ISIJ International, Vol.

58 (2018),
ISIJ International,
No. 4 Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4, pp. 573–584

Review

Physical and Mathematical Modeling of Multiphase Flows in a

Converter

Lingling CAO,1) Yannan WANG,2) Qing LIU1)* and Xiaoming FENG3)

1) State Key Laboratory of Advanced Metallurgy, University of Science and Technology Beijing, No. 30 Xueyuan Road, Beijing,
100083 P. R. China. 2) Department of Materials Engineering, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 44, Leuven, BE-3001
Belgium. 3) Xinyu Iron and Steel Group Co.Ltd, Jiangxi, 338001 China.
(Received on November 24, 2017; accepted on January 4, 2018; J-STAGE Advance published date:
February 14, 2018)

Fluid flow in converter bath, affecting the viability, effectiveness, and efficiency of steelmaking, plays a
critical role in the productivity and quality level that can be achieved in the process. Due to a large quantity
and diversity of the studies on the characteristics of the multiphase flow, it seems very necessary to make
a systematic literature review on state-of-the-art developments in the steelmaking process. This paper
presents the recent findings of the characteristics of the multiphase flow in the converter by means of
physical and mathematical modeling and the resulting implications for simulating the process. Some rep-
resentatives include supersonic oxygen jet, stirring and mixing, splashing and droplet generation, and
energy transfer. The work summarized in this paper can give an in-depth understanding of the fluid flow
in converter and provide references for future modeling of the converter steelmaking process. Future
contributions to a fundamentally generalized modeling of the converter steelmaking are still needed. More
profoundly, the modeling work can facilitate the real-time data-driven precise BOF process control and be
an important component to the realization of intelligent manufacturing in steelmaking process.

KEY WORDS: multiphase flow; physical modeling; mathematical modeling; converter; steelmaking.

for tackling process development and optimizing the BOF

1. Introduction
steelmaking process.4)
Currently, Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) steelmaking is In the early days of BOF process development, physi-
the predominant steelmaking process around the world.1) cal models were considered to be a fantastic tool for
The BOF steelmaking process can rapidly refine hot metal investigating the fluid flow phenomena in the converter.
and ambient scrap into qualified steel of desired carbon Extensive past work has employed water model experi-
content and temperature with the aid of oxygen-blowing top ment to successfully visualizing flow patterns, mixing and
lance and nonreactive gas-blowing bottom plugs. Figure 1 even some heat transfer phenomena.5–30) R. B. Banks and
illustrates the composition of a converter and the blowing D. V. Chandrasekhara5) investigated the process of a gas
information.2) The vessel is lined with basic refractories jet impinging on and penetrating into a liquid surface. A
made from magnesite, dolomite, etc. that provide a rela- Plexiglass tank was employed to study the behavior of an
tively inert ambient to the corrosive basic slag prepared by air jet penetrating into deep water. N. A. Molloy6) identified
lime dissolution. During the blowing process, highly pure
oxygen with high pressure and velocity is injected into
the molten bath through nozzles in the form of a gas jet
for decarburization, which leads to sophisticated transport
phenomena in the bath.2) Besides, the bottom-blowing is
also of significant importance, which is aimed to obtain a
homogenized melt, to decrease the Fe content in slag and
to minimize refractory erosion. Fluid flows in the converter
bath work together to affect the viability, effectiveness, and
efficiency of converter.3)
Due to the fairly sophisticated transport phenomena and
the difficulty in direct observation, physical water modeling,
coupled with mathematical modeling, offers important tools
Fig. 1. Schematic of a converter of a converter. (a) Characteristics
* Corresponding author: E-mail: qliu@metall.ustb.edu.cn of the vessel and (b) slag-metal-gas interaction and molten
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2017-680 steel flow.2)

573 © 2018 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4
three types of cavity conditions generated by top blown jet
as dimpling mode, splashing mode and penetrating mode
depending on the general appearance of the cavity, change
in sound of the bath and the reduction of splashing. J.
Szekely et al.7) determined the flow pattern and quantita-
tively measured the velocity and turbulence energy fields
using hot-film anemometry in a simplified a gas-stirred
water model. S. K. Sharma et al.8) found that the interaction
behavior between top jet and liquid bath can be predicted
from a dynamically scaled water model. K. Nakanishi et
al.9) investigated the mixing rate of molten steel and mass
transfer rate between slag and metal in Q-BOP through
water model experiments. Extensive studies were also car-
ried out on the stirring behavior andbehavior mixing char-
acteristics in top blown,10–15) bottom blown,16–22) as well as
combined blown23–29) converter at different stages30) during
a heat using water models.
However, the transport phenomena in steel bath are so
complex that many phenomena cannot be presented by water
model experiments such as the compressibility of high speed
oxygen, the interaction behavior between different phases,
high temperature performance, etc. Mathematical modeling
is then an alternative method to visualize fluids flow inside
a converter. Moreover, there has been a major growth in
the use of mathematical models due to the availability of
inexpensive, highly capable computational hardware, the
broad range of available software packages and the sig-
nificant body of accumulated experience in recent years.31)
J. Szekely et al.32) first developed the mathematical model
for describing the flow field in liquids or melts agitated
by a symmetrical placed impinging gas jet. M. Salcudean
and R. I. L. Guthrie33) analysed the fluid flow generated
in the course of BOF tapping operation. A mathematical
model for the filling process was established and verified
by experimental values obtained from a one-tenth scaled-
down physical model. Y. Z. Li et al.34,35) mathematically
explored the gas-liquid two-phase fluid flow fields in both
top and bottom blown bath. The flow pattern and the dis-
tributions of velocity, turbulence viscosity, density and gas
void fraction ratio were obtained. S. C. Du et al.36) derived
a new velocity boundary condition on the surface of cavity
caused by impinging jet. B. K. Li37) proposed a method to
predict three-dimensional flow in bottom gas stirred baths.
Thereafter, significant progress has been made toward a full
simulation38–48) due to the decreasing computational costs
and increasing power of commercial modeling packages,
which can help us achieve wonderful insights into flow
related phenomena without inherent inaccuracies in water
model experiments. A comprehensive understanding of the
highly coupled phenomena occurring in a converter can be
obtained through all these developments of computational
fluid dynamics simulations with high fidelity.
Therefore, a clearly systematic knowledge of aforemen-
tioned in-furnace highly complex multiphase transport
behavior can be conducive to the development of funda-
mental insights, process optimization and end-point control
of BOF operations.49–58) Therefore, this paper will review
the developments in physical modeling and computational
simulations of the fluid flow behavior in BOF steelmaking
process. Details of fundamental modeling methods, super-
sonic oxygen jet behavior, stirring and mixing characteris-
© 2018 ISIJ
tics in the bath, splashing and droplet generation behavior
and energy transfer performance will be presented, and
finally outlook and future trends will also be discussed.
2. Fundamental Methods and Models
Modeling, which is a well-established scientific technique
with powerful capabilities of demonstration and then widely
applied in the design, control and optimization of engineer-
ing process, implies scientific representation of a process
or a phenomenon. The representation can be physical and
mathematical.59,60) A general subdivision of modeling in
steelmaking is shown in Fig. 2.60) The physical and math-
ematical modeling work are summarized in the following
part.
2.1. Establishment of the Physical Modeling
In the context of BOF steelmaking, models made of
transparent materials and using liquid like water and mer-
cury as the simulated fluids have most often been used to
investigate the hydrodynamics and associated transport phe-
nomena (such as momentum transfer, mass transfer, etc.) in
a converter.61) Amongst water is most often used, and it is
because water (at 20°C) and molten steel (at 1 600°C) have
practically equivalent kinematic viscosities62) as shown in
Table 1, making model an excellent tool for investigating
various transport phenomena in steelmaking reactor. Physi-
cal models, in which water is used to simulate molten steel,
are known as “water models” or “aqueous models”. Models
can have either reduced scale or full scale. R. I. L. Guthrie
and M. Isac63) concluded that a full-scale water modeling
can provide a better opportunity of simulating the fluid flow
phenomena during real steelmaking operations. Moreover,
S. K. Sharma et al.8) proved that the metallurgical perfor-
Fig. 2. Modeling approaches in steelmaking.60)
Table 1. Physical properties of water at 20°C and steel at
1 600°C.62)
Property Water (20°C) Steel (1 600°C)
Molecular viscosity (μ), kg/(m·s) 0.001 0.0 064
Density (ρ), kg/m 3
1 000 7 014
Kinematic viscosity (υ = μ /ρ), m /s2
10 –6
0.913 × 10 –6
Surface tension (σ), N/m 0.073 1.6
574
 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4

mance can be predicted from the scaled water models with
dynamic similarity to the prototype. The choice of model
scale should be made based on dynamic properties and labo-
ratory conditions such as laboratory size, air supply, water
supply, etc.64) The key objective of the physical modeling
is to inexpensively and conveniently measure and visualize
the characteristics of an actual converter.
The physical model is established based on the similarity
principle. Mainly there are four similarity criteria i.e. geo-
metrical similarity, mechanical similarity, thermal similarity
and chemical similarity. Geometrical similarity and mechan-
ical similarity are usually considered during water modeling
process. Geometrical similarity represents the size similarity
between the model and its prototype. Mechanical similarity
implies the similarity of forces and the related entities such
as momentum. It is compartmentalized into three categories,
namely static similarity, dynamic similarity, and kinematic
similarity.65) For BOF steelmaking process, equivalence of
Froude and Reynolds numbers ensures dynamic similarity
between the model and its prototype.66) Weber number is
chosen to keep interface state.67) Moreover, further modifi-
cations may also be needed for a specific process. For BOF
process, the top inlet fluid is supersonic gas, so the gas is
compressible. While the gas used in water modeling experi-

Table 2. Details of the various physical modeling investigations.

Investigators Scale
NO. System Focus Measurement Refs.
(Year) factor
Banks et al. cavity depth, cavity diameter, lip stagnation-pressure analysis,
1 – air-water 5
(1963) height, liquid-drop formation displaced-liquid analysis
Szekely et al. flow pattern, turbulent kinetic flow visualization technique,
2 – air-water, gas stirred 7
(1976) energy hot-film anemometry
Nakanishi et mixing time, mass transfer capacity
3 1/20 air-water tracer dispersion technique 9
al. (1980) coefficient
He et al. air-water, nitrogen- droplet amount, droplet distribution
4 – nitrogen bath, high speed film 69, 70
(1989, 1990) mercury–glycerin ,droplet generation, emulsion from
Koria et al. air-paraffin oil-aqueous mixing intensity, mass transfer
5 – conductivimetric method 26
(1990) solution rate, agitation energy
Singh et al. mixing time, volumetric mass
6 1/40 air-benzene-water conductivimetric method 27, 28
(1990) transfer rate
Duan et al. mixing time, mass transfer rate,
7 1/11.5 air-water-oil conductivimetric method 25
(1990) stirring energy
splash type, penetration depth,
air-water, air-mercury– two dimensional slice ,image
8 Peaslee (1993) 1/2 liquid circulation , cavity forma- 71
water-glycerol analysis equipment
tion, drop size
Iguchi et al. velocity distribution, turbulence
air-water/air-silicone
9 (1995, 1996, – distribution, bubble characteristics, LDV, conductivimetric method 72, 73, 74, 75
oil-water
1997, 1998) mixing time
Qian et al. air-corn oil-water/ surface-tracking resistance
10 – interface shapes, penetration depth 76
(1996) air- kerosene oil -water probe
Loumala et al. 1/7 mixing time ,splashing rate, bath conductivimetric method,
11 air-oil-water 17, 77, 78
(2002, 2004) 1/9 oscillation. collecting splashing water
Ersson et al. velocity distribution, mixing time, electroresistivity probe, video
12 1/6 air-water 79, 80, 81
(2006, 2014) cavity shape recording, PIV system
Martina et al.
13 1/10 air-Vaseline oil-water mixing time conductivimetric method 82
(2005)
Nordquist et
14 – air-water Penetration depth video recording 13
al. (2006)
Choudhary et conductivity measurement
15 1/6 air-water mixing time 18
al. (2006) technique
Zhu et al.
16 1/8.5 air-water mixing time, bath oscillation electroresistivity probe 20
(2008)
Lai et al.
17 1/8.5 air-water mixing time conductivimetric method 20
(2008)
Conejo et al. 1/18 air-hexane- water,
18 mixing time electric conductivity sensor 22, 83
(2013, 2015) 1/8 air-motor oil-water
Li et al. (2015,
19 1/10 air-oil-water cavity depth, cavity diameter video recording 15, 84
2016)
Brooks et al. video recording, FFT technique,
1/10, air-water, air-motor splashing, droplet amount, cavity
20 (2014, 2015, sound recorder, waveform and 85, 86, 87, 88
1/5 oil-water modes
2016, 2017) spectrum analysis
Abbreviations: Laser Doppler Velocimeter (LDV); Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV); Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)

575 © 2018 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4

ment is subsonic. If subsonic fluid is taken to simulate the
supersonic one, it will lead to a lager impact area simply on
account of the geometric similarity of oxygen lance. Cor-
rection terms for this error, therefore, should be assumed.68)
Consequently, dimensions and operating conditions of a
converter can be scaled to a model system. Table 2 sum-
marized some water modeling systems published.
Many physical modeling studies have been carried out
towards the converter steelmaking process in recent years.
Results obtained from physical modeling can be supplied
to directly evaluate the characteristics of the real system
and quantitatively describe the behavior of the multiphase
flow in the converter bath during actual production. Besides,
physical modeling is always performed to validate a math-
ematical model, which has become a popular approach in
steelmaking process. Hence, physical modeling and math-
ematical modeling are frequently applied in conjunction, as
it is usually difficult to derive validation dataset from indus-
trial operations.89) Detailed information will be discussed in
the subsequent sections.
2.2. Construction of the Mathematical Model
Mathematical modeling is an alternative method for
visualizing the multiphase flow behavior during the con-
verter steelmaking process. A mathematical model is a set
of equations, which is used to represent and predict certain
phenomena.90) The fundamental basis for these differential
equations is usually derived from thermodynamics, kinetics,
heat flow, mass transfer and other relative phenomena.31)
Hence, the quantitative mathematical models can play a
key role in process control and process optimization, as
well as the planning and interpretation of measurements.90)
The early mathematical models of fluid flow appeared in
the early 1970s, and by the early 1980s the availability
of computers led to the acceptance of computational fluid
mechanics as a standard modeling tool.90) Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is an acronym for a combination of
physics, numerical mathematics and, to some extent, com-
puter science employed to simulate fluid flows.91)
A modeling program involves the following parts as illus-
trated in Fig. 3.90) It mainly contains problem identification,
formulation, simple scoping and scaling calculations, after
which machine calculations and experimental work should
be done in parallel.
The scope of rigorous modeling in steelmaking appears
to be somewhat limited due to the complexity of the
multiphysics melting process. Therefore, it is practically
impossible to build a mathematical model in steelmaking
without empiricism and/or idealization. The gross features
of multiphase flow in the converter steelmaking process are
summarized in Table 3.
A typical mathematical model for the converter steel-
making process solves the continuity equation and Navier-
Stokes equations considering the compressibility of the
supersonic oxygen jet92–94) in a boundary fitted coordinate
system. The solution of these equations presents the pres-
sure and velocity distribution in the domain.95) As the high
flow rates involved in this process, these models must
incorporate turbulent fluid flow. Many different turbulence
models have been attempted by different researchers to
describe the turbulence flow in converter steelmaking, e.g.
one equation turbulence models,32,34) two-equation turbu-
lence models.44,96–99) In this way, the converter steelmaking
can be expressed in terms of some physical variables using
partial differential equations with appropriate operating and
boundary equations. Subsequently, it is the generation of
grid in the domain and discretization of the established par-
tial differential equations into algebraic form using different
schemes.100) However, analytical solution of these equations
is rather difficult. Recently, it becomes increasingly possible
to model the complex flows and to find optimal solutions101)
with the ever increasing power and capabilities of computer
hardware, and together with the development of CFD com-
mercial software packages like Fluent, CFX, Phoenics,
OpenFOAM, etc.
Furthermore, it is necessary to divide the modeling into
manageable subroutines due to the complexity of the BOF
process. To date, there is no general CFD model for a
BOF, at least in the open literature.57) The subroutines are
analyzed, described and modeled based on different fluid-
dynamic observations. Individual solution is calculated and
implemented in the overall model.40) Some of the published
Fig. 3. The schematic flow chart of a typical mathematical model-
ing.90)

Table 3. Fluid characteristics and currently modeling strategy of converter steelmaking.

Currently adopted modeling

Co-existing phases
Supersonic and subsonic gas, liquid
metal, molten slag, unmelted solids
(with internal dispersions of
droplets, particles and bubbles)
Nature of fluid motion
approach
Three-phase, turbulent flow models
Multiphase, compressible, turbulent
without chemical reactions, solid
flow, chemical reactions
melting and heat transfer

© 2018 ISIJ 576

 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4

modeling work are summarized in Table 4.
Accordingly, many numerical attempts have been initi-
ated by many investigators, especially in the near decades
with the development of efficient solution algorithms and
powerful computational software as well reasonably priced
high performance computers. However, numerous idealiza-
tions are still adopted to formulate the converter steelmaking
process. For example, the reacting turbulent flows, solids,
heat transfer, et al. are not included. Moreover, many of the
simulations just focus on one specific area as can be seen in
Table 4, e.g. the compressible supersonic jet behavior, the
interaction between top gas and liquid metals, the mixing in
the bath, etc. Much more remains to be done in the devel-
opment of a generalized CFD model of BOF steelmaking.
In the next section, the fluid flow phenomena inside the
BOF, which are widely studied by many investigators, will
be discussed.
3. Supersonic Oxygen Flow Behavior
Supersonic oxygen jets impinging on the molten bath
are the basis of refining in basic oxygen furnaces, playing

Table 4. Details of the various mathematical modeling.

Authors
No. System Focus Turbulence Flow Multiphase flow Software Refs.
(Year)
Szekely et al. impinging two length scale model102)/ Treating vorticity
1 fluid flow in liquids – 32
(1972) gas-liquid PK103,104) at the cavity walls
2 Li et al. (1992) bottom blown velocity field, mixing RANS/sKE – FORTRAN 37
Tago et al. supersonic
3 jet behavior, fluid flow RANS/sKE, RSM – – 11
(2003) oxygen jet
top-blown
Odenthal et RANS/sKE VOF, DPM FLUENT 40
bottom blown fluid flow, mixing,
4 al. (2006,
Top-bottom supersonic jet FLUENT,
2014, 2015) URANS/SST-SAS VOF, DPM 105, 106
blown OpenFOAM
Nguyen et al. gas-liquid interface
5 top-blown RANS/sKE VOF FLUENT 107
(2006) deformation
Jalkanen oxygen chemical and thermal
6 – – CONSIM108,119) 110
(2006) converter evolution
Singh et al. Lagrangian
7 bottom blown mixing RANS/sKE FLUENT 112
(2007) approach111)
top-blown RANS/sKE, rKE, mKE VOF – 41
113)
gas jet, surface deforma- Thermo-Calc
Ersson et al. top-blown Reactions /RANS/rKE VOF 42
8 tion, fluid flow, mixing, +FLUENT
(2008, 2015)
thermodynamics
top-bottom-
RANS/sKE VOF, DPM FLUENT 114
side blown
Asai et al. impingement interfacial
9 top- blown MPS 43
(2009) area
jet behavior, fluid flow,
Alam et al. supersonic
10 temperature, dropt RANS/mKE – AVL FIRE115) 116
(2010) oxygen jet
generation
Asahara et al. jet behavior and cavity
11 top blown RANS/SA, KE, KW VOF FLUENT 99
(2011) formation
Wang et al.
12 top- blown compressible Flow NS/sKW,117) rKE118) – FLUENT 44
(2010)
combined
13 Li et al. (2013) flow field, mixing RANS/sKE VOF + DPM FLUENT 119
blown
Doh et al. deformation of the bath Filter-based RANS120)/
14 top-blown VOF PHYSICA121) 45
(2013) free surface sKE
gas–slag/metal jet behaviour, cavity
15 Li et al. (2014) RANS/sKE VOF FLUENT 122
interaction evolution
Chu et al. mixing efficiency, fluid
16 bottom- blown NS/sKE VOF FLUENT 48
(2016) flow
Cao et al. cavity formation, shape,
17 top blown RANS/sKE VOF FLUENT 123
(2016) mixing
Lin et al. bottom gas-liquid interaction/
18 RANS + LES VOF/DPM FLUENT 124
(2017) injection heat and mass transfer
Abbreviations: Navier–Stokes equations (NS); Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS); Large Eddy Simulation (LES); Prandtl-Kolmogorov
model (PK); k– ε model (KE); standard k– ε model (sKE); realizable k– ε model (rKE); modified k– ε model (mKE); RNG k– ε model (RNGKE); k– ω
model (KW); standard k– ω model (sKW); Shear Stress Transport-Scale Adaptive Simulation (SST-SAS); Reynolds Stress Model (RSM); Spalart-
Allmaras model (SA); Moving Particle Semi-implicit (MPS); Volume of Fluid (VOF); Discrete Phase Model (DPM).

577 © 2018 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4

a significant role in oxygen supply, bath recirculation and mance in terms of greater penetration depths and reduced
mixing, and chemical reactions. The whole converter steel- mixing times can be obtained with a co-axial, low density
making process is significantly affected by the behavior of subsonic jet and a main supersonic jet. H. J. Odenthal et
the compressible supersonic jet, which is mainly responsible
for the phenomena such as oxidization, foaming, splashing,
skulling, sloping, converter oscillation and noise.40)
Detailed work has been done in accurate and efficient
modeling of the supersonic oxygen flow in the con-
verter.10,125) The supersonic oxygen jet, produced by the
convergent-divergent (CD) nozzle, is subdivided into poten-
tial core, supersonic and subsonic region.125) The length of
the potential core is one of the significant operating param-
eters, which represents the attenuation rate of the supersonic
flow.64) Long potential core length can be obtained by large
Mach number,94,10) high operating pressure,126,127) incorrect
expansion,10) high ambient pressure,128,129) high ambient
temperature,116,130,131) etc. Longer potential core will lead to
slower attenuation of the oxygen jet, which results in more
intensive stirring of the molten bath in the converter. Figure
4 shows some modeling results regarding to the supersonic
jets.40,44)
These studies explored the fundamental behavior of
the supersonic jets and greatly helped in propagating the
knowledge on oxygen lance performance and its design. R.
Sambasivam et al.132) designed a new oxygen lance with a
central subsonic nozzle as described in Fig. 5. The augment
of droplet generation can be controlled through the subsonic
nozzle. The results obtained from simulations and water
model experiments show that the droplet generation rate
was significantly improved in the presence of the central
subsonic jet. The modeling of co-jet technology for BOF
converters was reported by A. R. Naji Meidani et al.133)
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of the lance design with a central
The experimental results demonstrated that a better perfor- subsonic nozzle.132)

Fig. 4. CFD simulation of the supersonic jet under different conditions (a) Mach number distribution under different
converter back- pressure;40) (b) velocity magnitude maps of the jets with the different nozzle angle.44) (Online
version in color.)

© 2018 ISIJ 578

 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4
Fig. 6. CAD model of the adaptive BOF top lance nozzle, (1)
Impeller, (2) Generator, (3) Accumulator, (4) Pressure and
temperature sensor, (5) Micro-controller, (6) Transmitter,
(7) Drive unit, (8) Spindle gear.105) (Online version in
color.)
al.105) proposed an adaptive BOF top lance nozzle displayed
in Fig. 6. It reacts to the changes in the oxygen pressure and
controls the surface ratio between throat and outlet section
of each nozzle. The service life of the Laval nozzles can be
increased and the blowing becomes more efficient. There-
fore, the BOF process can be improved to a large extent
by operating the lance from its designed point. However,
more detailed knowledge still needs to be investigated on
the supersonic jet behavior under the actual conditions of
the complex converter steelmaking process. For instance,
the study on supersonic jet behavior in hot and dense sur-
roundings is rarely considered,134) even though many of the
studies were conducted under hot gaseous surroundings.
During the steelmaking process, the supersonic jets expand
into the surroundings formed by hot and dense slag foam.
Moreover, chemical reactions are also taking place in the
emulsion slag.
4. Stirring and Mixing Behavior
The stirring and mixing of molten bath is the most
important and basic unit process and phenomena of modern
metallurgical process. A proper stirring and mixing is a key
factor determining the working status and reaction rate of
production process.135) For the converter steelmaking pro-
cess, the interaction between the injected gases and molten
liquid is of decisive importance. Therefore, intensive work
have been implemented on the stirring and mixing behavior
in the converter caused by top blowing, bottom blowing and
combined blowing interaction by many investigators.
The interaction between gas and liquid metal/slag, as
described in Fig. 7, is the primary determinant of the com-
plicated phenomena during the converter process.2) The
formation of cavity is a typical character of the interaction
579
Fig. 7. Interaction between top blown jet and molten liquid
obtained from (a) high speed imaging86) and (b) CFD sim-
ulation.46) (Online version in color.)
and has been largely investigated. The cavity dimension,
which is closely related to the interfacial area in actual
production,136) is influenced by nozzle diameter and angle,
lance height, oxygen pressure, flow rate, slag properties,
etc.13–15,41,43,76,99,137) The operating parameters such as oxy-
gen pressure and lance height have a much bigger impact on
the cavity formation compared to the slag properties.46,138)
Moreover, a reasonable cavity profile can attain a better
mixing effect in the converter steelmaking process.123) M.
Ersson et al.42) developed a novel approach where the
computational fluid dynamics software is coupled with the
thermodynamic databases to obtain dynamic simulations of
metallurgical process phenomena. This modeling approach
has been applied to a fundamental model for a top-blown
converter. Reactions between gas–steel, gas–slag, steel–slag
and gas–steel–slag have been considered. Figure 8 shows
the mass fraction of carbon in the steel and CO in the gas
phase. Results show that turbulent diffusion of species can-
not be neglected when considering the species transport
in the surface area. A large amount of CO produced dur-
ing the decarburization process might slow down the rate
of decarburization in droplets ejected from the bath. This
work provides us the sights that it is possible to develop
a dynamic coupling of the Thermo-Calc databases and a
© 2018 ISIJ
 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4
Fig. 8. Simulated mass fraction of carbon in steel (a) and CO in
the gas phase (b).42)
CFD software to carry out the dynamic simulations. More-
over, the high temperature physical property values such as
viscosity, surface tension, density and thermal conductiv-
ity of molten slag and metal during steelmaking process
are greatly affected by the intensive stirring caused by the
coexisting multiphase flows.139) Nevertheless, the detailed
information on a plurality of fundamental physical property
values involving multiphase fluids are still lost. Further
studies are still needed.
The high mixing efficiency in the converter is largely attrib-
uted to stirring effects of the bottom injected gas. Therefore,
the effects of various bottom nozzles conditions,16–19,24,80,83)
gas flow rates and gas supply schemes,21,22,25,48,140) and combi-
nation schemed of top gas and bottom gas20,26,27,30,78,79,119,141)
are studied to optimize the mixing effects in the converter.
The velocity distribution inside a 335-ton converter bath
as well as the velocity and bubble size distribution in a six
plugs 190-ton bottom blown converter with standard bottom
stirring are presented in Fig. 9.105) The determined optimiz-
ing results implemented in the actual steelmaking vessel at
Tata Steel indicated that the average phosphorus partition
ratio was improved by 10 to 12 points, and the average
© 2018 ISIJ
Fig. 9. The velocity distribution inside the 335-ton converter and
the velocity (a) and bubble size distribution in 190-ton bot-
tom blown converter (b).105) (Online version in color.)
%Fe total in the slag dropped by about 1–2%, and a record
vessel life of more than 2 000 heats was achieved in the
first campaign itself. Gradual improvement in the approach
to equilibrium was also observed.18) Moreover, the reduced
splashing to the knuckle areas can be obtained with certain
lance gaps by positioning bottom nozzles directly between
the cavity and knuckle area with remarkable (approximately
30–40%) overlap.142) However, the best performance scheme
varies from different production conditions. For example,
the bottom tuyere configuration in a symmetric non-equi-
angular position was found to be the best arrangement with
respect to mixing in the vessel studied by S. K. Choudhary
et al.18) However, a new bottom tuyere scheme with an
asymmetrical configuration was found to be one of the best
cases with respect to a decreased mixing time in the bath in
the work of X. B. Zhou et al.80) Thus, detailed and specific
investigations are required to gain an excellent stirring and
mixing performance for different production conditions such
as asymmetrical and symmetrical bottom blowing.
5. Splashing and Droplet Generation Behavior
“Splashing” refers to the liquid projected from the bath
including the material ejected from the vessel, whereas
“droplet generation” refers to the part of splash that ends up
in the emulsion as distinct droplets.86) Figure 10 shows the
droplet generation process in a transparent vessel.143) The
reasons for the droplets generation can be pressure fluctua-
tions, horizontal and vertical cavity oscillations,144) shearing
by the gas stream, breakup of large droplets, entrainment
into a gas stream,69) and by the growth of the ripples.145)
M. Iguchi146) exhaustively reviewed the mechanisms of the
580
 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4

Fig. 10. Schematic illustration of droplet generation process.143)

(Online version in color.)

bubble and droplet generation in a bath subjected to bot-

tom gas injection through a single-hole nozzle using many
examples. Various influential factors like lance height and
flowrate,6,67,85–87,147–149) bottom blowing nozzles and flow-
rate69,78,142,150–152) were elaborately investigated to illustrate
the splashing and droplet generation behavior by means of
water modeling and CFD simulations. The splashing and
droplet generation under different flowrate can be seen in
Fig. 11. On the one hand, droplet generation has both ben-
eficial and detrimental effects.116,148) The droplet increases
the interfacial area, which in turn, increases the refining
rate.148) On the other hand, the splashing and droplet genera-
tion may cause a wearing of refractories or a skulling on the
mouth of the vessels and lances, which can result in a loss
of production.145,152) Foamy slag, decreasing top gas flow
rate and increasing lance height reduces metal losses and the
skulling of the upper converter cone and converter mouth.78)
However, none of the predictive models for predicting drop-
let generation in Oxygen steelmaking have yet incorporated
the effect of bottom gas injection into their predictions and
there is evidence that it likely to be significant and is worthy
of further research.88) Whilst, there is a clear need for further
high temperature trials at industrial scale to fully quantify
the splashing and droplet generation phenomena.
6. Energy Transfer Behavior
The main characteristic phenomena during the converter
steelmaking process are summarized in the previous sec-
tions. In fact, these phenomena are essentially the result of
the inherent energy transfer between the jets and the molten
bath. The transfer efficiency of the fluids determines the
representative parameters of steelmaking process. However,
there are few studies on the energy transfer behavior in
relation to the multiphase flow in the converter. The stirring
Fig. 11. Droplet generation at lance height 0.120 m and (a) flow
rate 50 L/min; (b) flow rate 70 L/min.85)
and mixing of the bath is achieved by the transferring of
agitation energy generated by the injected gas to the molten
liquid. Water modeling experiments were used to evalu-
ate the agitation caused by top jet,27) bottom gas,27,153) and
combination gases.66) The main reasons for circulation and
mixing of the liquid bath are energy transferred from the
bottom gas and the buoyancy caused by bubbles rising.27)
However, only 10% of the agitation energy stemmed from
top jet is transferred to stirring and mixing the bath.66) The
relation between the agitation energy and mixing intensity
in an 80 t converter can be seen in Fig. 12.154)
H. Y. Hwang and G. A. Irons14) numerically explored
the energy transfer efficiency of a top-blown jet into the
bath. An energy transfer index was defined to quantify the
transfer of kinetic energy. The index showed little depen-
dency on the gas flow rate but increased as the lance height
increased. The fast Fourier transform technique (FFT) and
power spectral density function (PSD) were found useful to
analyze the energy associated with variations in surface pro-
file, cavity depth, cavity width, and the horizontal position

581 © 2018 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4
Fig. 12. The effect of agitation energy on mixing behavior in an
80 t converter.154) (Online version in color.)
Fig. 13. The control volume between the nozzle exit and the bath
surface.155) (Online version in color.)
of the cavity tip. S. Sabah et al.155) estimated the amount of
energy consumption by using an energy balance approach
as displayed in Fig. 13. Calculations showed that dissipation
and splashing are the dominant processes for which most
of the power of the jet is used, and cavity formation con-
sumes the least amount. This simplified approach provides
an improved understanding of the gas injection process and
may be used for developing models of the injection process
of steelmaking. Besides, the energy transfer phenomena in
top blowing156) and combined blowing157) converter were
numerically investigated. For the top blown system, the effi-
ciency of the energy transfer from the jets to the molten bath
is very low. Decreasing lance height or increasing operation
pressure promotes the efficiency of the momentum transfer
from the jets to the molten bath but lowers the efficiency of
the kinetic energy transfer.156) However, the energy transfer
for the bottom blowing is much more efficient than that
of the top blowing operations.157) And the kinetic energy
transfer is closely related to the parameters like flowrate,
radial position and the configuration of the bottom tuyeres
but indistinctively sensitive to the viscosity of the upper slag
or the foaming phases. These studies can provides us more
© 2018 ISIJ
fundamental insights into the multiphase flow behavior in
the converter.
7. Conclusions and Outlook
This article has shown the significant progress achieved
in regard to the multiphase flow behavior in the converter
steelmaking process. It can be concluded that modeling
plays an increasing role in augmenting traditional methods
to achieve future advance in BOF practice with the aid
of increasing development in computational power and
simulation tools. Future contributions toward a generalized
computational fluid dynamics model should include the
full dimensional transient flow simulation, complex chemi-
cal reactions, time-varying foamy slag behavior, enhanced
coupling with other phenomena such as the solid materials
behavior, data - driven online quality prediction and control.
However, many challenges still need to be addressed.
For example, even higher-performance supercomputers
should be made accessible due to the really time-intensive
modeling task. Numerical stability and big data management
need to be enhanced for the establishment of a collaborated
program. High-order accurate methods are still limited.
Methods for massive data transfer, storage, extraction and
visualization from large datasets need to be developed.
Nonetheless, with sustained efforts and improvements in our
knowledge base, we will eventually realize fundamentally
generalized modeling of the converter steelmaking. It is an
important part of a solid understanding of the fundamentals
towards BOF and which will in turn facilitate the real-
time data-driven precise process control of the converter
steelmaking process. More profoundly, the fundamentally
knowledge-based understanding of this process obtained
from the modeling work could be an important component
to the realization of intelligent steelmaking. Meanwhile, the
implementation of intelligent steelmaking is one of the core
sectors in the intelligent manufacturing for steel industry,
which is pushed by the intelligent technology development
nowadays, since several national strategies for intelligent
manufacturing have been launched such as Industry inter-
net (USA, 2009), Industry 4.0 (Germany, 2013), Made in
China 2025 (China, 2015), Society 5.0 (Japan, 2016), etc.
Therefore, it is envisaged that the intelligent manufactur-
ing in steelmaking process will witness even more intense
application of modeling in the coming year.
Acknowledgements
The financial support from Doctoral Fund of Ministry of
Educations of China (No. 20120006110036) and Jiangxi
Provincial Department of Science and Technology (20171
ACE50020) are highly acknowledged. The authors would
like to give their thanks to Dr. Muxing Guo (KU Leuven),
Prof. Bart Blanpain (KU Leuven), Dr. Dongsheng Liao
(ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc.), and Prof. Hongbiao Dong
(University of Leicester) for their inspiring talking to this
work. Lingling Cao and Yannan Wang also want to thank
the support of the China Scholarship Council (CSC).
REFERENCES
1) World Steel Association: Steel Statistical Yearbook 2016, World-
steel Committee on Economic Studies, Brussels, (2016), 15.
582
 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4
2) Y. Higuchi and Y. Tago: Tetsu-to-Hagané, 86 (2000), 654.
3) R. I. L. Guthrie: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 35B (2004), 417.
4) J. Szekely, J. W. Evans and J. K. Brimacombe: The Mathematical
and Physical Modeling of Primary Metals Processing Operations,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1988), 261.
5) R. B. Banks and D. V. Chandrasekhara: J. Fluid Mech., 15 (1963),
13.
6) N. A. Molloy: J. Iron Steel Inst., 208 (1970), 943.
7) J. Szekely, H. J. Wang and K. M. Kiser: Metall. Trans. B, 7B
(1976), 287.
8) S. K. Sharma, J. W. Hlinka and D. W. Kern: Iron Steelmaker, 4
(1977), 7.
9) K. Nakanishi, Y. Kato, T. Nozaki and T. Emi: Tetsu-to-Hagané, 66
(1980), 1307.
10) K. I. Naito, Y. J. Ogawa and T. Inomoto: ISIJ Int., 40 (2000), 23.
11) Y. Tago and Y. Higuchi: ISIJ Int., 43 (2003), 209.
12) W. Yang, Y. Ding, M. Wang, H. Shi, T. Wang and L. Zhu: Iron
Steel, 39 (2004), 16.
13) A. Nordquist, N. Kumbhat, L. Jonsson and P. Jönsson: Steel Res.
Int., 77 (2006), 82.
14) H. Y. Hwang and G. A. Irons: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 43B (2012),
302.
15) M. Li, Q. Li, S. Kuang and Z. Zou: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 47B
(2016), 116.
16) C. Roth, M. Peter, M. Schindler and K. Koch: Steel Res. Int., 66
(1995), 325.
17) M. J. Luomala, T. M. J. Faritius and J. J. Harkki: ISIJ Int., 44
(2004), 809.
18) S. K. Choudhary and S. K. Ajmani: ISIJ Int., 46 (2006), 1171.
19) V. Singh, J. Kumar, C. Bhanu, S. K. Ajmani and S. K. Dash: ISIJ
Int., 47 (2007), 1605.
20) Z. Y. Lai, Z. Xie and L. C. Zhong: ISIJ Int., 48 (2008), 793.
21) K. Nakatani, F. Ogasawara, T. Yamauchi, G. Okuyama and Y.
Uchida: Iron Steel Technol., 10 (2013), 180.
22) A. N. Conejo, S. Kitamura, N. Maruoka and S. J. Kim: Metall.
Mater. Trans. B, 44B (2013), 914.
23) R. S. Zhang, L. G. Chen and Y. S. Zhou: Cent. Iron Steel Res. Inst.
Tech., 3 (1983), 14.
24) S. Paul and D. N. Ghosh: Metall. Trans. B, 17 (1986), 461.
25) L. Duan and X. W. Chen: J. Univ. Sci. Technol. Beijing, 12 (1990),
510.
26) S. C. Koria and S. Pal: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 17 (1990), 325.
27) R. P. Singh and D. N. Ghosh: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 17 (1990),
333.
28) R. P. Singh and D. N. Ghosh: ISIJ Int., 30 (1990), 955.
29) M. Martína, M. Renduelesb and M. Díaza: Chem. Eng. Sci., 60
(2005), 5781.
30) L. Y. Wen, D. F. Chen, L. Y. Dong, C. G. Bai, Y. H. Zhou, M. Liao
and J. N. Zhang: J. Iron Steel Res., 18 (2006), 14.
31) J. Szekely: JOM, 42 (1990), 16.
32) J. Szekely and S. Asai: Metall. Trans., 5 (1974), 463.
33) M. Salcudean and R. I. L. Guthrie: Metall. Trans. B, 9 (1978), 181.
34) Y. Z. Li and D. Y. Li: J. Beijing Iron Steel Inst., 4 (1983), 48.
35) Y. Z. Li and H. Z. Guo: J. Beijing Iron Steel Inst., 4 (1984), 75.
36) S. C. Du, J. Y. Zhang and S. K. Wei: Acta Metall. Sin., 22 (1986),
237.
37) B. K. Li, J. C. He and Z. W. Lu: Acta Metall. Sin., 28 (1992), 475.
38) P. Gittler, R. Kickinger, S. Pirker, E. Fuhrmann, J. Lehner and J.
Steins: Scand. J. Metall., 29 (2000), 166.
39) H. Laux, S. T. Johansen, H. Berg and O. S. Klevan: Scand. J.
Metall., 29 (2000), 71.
40) H. J. Odenthal, U. Falkenreck and J. Schlüter: Proc. European Conf.
on Computational Fluid Dynamics, TU Delft, Netherlands, (2006), 1.
41) M. Ersson, A. Tilliander, L. Jonsson and P. Jönsson: ISIJ Int., 48
(2008), 377.
42) M. Ersson, L. Höglund, A. Tilliander, L. Jonsson and P. Jönsson:
ISIJ Int., 48 (2008), 147.
43) M. Asai, H. Nijo and K. Ito: ISIJ Int., 48 (2009), 178.
44) W. J. Wang, Z. F. Yuan, H. Matsuura, H. X. Zhao, C. Dai and F.
Tsukihashi: ISIJ Int., 50 (2010), 491.
45) Y. Doh, P. Chapelle, A. Jardy, G. Djambazov, K. Pericleous, G.
Ghazal and P. Gardin: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 44B (2013), 653.
46) Q. Li, M. M. Li, S. B. Kuang and Z. S. Zou: Metall. Mater. Trans.
B, 46B (2015), 1494.
47) F. H. Liu, R. Zhu, Q. G. Wang and R. G. Bai: ISIJ Int., 55 (2015),
1633.
48) K. Y. Chu, H. H. Chen, P. H. Lai, H. C. Wu, Y. C. Liu, C. C. Lin
and M. J. Lu: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 47B (2016), 948.
49) R. Y. Yin: ISIJ Int., 42 (2002), 1061.
50) R. J. Fruehan: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 32 (2005), 3.
51) A. McLean: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 37B (2006), 319.
52) G. H. Li, B. Wang, Q. Liu, X. Z. Tian, R. Zhu, L. N. Hu and G. G.
Cheng: Int. J. Min. Metall. Mater., 17 (2010), 715.
53) K. Chattopadhyay, M. Isac and R. I. L. Guthrie: Ironmaking
Steelmaking, 37 (2010), 562.
583
54) Z. Wang, Q. Liu, F. M. Xie, B. Wang, B. Wang and G. Q. Fu:
Ironmaking Steelmaking, 39 (2012), 228.
55) Z. Wang, J. Chang, Q. P. Ju, F. M. Xie, B. Wang, H. W. Li, B.
Wang, X. C. Lu, G. Q. Fu and Q. Liu: ISIJ Int., 52 (2012), 1585.
56) Q. Liu, B. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Wang and X. F. Zhang: China Sci.
Technol. Achiev., 11 (2014), 78.
57) K. Chattopadhyay: AIST Trans., 11 (2014), 277.
58) T. Emi: ISIJ Int., 55 (2015), 36.
59) R. N. Giere: Using Models to Represent Reality, Springer US,
New York, (1999), 41.
60) D. Mazumdar and J. W. Evans: Modeling of Steelmaking Processes,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, (2009), 100.
61) G. H. Geiger and D. R. Poirier: Transport Phenomena in Metallurgy,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA, (1973), 76.
62) F. Kemeny, D. J. Harris, A. McLean, T. R. Meadowcroft and J.
D. Young: Proc. 2nd Process Technology Conf., TMS, ISS-AIME,
Warrendale, PA, (1981), 232.
63) R. I. L. Guthrie and M. Isac: Iron Steelmaker, 30 (2003), 27.
64) Z. P. Cai, Y. Liang and C. X. Zhang: Experimental Research and
Testing Technology of Chemical Metallurgy Model, Metallurgical
Industry Press, Beijing, (2001), 41.
65) L. I. Sedov: Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, (1993), 57.
66) K. Nakanishi, K. Saito, T. Nozaki, Y. Kato, K. I. Suzuki and T.
Emi: Steelmaking Conf. Proc., Iron & Steel Society of AIME, US,
(1982), 101.
67) Q. L. He and N. Standish: ISIJ Int., 30 (1990), 305.
68) C. K. Liu, Y. M. Yan and X. W. Li: Proc. 3rd Academic Conf.
Metallurgical Process Dynamic Reaction Engineering, The Chinese
Society for Metals, Beijing, (1986), 13.
69) N. Standish and Q. L. He: ISIJ Int., 29 (1989), 455.
70) Q. L. He and N. Standish: ISIJ Int., 30 (1990), 305.
71) K. D. Peaslee: Electric Furnace Conf. Proc., The Iron and Steel
Society, London, (1993), 403.
72) M. Iguchi, T. Kondoh, Z.-I. Morita, K. Nakajima, K. Hanazaki, T.
Uemura and F. Yamamoto: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 26B (1995), 241.
73) M. Iguchi, H. Ueda, T. Chihara and Z.-I. Morita: Metall. Mater.
Trans. B, 27B (1996), 765.
74) M. Iguchi, T. Kondoh and K. Nakajima: Metall. Mater. Trans. B,
28B (1997), 605.
75) M. Iguchi, K.-I. Nakamura and R. Tsujino: Metall. Mater. Trans. B,
29B (1998), 569.
76) F. Qian, R. Mutharasan and B. Farouk: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 27B
(1996), 911.
77) M. J. Luomala, E. O. Virtanen, P. T. Mure, T. P. Siivola, T. M. J.
Fabritius and J. J. Härkki: Steel Res., 73 (2002), 9.
78) M. J. Luomala, T. M. J. Fabritius, E. O. Virtanen, T. P. Siivola and
J. J. Härkki: ISIJ Int., 42 (2002), 944.
79) M. Ersson, A. Tilliander, M. Iguchi, L. Jonsson and P. Jönsson: ISIJ
Int., 46 (2006), 1137.
80) X. B. Zhou, M. Ersson, L. C. Zhong and P. Jönsson: ISIJ Int., 54
(2014), 2255.
81) X. B. Zhou, M. Ersson, L. C. Zhong, J. Yu and P. Jönsson: Steel
Res. Int., 85 (2014), 273.
82) M. Martína, M. Renduelesb and M. Díaza: Chem. Eng. Sci., 60
(2005), 5781.
83) M. C. Terrazas and A. N. Conejo: Proc. Int. Cong. on the Science
and Technology of Steelmaking (ICS 2015), The Chinese Society
for Metals, Beijing, (2015), 175.
84) Q. Li, M. M. Li and Z. S. Zou: Proc. Int. Cong. on the Science and
Technology of Steelmaking (ICS 2015), The Chinese Society for
Metals, Beijing, (2015), 187.
85) S. Sabah and G. Brooks: ISIJ Int., 54 (2014), 836.
86) S. Sabah and G. Brooks: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 46B (2015), 863.
87) S. Sabah and G. Brooks: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 43 (2016), 473.
88) G. Brooks, S. Sabah, B. Rout and Z. Li: Proc. Iron & Steel Technol-
ogy Conf. and Exposition (AISTech 2017), AIST, Warrendale, PA,
(2017), 1253.
89) K. Chattopadhyay, M. Isac and R. I. L. Guthrie: ISIJ Int., 50 (2010),
331.
90) J. Szekely: Metall. Trans. B, 19 (1988), 525.
91) J. Blazek: Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and
Applications, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, (2005), 1.
92) J. Laufer: On Turbulent Shear Flows of Variable Density, Rand
Corp, Santa Monica, CA, (1968), 1.
93) J. H. Ferziger and M. Peric: Computational Methods for Fluid
Dynamics, Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, (2002), 309.
94) Z. P. Cai, Y. S. Xie and A. W. Xia: Iron Steel, 15 (1980), 14.
95) S. V. Patankar and D. B. Spalding: Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 15
(1972), 1787.
96) B. E. Launder and D. B. Spalding: Mathematical Models of
Turbulence, Academic Press, London, (1972), 27.
97) D. Mazumdar and R. I. L. Guthrie: Appl. Math. Model., 10 (1986),
25.
98) M. P. Schwarz and W. J. Turner: Appl. Math. Model., 12 (1988),
© 2018 ISIJ
 ISIJ International, Vol. 58 (2018), No. 4

273. cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10145-2010259808.htm, (accessed

99) N. Asahara, K. Naito, I. Kitagawa, M. Matsuo, M. Kumakura and 2008-02-25).
M. Iwasaki: Steel Res. Int., 82 (2011), 587. 128) I. Sumi, G. Okuyama, S. Nabeshima, H. Matsuno and Y. Kishimoto:
100) O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor: The Finite Element Method, ISIJ Int., 47 (2007), 73.
McGraw-hill, London, (1977), 90. 129) Z. Song, M. Ersson and P. G. Jönsson: ISIJ Int., 51 (2011), 1637.
101) R. I. L. Guthrie: ISIJ Int., 49 (2009), 1453. 130) I. Sumi, Y. Kishimoto, Y. Kikuchi and H. Igarashi: ISIJ Int., 46
102) M. Wolfshtein: Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 12 (1969), 301. (2006), 1312.
103) A. N. Kolmogorov: Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 30 (1941), 299. 131) R. Sambasivam and F. Durst: J. Heat Transf., 132 (2010), 031701.
104) L. Prandtl: Festschr. zum, 60 (1945), 134. 132) R. Sambasivam, S. N. Lenka, F. Durst, M. Bock, S. Chandra and S.
105) H. J. Odenthal, J. Schlüter and N. Uebber: Proc. 7th European K. Ajmani: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 38B (2007), 45.
Oxygen Steelmaking Conf. (EOSC), Česká Hutnická Společnost, 133) A. R. Naji Meidani, M. Isac, A. Richardson, A. Cameron and R. I.
Czech Republic, (2014), 1. L. Guthrie: ISIJ Int., 44 (2004), 1639.
106) H. J. Odenthal: Proc. Int. Cong. on the Science and Technology of 134) R. Sambasivam and F. Durst: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 37 (2010),
Steelmaking (ICS 2015), The Chinese Society for Metals, Beijing, 195.
(2015), 183. 135) Z. Q. Xiao: Studies on Unit Processes and Unit Phenomena in
107) A. V. Nguyen and G. M. Evans: Appl. Math. Model., 30 (2006), Metallurgy, Metallurgical Industry Press, Beijing, (2006), 17.
1472. 136) H. W. Meyer, W. F. Porter, G. C. Smith and J. Szekely: JOM, 20
108) H. Jalkanen and E. Andersin: Proc. Modern Technologies for (1968), 35.
Making and Casting of Steel Conf., Varna, Bulgaria, (1989), 1. 137) O. Olivares, A. Elias, R. Sánchez, M. Díaz-Cruz and R. D. Morales:
109) M.-L. Suomi, H. Jalkanen, E. Andersin and M. Wallgren: Proc. 2nd Steel Res., 73 (2002), 44.
Colloquium on Process Simulation (CONSIM), Helsinki University 138) F. Memoli, C. Mapelli, P. Ravanelli and M. Corbella: ISIJ Int., 44
of Technology, Espoo, Finland, (1995), 289. (2004), 1342.
110) H. Jalkanen: Advanced Processing of Metals and Materials, TMS, 139) Y. Kishimoto and N. Saito: Tetsu-to-Hagané, 100 (2014), 445.
Warrendale, PA, (2006), 541. 140) V. Singh, S. N. Lenka, S. K. Ajmani, C. Bhanu and S. Pathak: ISIJ
111) C. Crowe, M. Sommerfeld and Y. Tsuji: Multiphase Flows with Int., 49 (2009), 1889.
Droplets and Particles, CRC Press, Boca Raton, (1998), 191. 141) C. Roth, M. Peter, M. Juhart and K. Koch: Steel Res., 70 (1999),
112) V. Singh, J. Kumar, C. Bhanu, S. K. Ajmani and S. K. Dash: ISIJ 502.
Int., 47 (2007), 1605. 142) T. M. J. Fabritius, M. J. Luomala, E. O. Virtanen, H. Tenkku, T. L.
113) J. O. Andersson, T. Helander, L. Höglund, P. F. Shi and S. Bo: J. Fabritius, T. P. Siivola and J. J. Härkki: ISIJ Int., 42 (2002), 861.
Calphad, 26 (2002), 273. 143) M. A. Ehteram, H. B. Tabrizi, G. Ahmadi, M. Safari and M. A.
114) X. B. Zhou, M. Ersson, L. C. Zhong and P. Jönsson: Steel Res. Int., Mirsalim: J. Aerosol Sci., 65 (2013), 49.
86 (2015), 1328. 144) R. C. Urquhart and W. G. Davenport: Can. Metall. Q., 12 (1973),
115) AVL FIRE Inc.: CFD Solver v8.5 Manual, AVL Fire, Graz, Austria, 507.
(2006), 1. 145) K. D. Peaslee and D. G. Robertson: Extraction & Processing
116) M. Alam, J. Naser and G. Brooks: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 41B Division Cong. (EPD) Proc., TMS, Warrendale, PA, (1994), 1129.
(2010), 636. 146) M. Iguchi: Tetsu-to-Hagané, 103 (2017), 119.
117) D. C. Wilcox: AIAA J., 30 (1992), 2639. 147) S. C. Koria and K. W. Lange: Metall. Trans. B, 15 (1984), 109.
118) T. H. Shih, W. W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang and J. Zhu: Comput. 148) Subagyo, G. A. Brooks, K. S. Coley and G. A. Irons: ISIJ Int., 43
Fluids, 24 (1995), 227. (2003), 983.
119) Y. Li, W. T. Lou and M. Y. Zhu: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 40 149) B. K. Rout, G. Brooks, Subagyo, M. A. Rhamdhani and Z. Li:
(2013), 505. Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 47 (2016), 3350.
120) S. T. Johansen, J. Wu and W. Shyy: Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 25 150) G. Turner and S. Jahanshahi: Trans. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn., 27 (1987),
(2004), 10. 734.
121) N. Croft, K. Pericleous and M. Cross: Numerical Methods in 151) T. Fabritius, P. Mure, E. Virtanen, P. Hannula, M. Luomala and J.
Laminar and Turbulent Flows, Vol. 9, ed. by C. Tayler and P. Härkki: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 29 (2002), 29.
Durbetaki, Pineridge Press, Swansea, UK, (1995), 1269. 152) B. T. Maia, R. K. Imagawa and R. P. Turner: Proc. Iron &
122) Q. Li, M. M. Li, S. B. Kuang and Z. S. Zou: Can. Metall. Q., 53 Steel Technology Conf. and Exposition (AISTech 2016), AIST,
(2014), 340. Warrendale, PA, (2016), 1083.
123) L. L. Cao, Q. Liu, Z. Wang and N. Li: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 153) Y. Sundberg: Scand. J. Metall., 7 (1978), 81.
(2016), DOI: 10.1080/03019233.2016.1255373. 154) L. L. Cao, Z. Wang, Q. Liu, X. C. Lu and F. M. Xie: Proc. Int.
124) L. K. Lin, Z. H. Yang, S. Y. Hsu, J. S. Wang, Y. C. Liu, Y. L. Cong. on the Science and Technology of Steelmaking (ICS 2015),
Huang and C. H. Tsai: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Modelling and The Chinese Society for Metals, Beijing, (2015), 171.
Simulation of Metallurgical Processes in Steelmaking (STEEL- 155) S. Sabah and G. Brooks: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 47B (2016), 458.
SIM2017), The Chinese Society for Metals, Beijing, (2017), 204. 156) M. M. Li, Q. Li, S. Kuang and Z. S. Zou: Steel Res. Int., 87 (2016),
125) A. Chatterjee: Iron Steel, 45 (1972), 627. 288.
126) F. L. Wu: Energy Metall. Ind., 8 (1989), 47. 157) X. B. Zhou, M. Ersson, L. C. Zhong and P. Jönsson: Metall. Mater.
127) K. Liu: Ph.D. thesis, Northestern University, (2008), http://cdmd. Trans. B, 47B (2016), 434.

© 2018 ISIJ 584