–729.
7. Rindler, W.; Kozescnik, E.; Buchmayr, B. Computer simulation of the brittle
temperature range (BTR) for hot cracking in steels. Steel Research 2000, 71, 460–465.
8. Clyne, T.W.; Wolf, M.M.; Kurz, W. The effect of melt composition on solidification
cracking of steel, with particular reference to continuous casting. Met. Trans. B 1982,
13, 259–266.
9. Kudoh, M.; Itoh, Y. Trial for the reduction of oscillation mark depth in continuous
casting. Steel Research International 2003, 74, 147–152.
10. Hooli, P. Mould film thickness between mould and steel shell—effect on heat flux and
defect formation. Steel Research International 2003, 74, 480–484.
11. Kulkarni, M.S.; Subash Babu, A. A system of process models for estimating
parameters of continuous casting using near solidus properties of steel. Materials and
Manufacturing Processes 2003, 18, 287–312.
12. Kulkarni, M.S.; Subash Babu, A. Metamodels for continuous casting, CARE Technical
Report; Indian Institute of Technology: Bombay, 2001.
13. Kulkarni, M.S.; Subash Babu, A. Quality and productivity management of continuous
casting process, Second Ph.D Progress Report, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, 2001.
14. Concast data sheets, Specification distribution sheets for thermal modeling, Concast (I)
Ltd., 1992.

Optimization of Continuous Casting Using Simulation: Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimization of Continuous Casting Using Simulation: Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials and Manufacturing Processes

ISSN: 1042-6914 (Print) 1532-2475 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lmmp20

Optimization of Continuous Casting Using

M.S. Kulkarni & A. Subash Babu

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/AMP-200041874

Published online: 07 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

OPTIMIZATION OF CONTINUOUS CASTING USING

Received April 2004; Accepted August 2004

to understand different aspects of a typical continuous casting system effectively,

2. A SYSTEM FOR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

2.1. Product Quality Module

where is in poise and Vc in m/min.

Condition 2. In the case of crack-sensitive grades of steel, it is necessary that

where is in poise and Tsol is in C.

015 ≤ Q ≤ 045 (4)

Q = 1952 − 02461Vc − 0044 − 000107Tsol (5)

Condition 4. Since powder consumption is also related to mold oscillation

where Q is in Kg/m2 , s = stroke length in mm, f = frequency in cpm, = ﬂux

Pitch < 25 mm (8)

pitch = Vc/f (9)

f = frequency in cpm, Vc = casting speed in mm/min.

mark depth < 400 microns (10)

s = stroke length in cm, and f = stroke frequency in cycles per second.

Vm/Vc > 12 (12)

Condition 8. The mold powder melting rate needs to be carefully decided,

where Rp = pool drain rate in m/min, Q = powder consumption in Kg/m2 ,  =

where Q is in Kg/m2 , Tsurf = strand surface temperature in C, Tsol = powder

T < 095 c (15)

Thot < 300 C (16)

Minimum Lm > wide face dimension03 (18)

where, Lm = mold length in meters and wide face dimension is in meters.

T < 095 c (19)

Reheat < 80 C (20)

Condition 16. Apart from other constraints, there is a physical limitation

Metallurgical length ≤ machine length (21)

Vw > 4029Pw −0282 (22)

where Pw = cooling water pressure in K Pa and Vw = cooling water velocity in

2.2. Process Simulation Module

undesirability index represents a measure of product quality that can be expected

Table 1 Ranges of parameter values for simulation

Flux Viscosity 1–4 poise Cooling water velocity 5–20 m/sec

Table 2 Feasible solutions obtained at the end of every cycle of simulation

Values of parameters obtained at the end of each cycle

4. All such scenarios with an undesirability score of 0 are called feasible

Table 3 Minimum and maximum values of each of the parameters

Parameter Min Max Parameter Min Max

Viscosity 1 1.99 Cooling water velocity 11 14.6

Table 4 Percentage of runs leading to nonconformance

Mean Range Mean Range

Viscosity 1.495 0.247 Cooling water velocity 12.8 0.9

Table 6 Percentage of solutions leading to nonconformance

Mean Range Mean Range

Viscosity 1.495 0.198 Cooling water velocity 12.8 0.72

Frequency 99.5 19.8 Hydraulic diameter 0.023 0.0014

Table 8 Percentage of solutions leading to nonconformance

Table 9 Percentage nonconformance for variation in casting speed

% Nonconformance for simulation cycles

You might also like

pitch = Vc/f (9)

where Rp = pool drain rate in m/min, Q = powder consumption in Kg/m2 , =