www.steel-research.

de
FULL PAPER

Modeling Flow Turbulence in a Continuous Casting

Slab Mold Comparing the use of Two Bifurcated
Nozzles with Square and Circular Ports

n-Ramos,
R. D. Morales, and Mar
ıa Salazar-Campoy
Ismael Caldero

Flow patterns of liquid steel in a thick slab mold, fed by bifurcated nozzles, are modeled
through water modeling using characterization techniques such as particle image velocimetry
(PIV), ultrasound velocimetry probe (UPV), and mathematical simulations using the large eddy
simulation (LES) model. Geometries of nozzle ports include circular and square shapes with
similar cross-section area. Square ports deliver wandering jets that occupy about 66% of the
port area, and are raveled during their pass through the mold impacting the narrow face.
Circular ports deliver compact jets mainly through the lower edge occupying only about 45% of
the port area. The analysis of the flow structures indicates that the circular ports form more
turbulent jets than square ones for the same flow rate of liquid. Mathematical simulations,
using the LES model, predict acceptably well measured velocity fields. Slag entrainment
through mechanisms of shear-drag forces at the metal–slag interface is estimated through a
critical capillary number which involves slag viscosity, interfacial tension, and fluid velocity.
At deep nozzle immersions, this capillary model predicts more slag entrainment using the
bifurcated nozzle with circular ports.

1. Introduction having the same cross-section area. Opposite to that

Port shapes and geometries of mold casting nozzles are very
important for controlling flow turbulence of liquid steel in
slab molds.[1] For example, discharging ports with cross-
section areas larger than the bore cross-section area of the
submerged entry nozzle (SEN) will lead to bath level
oscillations.[2] Large ports make their discharging angle less
influential on the angle of the jet.[3] Downward port angles
are preferred over upward port angles because the later
promote larger turbulence on the melt meniscus.[4,5]
Moreover, large port dimensions lead to recirculating flows
just in the upper edge of the port leading to backflow
conditions aggravating clogging problems.[6,7] Most of the
SEN designs available in the market observe this character-
istic under the reasoning that large ports help to compensate
the clogging effects of alumina. Smoothing the bending
angle of the interior upper port edge decreases the clogging
and the backflow issues.[8] Circular ports generate more
swirls and have a larger spread angle than rectangular ones
[
] I. Calder

on-Ramos, R. D. Morales, M. Salazar-Campoy
Department of Materials Engineering and Metallurgy, Instituto
Polit

ecnico Nacional-E.S.I.Q.I.E., Ed. 7 UPALM, Col. Zacatenco C.P.
07738, Mexico D.F.
Email: ing.ismael.calderon@gmail.com
DOI: 10.1002/srin.201400538
opinion, Lu et al. claimed that port shape is less important
than port size and port angle in controlling the flow inside
the mold.[9] Two of the most important ports geometries
used in bifurcated nozzles are the circular and the square
ones. Since turbulent flows at the meniscus may lead to
entrainment of mold flux,[10] which eventually will become
into inclusions that degrade steel quality, it is important to
define which may be the differences between both types of
ports on this phenomenon. It is also worthy to mention that
nozzle design aims at flow control of steel in the mold and is
usually divorced from the flux chemistry which is more
oriented to steel chemistry for good lubrication assurance.
This later aspect, together with the fact that circular and
square ports are the most common in current use at casters
over the world, emphasizes the need to carry out a study
aimed at the characterization of turbulent flows induced by
these nozzles in thick continuous casting molds. Previously,
a numerical study focused specifically on fluid flow through
bifurcated nozzles was reported by other researchers
including characteristics such as the ports geometries, port
sizes, material thickness, etc..[11] In the present work, a
different approach is employed including numerical and
experimental methods. Specific goals in this work are the
study of flow structure of jets emerging from bifurcated
nozzles with circular and square ports including speeds,
influence on meniscus stability, and mold flux entrainment
mechanisms.

1610 steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
2. Experimental Section
A 1:1 scale model of a slab mold made of transparent
plastic was built with dimensions of 1800  230 mm2. The
total length of this model is 1800 mm to simulate the
continuity of the strand. The model is embedded in a water
pool equipped with a submerged pump to elevate water to
a tundish, permitting water recycling, with a water level of
1000 mm corresponding exactly to the actual steel level in
the tundish of the current caster. Water velocities inside
the model were measured using particle image velocimetry
(PIV) and ultrasound velocimetry probe (UVP). The
interrogation area for the PIV includes one half the model
dimensions and a zoom view of the jet just in the
discharging port; both at the mid-frontal plane. One UVP
transducer was placed 20 mm below the water meniscus
through a drill made in the mid-narrow face of the mold to
measure fluid speeds in this region.
This equipment measures the horizontal velocity of
water from the narrow face of the mold to the wall of the
SEN. Other transducer was located on the narrow face of
the mold and was aligned by a laser beam toward the
center of the discharging port of the nozzle to capture flow
turbulence of the jet. The distance measured by this later
transducer goes from 290 to 890 mm with the purpose to
capture detailed turbulence variables of the jets coming
from both types of nozzles. Figure 1 shows the position of
both transducers and the distances under analysis. Details
of the experimental setup can be found in Figure 2a.[12–14]
The water flow is controlled through a stopper rod,
made of plastic, with the same dimensions and geometry
as that used in the actual caster and is shown in Figure 2b.
Two SEN designs, one with circular ports (SEN-C) and
another with square ports (SEN-S), having approximately
the same discharging cross-section area and an angle of 00,
were considered in this work, see Figure 3a and b. The
casting speed was maintained constant at 0.9 m min1,
which is equal to the current speed used in the actual
caster. Two extreme immersion depths of the nozzles
Figure 1. Transducer locations inside the slab mold.
ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
(measured from the meniscus level to the upper edge of
the ports) were tried; the first is 115 mm (shallow position)
and the second is 185 mm (deep position). The reason
behind the choice of those immersion depths is that the
first immersion is very shallow and can be useful to see if
there is the formation of a single roll flow pattern (SRF).
The second immersion level is deep enough to ensure a
double roll flow pattern (DRF). Using this approach will
allow to make a clear assessment about the performances
of both types of ports to control liquid steel turbulence in
thick slab molds of continuous casting machines with
emphasis on flux entrainment aspects.
3. Mathematical Model
3.1. The LES Model
Here, the large eddy simulation (LES) model is employed
to simulate the flows because large length scale, three-
dimensional (3D), and unsteady turbulent motions are
directly represented, whereas the effects of the smaller
scale motions are modeled. Therefore, the large eddies are
mathematically filtered and the smaller ones are modeled
to get closure of the motion equations. The general filtering
operation[15] is defined by
Z
 ðx; tÞ ¼
U Gðr; xÞU ðx  r; tÞdr ð1Þ
where G(r, x) is the filtering function that fulfills the
condition of normalization, U is the instantaneous
 is the filtered velocity in the large scale
velocity, and U
field. The residual field is defined by
0
 ðx; tÞ
u ðx; tÞ ¼ U ðx; tÞ  U ð2Þ
The instantaneous field is given by the sum of the large
scale field and the residual field as follows:
 ðx; tÞ þ u0 ðx; tÞ
U ðx; tÞ ¼ U ð3Þ
This appears very similar to the Reynolds decomposi-
 ðx; tÞ
tion; there are, however, very important differences; U
is a random and unsteady field, and, in general, the mean
of the filtered residual is not zero;
0
u ðx; tÞ 6¼ 0 ð4Þ
the filtered continuity equation is
i
@U
¼0 ð5Þ
@xi
steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 1611
 www.steel-research.de
FULL PAPER

Figure 2. a) Experimental set up and b) tip geometry and dimensions of the seat.

and the filtered momentum Navier–Stokes equations The isotropic residual stress is included in the modified
are filtered pressure as

@Uj U iU j @2U j 

1 @P  ¼< p > þ 2 k r
P ð9Þ
þ@ ¼n  þg ð6Þ 3
@t @xi @xi @xi r @xj
and the anisotropic residual stress tensor is defined by
 iU
Here, U i U j 6¼ U  j and the difference between these
two non-linear terms is the residual stress tensor defined 2
by trij ¼ tRij  k r dij ð10Þ
3

tRij ¼ U iU j  U
 iU
j ð7Þ With these definitions, the momentum equations
(Equation 6) can be written (using the substantial
The residual kinetic energy is derivative) as follows:

1 U
D j @2U j @trij 1 @p
k r ¼ tRii ð8Þ ¼n   þg ð11Þ
2 Dt @xi @xi @xi r @xj

The filtering function in this work is the box type in real

space

8 9
< 1 =
if x  D
Gðr; xÞ ¼ D ð12Þ
: ;
¼ 0 otherwise

If the momentum and continuity equations are

approximated by a finite volume scheme, the integral in
Equation 1 introduces a filter, which is Equation 12, and
filters out all residual scales smaller than D, the mesh
spacing. Hereby, the filtering process is implicit during the
computing process. Equation 5 and 11 represents a closure
problem because the residual stresses are unknown. To get
closure, the turbulent viscosity hypothesis is applied
according to

Figure 3. Submerged entry nozzle (SEN), geometry and dimen- trij ¼ 2nr Sij ð13Þ
sions in mm, a) SEN-S and b) SEN-C.

1612 steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
where Sij is the filtered rate of strain
 
 i @U
1 @U j
Sij ¼ þ ð14Þ
2 @xj @xi
To calculate the residual viscosity, the Smagorinsky–
Lilly model[16] was used,
 assumed to follow velocity profiles obeying the turbulent
nr ¼ L2s jSj ð15Þ
where Ls is the length scale and S is mean square of the
filtered rate of strain,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
S¼ 2Sij Sij ð16Þ
LS is computed as
 
1 4.1. Flow Patterns
Ls ¼ min k d ; C s; V 3 ð16Þ
where kd is the constant of Von Karman, Cs is a constant,
and V is the volume of the computational cell. Equation
13–16 helps to obtain a closure of the Navier–Stokes
equations by substituting Equation 13 in Equation 11. To
solve the system of partial differential equations, the mold
domain was gridded using a hybrid mesh of triangular and
tetrahedral elements in a finite volume element scheme
totalizing 1 494 939 cells and 273 751 nodes.
A segregated implicit model approach[17] was employed
for linearization of the Navier–Stokes equations together
with a central difference scheme[18] which uses the
gradients of the flow variables in the center of the cells
that are sharing the same face. Using the stored
magnitudes of flow variables in centers of the cells and
knowing their gradients makes possible their calculation at
cell faces and the estimation of mass fluxes in each face of
each cell. The block of linear equations generated,
considering that there are N equations per cell for the N
flow variables, is solved using a point implicit (block
Gauss–Seidel) linear equation solver[19] with an algebraic
multi-grid (AMG) method.[20] To evaluate gradient deriv-
atives, the Green–Gauss node-based approach[21] was
applied and the body-force-weighted scheme[22] was used
to calculate the pressure field to solve the momentum
equations and to match it with the discretized equation of
continuity in the algorithm for coupling the pressure–
velocity. The body-force-weighted scheme computes the
face pressure by assuming that the normal gradient of the
difference between pressure and body forces is constant.
Finally, to couple the pressure–velocity, the SIMPLEC[23]
algorithm was used. Convergence criterion is established
when the total sum of flow variables is less than 104.
Boundary conditions to solve the flow field include no-
slip conditions in solid surfaces. To estimate the velocity of
ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
the first node of the grid near a wall, the wall function was
employed together with a damping function proposed by
Driest[24] in order to estimate the distance from the wall;
ls ¼ C s D½1  expðyþ =Aþ  ð17Þ
where Aþ has a magnitude of 26 and Cs ¼ 0.1 in Equation 16
and 17. Inflow conditions in the nozzle bore was initially
1/7 law[25] and transformed during the computing time
into a turbulent fluctuating field through a Spectral
Synthesizer[26] to make more realistic the entering flows
into the mold. The time step was 0.01 s and the total time of
simulation was 300 s.
4. Results and Discussion
Flow patterns, determined by PIV measurements, using
SEN-S at the shallow position are shown in Figure 4a–d;
(taken at different times, with a time difference of 230 ms
between each figure). The flow remains mostly single roll
flow (SRF) at all times. As observed there, the jet does not
conserve an integral shape; instead, it wanders and is
raveled meaning that streams of fluid are detached from
the jet upward the bath surface. The raveling effects are
indicated by the arrows in Figure 4b–d. At some other
instants, the jet impacts the narrow mold wall with
relatively high velocities, producing high velocities in the
meniscus as is indicated by the arrow in Figure 4a.
At the deep nozzle immersion (double roll flow), the
raveling effects, using SEN-S, are also present as is shown
by the arrows in Figure 4e–g. In other cases, the fluid
surface reaches relatively high shearing velocities as is
indicated by the arrow in Figure 4h.
Flow patterns using SEN-C are quite different from
those described for SEN-S; Figure 5a–d shows the
corresponding flow fields for this nozzle in the shallow
position. The flow patterns are SRF and the jet is not
raveled; after impacting, the narrow face of the mold there
are weak streams that are trying to get back toward the
nozzle as indicated by the arrows in Figure 5a and c.
Complex flows are formed close to the nozzle wall, with
velocity vectors oriented toward the narrow face of the
mold, others are oriented toward the nozzle, and others are
oriented vertically as is indicated by the arrow in Figure 5b.
Figure 5d shows clearly the SRF pattern formed under
these conditions.
Figure 5e–h shows the corresponding flow patterns
using the SEN-C located in the deep position. In this case,
the flow pattern is double roll flow (DRF), which means
that upper and lower roll flows are formed, and the jet does
not observe raveling effects. However, it is clear the
steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 1613
 www.steel-research.de
FULL PAPER

Figure 4. Velocity field using the SEN-S calculated through PIV technique, a) t ¼ 7.92 s, b) t ¼ 8.17 s, c) t ¼ 8.42 s, d) t ¼ 8.67 s at 115 mm
immersion depth, e) t ¼ 3.23 s, f) t ¼ 3.48 s, g) t ¼ 3.73 s, and h) t ¼ 3.98 s at 185 mm depth.

1614 steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de

FULL PAPER

Figure 5. Velocity field using the SEN-C calculated through PIV technique, a) t ¼ 7.92 s, b) t ¼ 8.17 s, c) t ¼ 8.42 s, d) t ¼ 8.67 s at 115 mm
immersion depth, e) t ¼ 3.23 s, f) t ¼ 3.48 s, g) t ¼ 3.73 s, and h) t ¼ 3.98 s at 185 mm immersion depth.

ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 1615

FULL PAPER
formation of upper roll flows of high velocity at the
meniscus as is indicated by the arrows in Figure 5e, f and h.
The jet maintains its integrity from the nozzle port to the
impinging point on the narrow face of the mold. Figure 6a–
d shows tracer mixing experiments which results indicate
that at a nozzle shallow position (115 mm), the flow pattern
is single roll, and at a nozzle depth of 185 mm, the flow
pattern is double roll for both nozzles. Comparison of the
experimental measurements of velocity using the PIV and
the mathematical simulations with LES are shown in
Figure 7a–d for both nozzles at immersions of 115 and
185 mm, respectively.
As seen, there is an excellent agreement between
measurements and simulations results. However, a more
detailed observation makes clear that there are, as can be
expected, tiny differences among both types of results. For
instance, the jet angle simulated by LES is steeper than the jet
angle visualized through PIV for SEN-C at both immersion
depths. Also, flow structures simulated by LES in the mold
corner are slightly different when compared with PIV
measurements in the case of SEN-S at the shallow position.
The reason behind these differences is due to the fact that
data file of the experiments and the data file of the
mathematical simulations are, naturally not the same. In
other words, reference times for experimental and simu-
lations data do not match. The jets of SEN-C impact with
larger velocities the narrow face of the mold with probable
shell washing effects.
Jet averaged in time velocities along a distance from
290 mm to the discharging port measured by the UVP and
Figure 6. Mixing kinetics of the tracer, a) SEN-S-115 with SRF, b) SEN-C-115 with SRF, c) SEN-S-185 with DRF, and d) SEN-C-185 with
DRF.
1616 steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12
www.steel-research.de
PIV techniques are compared with those simulated with
LES at an immersion of 185 mm for nozzles SEN-S and
SEN-C are shown in Figure 8a and b, respectively.
The agreement between the three approaches is also
very good; UVP measurements yield smoothed curves,
while PIV results and LES simulations yield more irregular
curves. It should be noticed that the initial speed at the
port in SEN-C is considerably higher than the correspond-
ing speed in the port of SEN-S. Consequently, the jet from
SEN-C would impact with a larger velocity the narrow
mold face than SEN-S. These differences are direct
consequences of the port geometry; as seen in Figure 4,
5 and 7, i.e., SEN-S delivers a larger spreading jet that
wanders and ravels, using more the port area whereas
SEN-C induces a concentrated jet with considerably less
spreading effects and higher penetrating velocities.
Provided that there is a good agreement between
measured velocities using UVP and PIV techniques and
LES simulations, it is possible to continue the discussion of
these results using, at convenience, anyone of these
approaches, in a complementary way, in the rest of this
discussion.
4.2. Assessment of Nozzle Performance
So far, the results presented here do not make clear enough
which of these two nozzles may be more recommendable
to operate this mold. A real quantification of the benefits of
using either of nozzles SEN-S or SEN-C is still lacking. To
ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
Figure 7. Comparison between the physical model (PIV) and the mathematical simulation (LES), a) SEN-S at 115 mm, b) SEN-C at
115 mm, c) SEN-S at 185 mm, and d) SEN-C at 185 mm.
find out a quantitative criterion, 300 images (equivalent to
75 s) of each PIV experiment were analyzed to identify
events of velocity spikes in the sub-meniscus region, which
would represent, eventually, endangered conditions lead-
ing to mold flux entrainment. Velocity spikes, as defined
here, are velocities of extreme magnitude that exceed
considerably the averaged-in-time velocities, i.e., above
the standard deviation of each set of data for both nozzles.
Figure 9a and b shows these velocities for both nozzles at
the shallow and deep immersion and the number of spikes
or events observed per minute (N).
Fifteen such events are detected for each nozzle at
shallow immersion; the locations of these velocities are in
the mold corner up to a distance of 0.3 m from the narrow
face and other isolated velocities at a distance from 0.6 to
Figure 8. Velocity through the jet using physical modeling (UVP and PIV) and mathematical simulation (LES), a) SEN-S and b) SEN-C,
both at 185 mm depth.
ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
0.7 m using SEN-S. Velocity spikes of smaller magnitudes
are almost symmetrically identified using SEN-C as is seen
in Figure 9b. The corresponding plots for the deep
immersion are found in Figure 9c and d for SEN-S and
SEN-C, respectively. It is clear that the magnitudes of these
velocity spikes and the number of events are considerable
smaller in the first case than when using SEN-C. Perform-
ance of nozzle SEN-S is in agreement with the general
believing that deep nozzle positions decrease turbulence
in the meniscus region because the flow changes from
SRF to DRF. However, that is not the case of SEN-C,
which induces very high velocities of liquid in the sub-
meniscus and meniscus regions and the number of events
per minute rises to 20 at a nozzle deep position of 185 mm.
In summary, at the shallow position, both nozzles provide
steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 1617

FULL PAPER
Figure 9. Velocity spikes at free surface calculated through PIV technique, a) SEN-S at shallow position, b) SEN-C at shallow position, c)
SEN-S at deep position, and d) SEN-C at deep position.
a SRF pattern to the fluid (see Figure 6a and b); velocities at
the meniscus are larger using SEN-S. At the deep position,
both nozzles provide a DRF pattern (see Figure 6c and d)
and velocities at meniscus and the number of events per
minute is smaller using SEN-S. At the deep immersion of
the nozzle, SEN-C provides larger fluid velocities in the
meniscus and sub-meniscus regions. The flow structure
and turbulence in the mold are defined by the specific fluid
flow dynamics which is itself dependent on the way that
kinetic energy is produced and dissipated in the discharg-
ing ports.[27,28] Results shown in plots of Figure 9 a–d
can be translated into a dimensionless critical capillary
1618 steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12
www.steel-research.de
number (to indicate the onset of flux entrainment)
involving the melt speed, dynamic viscosity of melt, and
interfacial tension between the melt and the slag according
to
U mcr mm
Cacr ¼ ð18Þ
Gms
where Umcr is the horizontal critical metal velocity
necessary to originate drag slag, mm is melt dynamic
viscosity, and Gms is the metal–slag interfacial tension. The
critical horizontal velocity will depend on the physical
ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
properties of the metal–slag system, and there are various
expressions to calculate it, based on experimental results
of water–oil modeling studies. Swartz et al.[29] made an
extensive review of all those expressions and concluded
that the next one, derived by Harman and Cramb,[30]
provides the best fitting between experimental and
calculated results;
G ms 0:292 g0:115 ðrm  rs Þ0:215 m0:231
s
U mcr ¼ 3:065 ð19Þ
h0:365
s
r 0:694
s m0:043
m
where hs is thickness of liquid slag, ms is slag viscosity, mm is
metal viscosity, rs and rm are densities of slag and metal,
and g is the gravity constant. This expression indicates,
intuitively, logical trends when the parameters involved
vary with the physical properties of both phases. For
example, critical velocity increases with increasing slag
viscosity because a larger drag force will be required to
entrain slag. Interfacial tension favors critical velocity
because high surface tensions will demand larger drag
forces and large thick slag layers will make necessary
smaller metal speeds. Using the physical properties of
metal–slag systems, provided in Table 1 (for a high
viscosity slag A3 and a low viscosity slag, B1), as reported
by Hagemann et al.,[31] in Equation 19 makes possible the
calculation of the critical velocity of the melt to promote
slag entrainment. Finally, employing this velocity in
Equation 18 permits the estimation of the dimensionless
critical capillary number that fixes the limits for possible
slag entrainment phenomena under some given fluid flow
conditions induced by a determined nozzle design. This
critical capillary number is indicated by the horizontal
lines in Figure 10a and b, assuming a slag thickness of
0.01 m, for both nozzles at the immersion depths of 115
and 185 mm, respectively. Finally, the capillary numbers
calculated with the velocity spikes plotted in Figure 9 a–d,
to evaluate which of them exceed or are close to the critical
capillary numbers. At the shallow immersion, Figure 10a,
nozzle SEN-S exceeds the critical capillary number using
slag B1, particularly near the mold corner, whereas nozzle
SEN-C does not induce any velocity spike that may
promote slag entrainment even using the slag with the
smaller viscosity. Neither of these two nozzles will promote
Slag SiO2-CaO-Al2O3-Na2O-CaF2
Type Basicity Al2O3 mass pc r [kg m3]
B1 0.7 1 2560
SLAG SiO2-CaO-Al2O3
A3 0.7 11 2530
Table 1. Slag–steel physical properties.
ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
the entrainment of the high viscosity slag as seen in
Figure 10a.
At the deep immersion, Figure 10b, the flow induced by
the nozzle SEN-C exceeds occasionally the critical capillary
number at a distance of 350 mm, approximately, from the
narrow face of the mold using the low viscosity slag. Fluid
flow promoted by nozzle SEN-S yields capillary numbers
that remain even further far away from the critical capillary
number for the slag of small viscosity. Both nozzles yield
capillary numbers that do not exceed the critical number
corresponding to the high viscosity slag.
Therefore, slag entrainment is possible only when using
the slag of low viscosity, B1, at the shallow position with
flows generated by nozzle SEN-S and with flows generated
by nozzle SEN-C at the deep position. From a practical
point of view, it can be said that both nozzles would
provide a good flow control for slags with intermediate
viscosities between those of slags B1 and A3. Finally,
the differences of fluid flow control between both nozzles
are tracked up to the flow through their discharging ports.
Figure 11a and b shows zoom views of averaged-in-
time velocity fields, determined by the PIV, at the deep
immersion for nozzles SEN-S and SEN-C, respectively. As
seen, the fluid occupies a larger cross section of the port of
nozzle SEN-S which makes a spread jet as was explained
above. The fluid in the port of nozzle SEN-C is a jet
concentrated in the lower part which is accelerated
downstream and providing high momentum transfer to
the meniscus region. The averaged velocity profiles along
the height of the ports are plotted in the right sides of these
figures; the immersion depth deforms considerably the
profile in the port of SEN-S. The velocity profile of the port
corresponding to nozzle SEN-C maintains its shape with
a larger immersion deep and only the velocity peak is
slightly decreased. All these effects are a consequence of
the hydrostatic pressure which depends on the immersion
depth of the nozzle.[32]
5. Conclusions
Fluid flows of liquid steel in a slab mold using bifurcated
nozzles with square (SEN-S) and circular ports (SEN-C)
Steel 52100
m [Pa s] Gm-s [N m1] r [kg m3] m [Pa s]
0.07 1.114 6954 0.0064
Steel 305
1.1 0.883 6954 0.0064
steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 1619
 www.steel-research.de
FULL PAPER

Figure 10. Mold flux entrainment along the distance from the mold narrow face to the nozzle wall referred to a critical capillary number
using a small and big viscosity powder, a) shallow position (115 mm depth) and b) deep position (185 mm depth).

submerged at shallow (115 mm) and deep (185 mm)
positions were analyzed through water modeling and
mathematical simulations of turbulence with the large
eddy simulation (LES) approach. From the obtained
results and their discussion, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. Discharging jets from the SEN-S, at the shallow
position, wander and are raveled in the liquid bulk
generating detached flows that emerge toward the
meniscus forming weak surface vortexes. At the deep
position, this nozzle forms a double roll flow pattern
without vortexing effects.
2. Discharging jets from the SEN-C maintain their
integrity (no-raveling effects) and impact the narrow
face of the mold with higher velocities than SEN-S. At
shallow and deep nozzle, positions form single and
double roll flows, respectively.
3. SEN-S induces flows with less turbulence than SEN-C at
the deep position, whereas at the shallow position,
SEN-S induces larger turbulent conditions at the
meniscus level. SEN-C produces a jet that impacts
with considerably larger velocity the narrow face of the
mold than the SEN-S. Therefore, the jet of SEN-C will,
eventually, wash the steel shell at this face.
4. According with the precedent conclusion, an analysis of
slag entrainment conditions, using a dimensionless
capillary number, SEN-S at the shallow position forms a
larger number of velocity spikes per minute that derive
into more possible low viscosity slag entrainment
events than SEN-C. The opposite is applicable when
the nozzle SEN-S is located at the deep position.

Figure 11. Velocity fields and velocity profiles in front of the discharging ports, a) SEN-S, b) SEN-C.

1620 steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
5. Mathematical simulations of the flows employing the
LES approach proved to predict very well velocity
measurements of the discharging jets and general fluid
flow structures using experimental techniques like PIV
and UVP.
6. Nomenclature
Cacr critical capillary
Umcr horizontal critical metal velocity (m s1)
mm dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
Gms metal-slag interfacial tension (N m1)
hs thickness of liquid slag (m)
ms slag viscosity (Pa s)
r slag density (kg m3)
rm metal density (kg m3)
Acknowledgements
The authors give thanks to CoNaCyT and IPN for a
scholarship granted to I.C.R. and M.A.C. to carry out their
Ph.D. studies at IPN and to the institutions SNI, COFA, and
PIFI for their continuous support to the Process Metallurgy
Group.
Received: November 20, 2014;
Published online: March 20, 2015
Keywords: slab mold; continuous casting; fluid flow; SEN
port design
References
[1] B. G. Thomas, L. Zhang, ISIJ Int. 2001, 41, 1181.
[2] L. C. Hibbeler, B. G. Thomas, Iron Steel Technol. 2013,
8, 121.
[3] B. G. Thomas, L. M. Mika, F. M. Najjar, Metall. Mater.
Trans. B 1990, 21B, 387.
[4] N.A. McPherson, Iron Steel Soc. 1985, 68, 13.
[5] L. Zhang, S. Yang, K. Cai, J. LI, X. Wan, B. G. Thomas,
Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2007, 38B, 63.
[6] F. G. Wilson, M. J. Heesom, A. Nicholson, A. W.
D. Hills, Ironmaking Steelmaking 1987, 14, 296.
[7] M. Alavanja, R. T. Gass, R. W. Kittridge, H. T. Tsai,
Steelmaking Conf. Proc., Nashville, TN 1995, 78, p. 415.
[8] S. Garc
ıa-Herna
ndez, R. D. Morales, J. de J. Barreto,
K. Morales-Higa, ISIJ Int. 2013, 53, 1794.
[9] M. J. Lu, C. H. Chen, C. H. Huang, J. W. Chu,
Steelmaking Conf. Proc., Iron and Steel Society,
Warrandale, PA 1998, p. 193.
ß 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
[10] S. Kunstreich, P. H. Dauby, Ironmaking Steelmaking,
2005, 32, 80.
[11] F. M. Najjar, B. G. Thomas, D. E. Hershey, Metall.
Mater. Trans. B 1995, 26B, 749.
[12] R. Sa
nchez-Pe
rez, R. D. Morales, M. D
ıaz-Cruz,
O. Olivares-Xometl, J. Palafox-Ramos, ISIJ Int. 2003,
5, 637.
[13] Y. S. Gutierrez-Montiel, R. D. Morales, ISIJ Int. 2013,
53, 230.
[14] A. Ramos-Banderas, R. Sanchez-Pe
rez, R. D. Morales,
J. Palafox-Ramos, L. Demedices-Garc
ıa, M. Diaz-
Cruz, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2004, 35B, 449.
[15] D. C. Wilcox, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW
Industries Inc., La Can ~ ada CA 2000, p. 387.
[16] P. Sagaut, Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible
Flows, Springer Verlag, New York, Berlin 1998, p. 161.
[17] ANSYS Inc., Fluent 6.2 User’s Guide, Centerra
Resource Park 10 Cavendish Court Lebanon, NH
03766, 26, 2005.
[18] B. P. Leonard, Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 1991,
88, 17.
[19] ANSYS Inc., Fluent 6.2 User’s Guide, Centerra
Resource Park 10 Cavendish Court Lebanon, NH
03766, 26-16 2005.
[20] B. R. Hunchinson, G. D. Raithby, Numer. Heat
Transfer 1986, 9, 511.
[21] J. H. Ferziger, M. Peric, Computational Methods for
Fluid Dynamics, Springer Verlag GmbH, Berlin 2002,
pp. 72–82.
[22] C. M. Rhie, W. L. Chow, AIAA J. 1983, 21, 1525.
[23] R. I. Issa, J. Comp. Phys. 1986, 62, 40.
[24] E. R. Van Driest, J. Aeron. Sci. 1956, 23, 1007.
[25] R. B. Bird, W. E. Stewart, E. N. Lightfoot, Transport
Phenomena, Springer Verlag, New York, Berlin 1960,
pp. 154–155.
[26] N. Jarrin, S. Benhamadouche, D. Laurence,
R. Prosser, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2006, 27, 585.
[27] P. Ram
ırez-Lo
pez, R. D. Morales, R. Sa
nchez-Pe
rez,
L. G. Demedices, O. Da
vila, Metall. and Mater. Trans.
B 2005, 36B, 787.
[28] E. Torres-Alonso, R. D. Morales, S. Garcia-Herna
ndez,
Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2010, 41B, 675.
[29] K. E. Swartz, Lance C. Hibbeler, Brendan P. Joyce,
Brian G. Thomas, AISTech 2014 Proc., Warrendale PA
2014, p. 1865.
[30] J. M. Harman, A. W. Cramb, 79th Steelmaking Conf.
Proc., the Iron and Steel Society, Warrendale PA 1996,
p. 773.
[31] R. Hagemann, R. Schwarze, H. P. Heller,
P. R. Scheller, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2013, B44, 80.
[32] I. Caldero
n-Ramos, R. D. Morales, S. Garcia-
Herna
ndez, A. Ceballos-Huerta, ISIJ Int. 2014, 54,
1797.
steel research int. 86 (2015) No. 12 1621