materials
Article
Application of Electromagnetic Braking to Minimize a Surface
Wave in a Continuous Caster
Saswot Thapa 1 , Mingqian Wang 1 , Armin K. Silaen 1, * , Mauro E. Ferreira 2 , Wesley Rollings 2
and Chenn Zhou 1
Citation: Thapa, S.; Wang, M.; Silaen,
A.K.; Ferreira, M.E.; Rollings, W.;
Zhou, C. Application of
Electromagnetic Braking to Minimize
a Surface Wave in a Continuous
Caster. Materials 2023, 16, 1042.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma16031042
Academic Editor: Feng Qiu
Received: 1 December 2022
Revised: 10 January 2023
Accepted: 16 January 2023
Published: 24 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2023, 16, 1042. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16031042
1 Center for Innovation through Visualization and Simulation (CIVS) and Steel Manufacturing Simulation and
Visualization Consortium (SMSVC), Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, IN 46323, USA
2 Nucor Steel Decatur, LLC, 4301 Iverson Blvd, Trinity, AL 35673, USA
* Correspondence: asilaen@pnw.edu; Tel.: +1-219-989-2934
Abstract: The turbulent flow in the mold region drastically influences the quality of steel produced
during continuous casting. The flow itself can lead to surface defects or slag entrainment based on
the formation. A high surface wave can lead to fluctuations and the instability compromises the
quality of the steel produced, as well as entrain the slag. To regulate the flow, electromagnetic forces
can be applied in the mold, dampening the local turbulent flow. As the electrically conductive molten
steel interacts with the induced magnetic field, it reduces the velocity of the steel jet released from the
ports of the submerged entry nozzle. Utilizing Star-CCM+, a simulation-based study is conducted
modeling the impact of Electromagnetic braking (EMBr) on the flow formation and surface standing
wave. Specifically, a parametric study is conducted investigating the impact of submergence entry
nozzle (SEN) depth and mold width with applied EMBr. Per the simulation-based study conducted
increasing the EMBr strength from 2975 G to 4350 G reduced the average surface wave height by
12.5% and volume of flux rate of decrease by 4.25%. Additionally, increasing the SEN depth from 110
mm to 350 mm increased the average wave height by 19% and volume of flux rate of decrease by
2.6%. Lastly, increasing the mold width from 1.067 m to 1.50 m increased average wave height by
8.71% and volume of flux rate of decrease by 0.9%.
Keywords: continuous casting; electromagnetic braking; magnetohydrodynamics; surface standing
wave; primary cooling; Lorentz force
1. Introduction
Continuous casting (CC) is a widely used process to solidify molten steel. The process
begins with the tundish where molten steel is poured from the ladle. From the tundish,
the molten steel is ferro-statically pushed into the upper tundish nozzle (UTN) and then
into the submerged entry nozzle (SEN). The SEN regulates the flow of molten steel injected
into the mold and the formation of the solidified shell. The shell is then pulled from
primary cooling into secondary cooling by rollers where further cooling occurs utilizing
spray nozzles. Once the molten steel fully solidifies it can be cut by a flame torch or a
shear to create a bloom, billet, or slab, which can be processed to form steel products.
Primary cooling is a critical process of CC, and it is the last place where steel quality can
be optimized. Maintaining stable flow near the top surface of the mold helps produce
higher quality steel. One way this can be achieved is by maintaining the surface defects
by regulating the flow with electromagnetic braking (EMBr). By reducing the molten flow
with magnetic flux, the surface wave fluctuation can be reduced as well [1].
During the continuous casting of the steel, the quality of cast products is predominantly
affected by the flow dynamics at the meniscus level of the mold [1]. Abrupt mold surface
velocity variation brings asymmetry to the surface directed flow and thus can lead to
occurrences of instability between the molten steel and slag layer interface. As a result of
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 2 of 19

the surface wave instability, the slag layer can be entrained into the molten pool to form
internal and surface defects in the final cast products [2]. It is noted that intermittent defects
occur due to excessive transient fluctuations at the liquid level [3]. The slag entrainment
and surface defects from wave fluctuations will occur if the surface flow is too fast or if the
wave profile is not flat enough [3,4].
In contrast, irregular sluggish surface flow could generate low and non-uniform sur-
face temperatures. This induces inadequate meniscus freezing, slag melting and infiltration,
hook formation, and surface defects [2]. The local turbulent flow can be dampened instan-
taneously with the electromagnetic forces generated by EMBr. As a result of the interaction
between the electrically conductive molten steel and the induced magnetic field, a Lorentz
force is generated acting against the molten steel [5]. The Lorentz force dampens the molten
steel, ultimately slowing the velocity of the steel jet released from the ports of the SEN
and lowering the surface wave [5]. An appropriate EMBr strength can reduce the surface
standing wave, which provides a calmer and hotter meniscus, thus providing uniform
solidification. If the EMBr strength is too high, the Lorentz force acting against the molten
steel can be too strong, leading to meniscus freezing, while lower-strength or no EMBr can
cause large surface fluctuations resulting in uneven solidification, vertices, impingement
zones, and surface defects [6].
In general, there are three types of EMBr unit used in industrial practice, namely the
local type, the ruler type, and the multi-type. Li et al. discussed the braking effect per
magnetic field arrangement and showed the advantages and disadvantages for each type of
EMBr unit. For the local type EMBr, it can be further divided into four main types: the first
generation local type EMBr, upper jet-pattern EMBr, jet-pattern EMBr, and local vertical
EMBr [7]. The first generation local type EMBr was used and simulated in our research.
In 2007, Thomas et al. developed a mathematical model simulating flow control with
EMBr during CC. The validated model utilized a coupled magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)
model with a single-phase k-epsilon (k-ε) turbulence model. To validate the model, the
simulation results were compared with experimental measurements of the surface wave
captured through oscillation marks on the slab surface. A gauss meter was utilized to
measure the EMBr fields in the mold cavity for the model with the caster design provided
by Nucor Steel Decatur. From the conducted computational analysis, it was found that
increasing the EMBr strength at a constant SEN caused deeper jet penetration, weaker
upper recirculation, weaker meniscus velocity, and weaker surface wave. Increasing the
SEN depth at a constant EMBr strength resulted in deeper jet penetration, larger meniscus
velocity, and larger surface wave [8]. It is crucial that surface wave be minimized as
excessive surface velocity and surface wave can entrain the mold slag inclusions leading to
surface defects. This model can further be improved incorporating the slag and air layer
with surface tension defined between the layers to account for the dynamics during casting.
In 2017, Jin et al. published a manuscript focusing on the effect of the EMBr and SEN
submergence depth on a turbulent flow during casting. This paper also states that because
of the characteristics of a turbulent flow in the mold, the creation of surface defects and slag
entrainment is caused due to a larger surface wave. Unlike the static local EMBr applied to
the broad face of the mold utilized in the study presented in this manuscript, Jin’s work
utilizes a double-ruler EMBr configuration. The purpose of this configuration is that it
is strategically placed in the mold to slow down or speed up surface velocity to stabilize
meniscus stability. The model utilized in this study is a coupled turbulent MHD with
solidification. Per the cooling data utilized in the mold, the shell thickness is extracted and
used as a domain for the molten steel flow for the MHD model. Per the conducted study,
applied EMBr caused the flow in the nozzle to be more uniform, increasing the downward
velocity and momentum along the SEN walls. Lastly, the applied EMBr reduced the surface
velocity by 0.05 m/s, as well as reducing the surface fluctuations [9].
As for the impact of EMBr on steel solidification, Wang et al. studied the superheat
transport and distribution in the mold. The results showed that the EMBr will move up the
superheat zone and increase the meniscus temperature, which can help the melting of the
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 3 of 19

slag and reduce the surface defects [10]. Microscopically, EMBr also has an effect on grain
growth. Xu et al. studied the effects of electromagnetic stirring (EMS) on dendrite growth
and segregation. The results show that EMS can promote columnar-equiaxed transition
and reduce the segregation [11].
In this research, a series of numerical simulations considering the application of EMBr
based on realistic caster and casting conditions was conducted, and the effects of EMBr
application on surface standing wave and flux entrainment were focused on.

2. Methodology
2.1. Governing Equations
The flow is modeled utilizing Navier−Stokes equations based on the model developed
by Chaudhary et al. [12]. The following are the governing equations for mass and momen-
tum conservation. The model utilized is isothermal and does not consider heat transfer.
Z  I
∂ → →
ρdV + ρ v ·d a = 0 (1)
∂t V A
!!
∂ui ∂ui u j 1 ∂ρ∗ ∂ ∂ui ∂u j 1→
+ =− + (v + vs ) + + FL (2)
∂t ∂x j ρ ∂xi ∂x j ∂x j ∂xi ρ

In Equation (1), for conservation of mass, ρ is density, A is area, and v is velocity. In

Equation (2), for conservation of momentum, p is pressure, u is the velocity component,
p is pressure, ρ∗ is static pressure, v is viscosity, vs is sub grid viscosity, and FL is the
Lorentz force.

2.2. The Magneto-Hydrodynamics Model

To model the interaction between the molten steel and the induced magnetic field, a
coupled magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD) model is integrated into the turbulent fluid flow
→
simulation [13]. The model is theorized as shown in Equation (3), where J L is the total
→
electric current density, σ is the electrical conductivity, and B is the magnetic flux density.
→
In this coupled MHD model, J L is calculated with respect to the prescribed magnetic
flux density.
→ →
JL = σ× B (3)
The magnetic Reynolds number Rem , as shown in Equation (4), is integrated as a
function of the induced and prescribed magnetic flux density.

Rem = µ0 σUL (4)

where µ0 is vacuum permeability, σ is electrical conductivity, U is flow velocity, and L is

characteristic length.

2.3. Coupled Magneto-Hydrodynamics Model

→
The Lorentz force F L is modeled with Equation (5) as a function of electric current
→ →
density J and magnetic flux density B. The Poisson equation for the electric potential ϕ is
derived through the coupling of Olm’s law with the conservation of current as shown in
→
Equation (6). Coupling the Poisson equation with the instantaneous velocity v and applied
→ →
magnetic field B 0 calculates electric current density J , as shown in Equation (7). Electric
current density is integrated into Equation (5) to solve for the Lorentz force, Equation (8),
which is coupled with the conservation of momentum provided in Equation (2).
→ → →
FL = J × B (5)
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 4 of 19

Materials 2023, 16, 1042 4 of 19

𝐹⃗ 𝐽⃗ 𝐵⃗ (5)
→ →
2
∇ 𝛻ϕ 𝜑= ∇𝛻·( v 𝑣× B )
⃗ 𝐵0⃗
(6)
(6)
→ →
𝐽 σ (−
J= + v 𝑣⃗× B𝐵⃗0 )
𝜎 ϕ𝜑 (7)
→ → → →
F L 𝐹⃗= σ (−
𝜎 ∇ϕ
𝛻𝜑+ v 𝑣⃗× B𝐵⃗0 ) × B𝐵⃗0 (8)
The turbulence
turbulenceisismodeled
modeled using
using the the k‐omega
k-omega (k-ω)(k‐ω)
shearshear
stressstress transport
transport (SST)
(SST) model,
model, as in
as shown shown in Equations
Equations (9) and (10).
(9) and (10).

∂𝜕 𝜌𝑘 𝛻 ∙ 𝜌𝑘𝒗 𝛻 ∙ 𝜇 𝜎 𝜇 𝛻𝑘 𝑃 𝜌𝛽𝑓 ∗ 𝜔𝑘 𝜔 𝑘 (9)

𝜕𝑡(ρk) + ∇·(ρkv) = ∇·[(µ + σk µt )∇k] + Pk − ρβ f β∗ (ωk − ω0 k0 )
∂t
(9)
𝜕
∂ 𝜌𝜔 𝛻 ∙ 𝜌𝜔𝒗 𝛻 ∙ 𝜇 𝜎 𝜇 𝛻𝜔 𝑃 𝜌𝛽𝑓 𝜔 𝜔 (10)
𝜕𝑡
(ρω ) + ∇·(ρωv) = ∇·[(µ + σω µt )∇ω ] + Pω − ρβ f β ω 2 − ω0 2 (10)
∂t
The two k‐ω equations are simultaneously evaluated to obtain the values of the tur‐
The two k-ω equations are simultaneously evaluated to obtain the values of the
bulent kinetic energy 𝑘 and the specific dissipation rate 𝜌, to model turbulent eddy vis‐
turbulent kinetic energy k and the specific dissipation rate ρ, to model turbulent eddy
cosity 𝜇 , where 𝑇 is the turbulent time scale as shown in Equation (11).
viscosity µt , where T is the turbulent time scale as shown in Equation (11).
𝜇 𝜌𝑘𝑇 (11)
µt = ρkT (11)

2.4. Boundary Condition and Geometry

In order to make our model better predict the realistic flow field and the surface wave
behavior in the primary cooling process, the geometry model was built based on the actual
SEN and mold used by Nucor. The initial flux thickness and depth were also from the
measured data data of
ofthe
theNucor
Nucorcaster.
caster.The
The boundary
boundary conditions
conditions utilized in the
utilized simulation
in the simulation are
shown in Figure 1. Here, the velocity
are shown in Figure 1. Here, the velocity inlet, inlet, u u
inlet , is calculated utilizing the conservation
, is calculated utilizing the conserva‐
of mass
tion withwith
of mass respect to the
respect density,
to the as shown
density, as shown in Equation
in Equation (12), where,
(12), where, ρtc 𝜌is the density
is the den‐
at the
sity at torch cut off
the torch cuttemperature, ρinlet 𝜌is theisdensity
off temperature, the takentaken
density at theattemperature
the temperature of theofinlet,
the
.
inlet, 𝐴 cross
A is the is the section
cross section
area of area
theof the mold,
mold, and Vand Steel 𝑉is the is the volumetric
volumetric flow flow
rate rate
of of
steel.steel.
The
The surfaces
surfaces of theofnarrow
the narrow
face, face,
boardboard face,the
face, and and the mold
mold outletoutlet
are setare set as walls.
as walls. The pre‐
The prescribed
magnetic flux density with respect to position was provided by
scribed magnetic flux density with respect to position was provided by industry collabo‐ industry collaborator,
NucorNucor
rator, Corporation, and mapped
Corporation, to the to
and mapped mold.
the mold.
𝜌 .
ρtc
U
Uinlet = AV𝐴𝑉
Steel (12)
ρ𝜌
inlet

Figure 1. Computational domain and boundary conditions.

Materials 2023,
Materials 2023, 16,
16, 1042
1042 55of 19
of 19

For the
For the computational
computationalstudy,
study,the
thesteel composition
steel compositionforfor
thethe
steel andand
steel flux flux
layerlayer
is pro‐
is
provided in Table 1. However, the material property of air was assumed based on the value
vided in Table 1. However, the material property of air was assumed based on the value
[14].
extracted from the literature [14].

Table 1.
Table 1. Material
Material properties.
properties.

Material
Material Properties
Properties SteelSteel Air Air Flux
Flux
Viscosity (Pa‐s)
Viscosity (Pa-s) 0.03
0.03 1.855 × 10−5
1.855 × 10−5
0.09
0.09
Density
Density(kg/m
(kg/m3))
3 7003.016
7003.016 1.184
1.184 2767.99
2767.99

2.5. Electromagnetic
2.5. Braking
Electromagnetic Braking
Electromagnetic forces
Electromagnetic forces generated
generatedby bythe
theEMBr
EMBrunit unitcancanbebeapplied
applied as as
either static
either or
static
moving magnetic fields in the mold. An example of a magnetic
or moving magnetic fields in the mold. An example of a magnetic field applied in the field applied in the mold
is shown
mold in Figure
is shown 2. The2.electromagnetic
in Figure The electromagneticfieldsfields
induced a current
induced in theinconducting
a current mol‐
the conducting
ten steel, which generated Lorentz forces that oppose the flow and
molten steel, which generated Lorentz forces that oppose the flow and thus are referred thus are referred to as
“brakes”
to as “brakes”or “EMBr” [12,15].
or “EMBr” The simulation
[12,15]. utilizesutilizes
The simulation a staticaEMBr
static configuration.
EMBr configuration. In a static
In
EMBr configuration, two circular magnetic fields are applied
a static EMBr configuration, two circular magnetic fields are applied in the center in the center of the of
mold
the
normal
mold to the to
normal broad face [8].
the broad The
face purpose
[8]. of this configuration
The purpose is to dampen
of this configuration the molten
is to dampen the
steel as it recirculates around the applied EMBr. Electromagnetic forces
molten steel as it recirculates around the applied EMBr. Electromagnetic forces are noted are noted to offer
to
an advantage
offer an advantage overover
other flowflow
other control methods
control methods as asthetheinduced
inducedforces
forcesvary
varyin in strength,
strength,
providing aa theoretical
providing theoreticalself-stabilization
self‐stabilizationforforturbulent
turbulentflow flowvariations
variations [3].
[3]. AA gauss
gauss meter
meter is
is utilized
utilized toto measure
measure thethelocation
locationandandstrength
strengthofofthethemagnetic
magneticfield.
field. Per
Per the
the MHD
MHD model,
model,
the magnetic field and location are are defined
defined inin the
the STAR-CCM+
STAR‐CCM+ simulation
simulation conducted.
conducted.

Figure
Figure 2. Applied magnetic
2. Applied magnetic field.
field.
2.6. Computational Grid
2.6. Computational Grid
Figure 3 shows the mesh utilized in the simulation. Utilizing adaptive mesh refinement
(AMR),Figure 3 shows mesh
the optimal the mesh
size utilized in thefor
was selected simulation. Utilizing
the simulation. Theadaptive mesh
base mesh refine‐
size was
ment
set as (AMR), the optimal
5 mm, while the flux mesh
layersize
andwas selected
nearby areafor therefined
were simulation.
to 2.5The
mm.base
Bymesh size
applying
was set as 5 mm, while the flux layer and nearby area were refined to 2.5 mm.
the AMR criteria, any cells with a velocity higher than 0.125 m/s were refined to 2.5 mm. By applying
the AMR
This criteria,
resulted in a any
gridcells
withwith
totalaof
velocity higher
15 million than
cells. 0.125
This m/scomputational
large were refined togrid
2.5 with
mm.
This resulted in a grid with total of 15 million cells. This large computational
adaptive refinement ensured capturing a high flow gradient throughout the simulation. grid with
adaptive
Per refinement ensured
the computational capturing
iteration, AMR was a high flow
defined to gradient
solve thethroughout the simulation.
governing equations while
Per the computational
minimizing iteration,grid
the computational AMR was defined
without to solve
divergence. the governing
Further informationequations while
on the theory
minimizing the computational grid without divergence. Further information
and application of AMR can be found in the following literature by Shinji Sakane and on the the‐
ory and application
Dinshaw Balsara [16,17]. of AMR can be found in the following literature by Shinji Sakane and
Dinshaw Balsara [16,17].
Materials 2023,
Materials 2023, 16,
16, 1042
1042 6 of 19
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 6 6ofof19
19

Figure 3. AMR simulation mesh.

Figure
Figure3.3.AMR
AMRsimulation
simulationmesh.
mesh.
2.7. Simulation
2.7.Simulation Setup
SimulationSetup
Setup
2.7.
The simulations
The simulations
simulationsfor for the
forthe study were
the study
study were conducted
conducted in in Simcenter
Simcenter STAR-CCM+
STAR‐CCM+ 2021.3.1, 2021.3.1,
The were conducted in Simcenter STAR‐CCM+ 2021.3.1,
with
with a
a two‐step
two-step approach,
approach, namely
namely single‐phase
single-phase flow
flow and
and three‐phase
three-phase flow.
flow. First, to
First, to reduce
reduce
with a two‐step approach, namely single‐phase flow and three‐phase flow. First, to reduce
the
the computational time
computational time and
and increase
increase the
the stability of
stability of the simulation,
the simulation, aa single-phase
single‐phase flow flow
the computational time and increase the stability of the simulation, a single‐phase flow
simulation
simulationwas was conducted
wasconducted to
conductedtotodevelop develop
developthe the flow
theflow field.
flowfield. Next,
field.Next, as shown
Next,asasshown in Figure
shownininFigure 4, a three‐
Figure4,4,aathree‐
three-
simulation
phase flow
phase flow field
field was
was simulated
simulated with withthethe pressure,
thepressure, velocity,
pressure,velocity, and turbulence
velocity, and
and turbulence utilized
utilized as as the
the
phase flow field was simulated with turbulence utilized as the
initial conditions
initial conditions
conditions fromfrom the single‐phase simulation output. For the single‐phase simula‐
initial from the the single-phase
single‐phasesimulation
simulationoutput.output.ForForthe single-phase
the single‐phase simulation,
simula‐
tion,
the the applied
applied magnetic magnetic
field andfield and
the the molten
molten steel steel material
material properties properties
were were Once
defined. defined.the
tion, the applied magnetic field and the molten steel material properties were defined.
Once
flow the flow
field was field was developed,
developed, the output, the
as output,
mentioned, as mentioned,
was importedwasas imported
the asconditions
initial the initial
Once the flow field was developed, the output, as mentioned, was imported as the initial
conditions for the three‐phase
for the three-phase simulation, simulation,
incorporating incorporating
the material the properties
material properties
of the flux of and
the flux
the
conditions for the three‐phase simulation, incorporating the material properties of the flux
and
air the airas
layers layers
well. asThe
well. The surface
surface velocityvelocity
and andsurface
the the surface
wave wave
heightheight extracted
extracted from from
the
and the air layers as well. The surface velocity and the surface wave height extracted from
the simulation
simulation utilized
utilized time‐averaged
time-averaged results,
results, averaging
averaging the result
the result over
overover the computational
the computational time
the simulation utilized time‐averaged results, averaging the result the computational
time
as as mentioned
mentioned in the in the literature
literature by Liu byetLiu
al. et al.
[18]. [18].
time as mentioned in the literature by Liu et al. [18].

Figure 4. One‐phase
One-phase and three‐phase
three-phase simulation setup.
Figure 4. One‐phase and three‐phase simulation setup.
2.8. Design
2.8. Design Optimization
Optimization
2.8. Design Optimization
To optimize
To optimizethe
thedesign
designofof
thethe
mold
moldaccording to the
according to applied EMBr,
the applied the following
EMBr, study
the following
was To optimizeas
conducted, the design
shown in of the 2.
Table mold
In according
order to to the
ensure theapplied
fidelity EMBr,
and the following
reliability of the
study was conducted, as shown in Table 2. In order to ensure the fidelity and reliability
study was conducted,
simulation as much aspossible,
as shown inthe Table 2. In order
parameters for to ensure
SEN depththeand
fidelity
mold and reliability
width in this
of the simulation as much as possible, the parameters for SEN depth and mold width in
of the simulation
study werewere as much
defined as the as possible, the parameters for realistic
SEN depth and mold width in
this study defined as design parameters,
the design which
parameters, are
which parameters
are realistic parametersused in the
used in
this study were defined as the design parameters, which are realistic parameters used in
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 7 of 19

industrial practice of Nucor. The EMBr field was generated by a set of electromagnets, and
the strength could be controlled by changing the current density of the electromagnet. A
Gauss meter was used to measure the EMBr strength at different locations and a profile of
the EMBr was generated and imported to the simulation. The parameters were integrated
into the MHD model to analyze the impact on the surface wave. In the following study,
the impact of SEN depth, mold width, and EMBr strength on the surface wave were
investigated as they were believed to be the most important factors influencing the surface
standing wave. The height of the mold throughout the simulation was kept constant at 0.95
m, as well as the material properties for each of the cases for air, slag, and steel layers.

Table 2. Case matrix.

SEN Depth Casting Speed

Case Width (m) EMBr (G)
(mm) (m/min)
1 110 1.067 3.18 4350
2 110 1.067 3.18 2975
3 110 1.50 3.18 4350
4 110 1.50 3.18 2975
5 350 1.067 3.18 4350
6 350 1.067 3.18 2975
7 350 1.50 3.18 4350
8 350 1.50 3.18 2975

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Validation
The surface standing wave height generated from the baseline simulation was com-
pared to the shim dip sample taken at the caster for validation. The purpose of the validation
was to match the peak heights to validate the trend of the surface wave. The simulation
was conducted with an EMBr center strength of 4450 G and casting speed of 3.43 m/min.
Under the defined mold design and casting conditions, the height of the surface standing
waves was captured and used for validation by measuring the oscillation marks due to
the surface fluctuations in the shim dip test. Figure 5 shows the procedures of the shim
dip test. A stainless steel shim was dipped in through the slag and into the steel. The
portion of the shim that was immersed in the steel would melt. The shim that remained
unmelted revealed the shape of the standing wave. The standing wave height was obtained
by measuring the remainder of the shim sample. The same conditions were utilized in the
simulation and the simulated wave height of the flux layer was compared with the shim
dip measurements provided. As shown in Figure 6, the time averaged surface standing
wave plotted against the measurements taken at the plant showed high confidence for the
simulated results. Per the time averaged results from 10 s to 30 s, there was an average
percentage difference of 16%, which showed a 1.58 mm average peak height difference. Per
validation, the surface wave matched the trend provided.
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 8 of 19
Materials
Materials2023, 16,16,
2023, 1042
1042 8 of8 of
1919

Figure 5. Shim dip test.

Figure 5. Shim dip test.
Figure 5. Shim dip test.

Figure 6. Time
Figure averaged
6. Time wave
averaged height
wave for for
height validation.
validation.
Figure 6. Time averaged wave height for validation.
3.2.3.2. Impact
Impact of Embr
of Embr Strength
Strength
3.2. Impact
Figureof Embr
7 showsStrength
Figure 7 shows thethe
flow flow formation
formation of Case
of case 1 and 1 and
case Case 2. Here,
2. Here, the impact
the impact of EMBr of EMBr
on
on the
the surface surface
Figurewave wave
7 shows
wasthe was
very very
flow evident.
formation
evident. Case
Caseof1 case 1 utilized
1 and
utilized a stronger
case 2. Here,
a stronger EMBr EMBr strength
thestrength
impact of of
of EMBr
43504350onG,
G,
while
the surface
while Case 2 utilized
wave was
case 2 utilized a lower
very evident.
a lower EMBr
EMBr of Case of 2975 G. The
1 utilized
2975 G. The height height
a stronger was
was kept kept
EMBr constant
strength
constant at 0.95
of 4350
at 0.95 m,
m, the the
G,
width
while
width waswas
case keptkept
2 utilizedconstant
constanta lower atEMBr
at 1.0671.067
m, m,
of
and and
thethe
2975 G.
SEN SEN
The depth
height
depth was was
was kept
kept
kept constant
constant
constant at0.95
atat110 110 mm.
m,
mm. In In
the
Case
width 1,
was because
kept of the
constant larger
at 1.067magnitude
m, and of
the the
SEN EMBr
depth strength,
case 1, because of the larger magnitude of the EMBr strength, the flow was recirculatingIn
was keptthe flow
constant was
at recirculating
110 mm.
around
case
around a larger
1, abecause
larger ofmagnetic
the larger
magnetic field.
field. Based
magnitude
Based ononofthe
thethe figures,
EMBrthe
figures, theimpact
impactthe
strength, ofofEMBr
EMBrwas
flow wasrecirculating
was clearlyvisi‐
clearly visible
ble on
around the flow
on theaflow
largerformation.
magneticIn
formation. In the
field. mentioned
Based on the
the mentioned plot, the
figures,
plot, horizontal
the impact
the horizontal distance
of EMBr
distance measured
was clearly
measured started
visi‐
started
aton
atble
thethe SEN
the
SEN flow center
center at atx =x 0=In
formation. m 0 the
m
to to the mold
mentioned
the mold wall
plot,
wall in
inthe theleftleft
horizontal
the direction at at
distance
direction =x 0.534
= 0.534
xmeasured m.
TheThe
started
m.
atrecirculation
the SEN center
recirculation
zone of
zone ofat thex the 0 molten
= molten thesteel
m to steel mold was around
wall
was around thethe
in the leftapplied
applied
magnetic
direction
magnetic
field. m.
at x field.
= 0.534 A larger
The
A larger
recirculation zone of the molten steel was around the applied magnetic field. A larger
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 9 of 19

Materials
Materials2023, 16,16,
2023, 1042
1042 9 of9 of
1919

EMBr resulted in the flow being directed more downwards and there was less impact on
the surface wave.
EMBr
EMBr resulted ininthe
resulted theflow
flowbeing
beingdirected
directedmore
moredownwards
downwardsand
andthere
therewas
wasless
lessimpact
impactonon
the surface wave.
the surface wave.

(a) (b)
Figure 7. (a) Low EMBr (a)
strength 2975 G (Case 2) vs. (b) high EMBr strength
(b) 4350 G (Case 1) flow
streamline.
Figure 7. 7.
Figure (a) (a)
LowLow
EMBr strength
EMBr 29752975
strength G (Case 2) vs. 2)
G (Case (b)vs.
high(b)
EMBr
highstrength 4350 G (Case
EMBr strength 4350 1)
G flow
(Case 1)
streamline.
Figure 8 shows the applied Lorentz force due to the EMBr. At a lower EMBr strength,
flow streamline.
there was less Lorentz force acting on the molten steel, thus the flow was more cluttered
Figure 8 shows the applied Lorentz force due totothe EMBr. AtAta lower EMBr strength,
towardsFigure
the upper8 shows
mold.the applied
This Lorentz
ultimately ledforce due
to a larger the EMBr.
fluctuation a lower
of the EMBr
surface strength,
standing
there
there waswasless
less Lorentz
Lorentz force
forceacting
acting ononthe
themolten
molten steel,
steel,thus
thus the
theflow
flow was
was more
more cluttered
cluttered
wave in the lower EMBr case, as shown in Figure 9, because of the larger magnitude of
towards
towards the
theupper
upper mold.
mold.ThisThisultimately
ultimately led toto
led a larger
a larger fluctuation ofof the surface standing
surface velocity and lower Lorentz force acting against thefluctuation
molten steel,the surface
as shown standing
in the
wave ininthe lower EMBr case, asasshown ininFigure 9,9,because ofofthe larger magnitude of
plot in Figure 10. A larger EMBr strength dampens the flow, and the injected molten steel of
wave the lower EMBr case, shown Figure because the larger magnitude
surface velocity and lower Lorentz force acting against the molten
surface velocity and lower Lorentz force acting against the molten steel, as shown in the steel, as shown in the
tends to flow downwards. This is evident when comparing the surface velocity. A larger
plot
plotininFigure
Figure10. 10.AAlarger
largerEMBr
EMBr strength
strength dampens
dampens thetheflow,
flow,andandthetheinjected
injectedmolten
molten steel
steel
EMBr strength reduced the average surface velocity magnitude by 15% relative to the
tends
tends totoflow
flowdownwards.
downwards.This Thisis is
evident
evident when
when comparing
comparing thethesurface
surface velocity.
velocity.AA larger
larger
lower EMBr strength. When comparing the surface standing wave of case 1 and case 2,
EMBr
EMBrstrength
strengthreduced
reduced the average
averagesurface
surfacevelocity
velocitymagnitude
magnitude by by
15%15% relative
relative to theto lower
the
Figure 9 shows the impact of EMBr strength. Case 2, which had a lower strength of EMBr,
EMBrEMBr
lower strength. WhenWhen
strength. comparing the surface
comparing standing
the surface wave ofwave
standing Caseof 1 and
caseCase
1 and 2, case
Figure 2, 9
has a larger fluctuation of time averaged surface standing wave with a peak height of 4.8
shows9 shows
Figure the impact of EMBr
the impact strength.
of EMBr Case 2,
strength. which
Case had ahad
2, which lower strength
a lower of EMBr,
strength of EMBr, has a
mm and average wave height of 2.4 mm. While the higher strength of EMBr had a peak
larger
has fluctuation
a larger of time
fluctuation averaged
of time averaged surface standing
surface standing wave wave with a peak
with height
a peak of 4.8
height mm
of 4.8
height of 3.01 mm and average surface standing wave of 2.1 mm. Increasing the EMBr
mmandandaverage
average wave height
wave of 2.4
height of mm.
2.4 mm. While the higher
While the higher strength of EMBr
strength of EMBrhad ahad
peak height
a peak
strength from 2975 G to 4350 G decreased the average surface standing wave height by
of 3.01ofmm
height 3.01andmmaverage surfacesurface
and average standing wave of
standing wave2.1 mm.of 2.1Increasing
mm. Increasingthe EMBrthestrength
EMBr
12.5%.
from 2975
strength fromG to 4350
2975 GG todecreased the average
4350 G decreased the surface
averagestanding wave height
surface standing wavebyheight
12.5%. by
12.5%.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. (a)8.Low
Figure EMBr
(a) Low strength 29752975
(a) strength
EMBr G (Case 2) vs.
G (Case 2)(b)
vs.high EMBr
(b) high strength
EMBr 43504350
(b)
strength G (Case 1) Lorentz
G (Case 1) Lorentz
force distribution.
force distribution.
Figure 8. (a) Low EMBr strength 2975 G (Case 2) vs. (b) high EMBr strength 4350 G (Case 1) Lorentz
force distribution.
 Materials 2023, 16, 1042 10 of 19

Materials 2023, 16, 1042 10 of 19

Materials 2023, 16, 1042 10 of 19

.
.
Figure 9. High EMBr strength (Case 1) vs. low EMBr strength (Case 2) standing wave comparison.
Figure 9. High EMBr strength (Case 1) vs. low EMBr strength (Case 2) standing wave comparison.
Figure 9. High EMBr strength (Case 1) vs. low EMBr strength (Case 2) standing wave comparison.

Figure10.
Figure HighEMBr
10.High EMBr strength
strength (Case
(Case 1)
1) vs.
vs. low
lowEMBr
EMBrstrength
strength(Case
(Case2)2)standing velocity
standing comparison.
velocity compari‐
son.
Figure 10. High11
Figure EMBr strength
shows (Case 1) vs. low
the comparison EMBr
of the strength
volume (Casebetween
of flux 2) standing velocity
a low EMBr compari‐
strength
son.
and high EMBr strength. With the defined surface tension, due to a larger surface wave,
Figure 11 shows the comparison of the volume of flux between a low EMBr strength
the high
and flux layer
EMBr sheared offWith
strength. and was carried surface
the defined away from the interface
tension, at
due to aa lowthe meniscus.
larger surface The
wave,
Figure
flux 11 shows
entrained into the
the comparison of the
steel degraded thevolume of flux When
steel quality. betweencomparing EMBr
thestrength
impact of
thehigh
and flux EMBr
layer sheared
strength.off andthe
With was carriedsurface
away from the due
interface at thesurface
meniscus. The
the surface standing wave on thedefined tension,
flux layer, at a lower to a larger
EMBr strength, the volumewave,
of the
theflux
fluxdecreased
layer sheared
by 8 off
× 10and
−7 was carried
m3 per away
second, fromatthe
while theinterface at the strength
higher EMBr meniscus. The
the flux
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 11 of 19

Materials 2023, 16, 1042

flux entrained into the steel degraded the steel quality. When comparing the impact of11the
of 19
surface standing wave on the flux layer, at a lower EMBr strength, the volume of the flux
decreased by 8 × 10−7 m3 per second, while at the higher EMBr strength the flux layer de‐
creased by 2 × 10−7 m3 per second. Increasing the EMBr strength reduced the flux entrain‐
layer decreased by 2 × 10−7 m3 per second. Increasing the EMBr strength reduced the flux
ment by 4.25%. The differences obtained in the flux and wave parameters for cases 1 and
entrainment by 4.25%. The differences obtained in the flux and wave parameters for Cases
2 are summarized in Table 3.
1 and 2 are summarized in Table 3.

Figure
Figure 11.11. High
High EMBr
EMBr strength
strength (Case
(Case 1) 1)
vs.vs.
lowlow EMBr
EMBr strength
strength (Case
(Case 2) 2) flux
flux volume
volume comparison.
comparison.

Table
Table 3. 3. Comparison
Comparison ofof cases
cases with
with high
high and
and low
low EMBr,namely
EMBr, namelycases
Cases 1 and
1 and 2. 2.

Results Low EMBr 2975 G Case Low

2 EMBr High
2975 GEMBrHigh
4350EMBr
G Case 1G
4350 Diff.
Results Diff.
Peak Wave Height 4.8 mm Case 2
3.01 mm Case 1 59.47%
Average Wave Height Peak
2.4Wave
mm Height 4.8 mm 2.1 mm 3.01 mm 59.47%
12.50%
Volume of Flux Rate of Decrease Average
8 × 10Wave Height
−7 m3 per second 2.4 mm 2 × 10−7 m3 per2.1
−7 3
mm
second
−7 3
12.50%
4.25%
Volume of Flux Rate of Decrease 8 × 10 m per s 2 × 10 m per s 4.25%

3.3. Impact of Submergence Depth

3.3. Impact of Submergence Depth
In the following study, two different submergence depths were simulated to investi‐
gate theInimpact
the following
on flow.study,
The two
firstdifferent submergence
simulation, depths
case 4, utilized a were simulateddepth
submergence to investigate
of 110
mm and was noted as having a lower SEN depth. The second simulation, case 8,of
the impact on flow. The first simulation, Case 4, utilized a submergence depth 110 mm
utilized
a nearly three times larger submergence depth of 350 mm and was noted as having a a
and was noted as having a lower SEN depth. The second simulation, Case 8, utilized
nearly
higher SENthree timesBoth
depth. larger submergence
were depth
at a constant of 350
EMBr mm and
strength wasG.
of 2975 noted as having
Figure 12 showsa higher
the
SEN depth. Both were at a constant EMBr strength of 2975 G. Figure
flow formation and the corresponding velocity magnitude at the surface of the lower and12 shows the flow
formation and the corresponding velocity magnitude at the surface of
higher SEN depth. Increasing the submergence depth with a constant magnitude of EMBr the lower and higher
SEN depth.
strength applied Increasing
resultedthe
in submergence depthdeeper
the jet penetrating with a into
constant magnitude
the mold. of EMBr
At a higher strength
SEN, the
applied resulted in the jet penetrating deeper into the mold. At a higher SEN, the molten
molten steel injection was below the applied EMBr. Therefore, there was less Lorentz force
steel injection was below the applied EMBr. Therefore, there was less Lorentz force acting
acting against the melt to dampen it, as shown in Figure 13.
against the melt to dampen it, as shown in Figure 13.
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 12 of 19

Materials2023,
Materials 2023,16,
16,1042
1042 12
12 of 19
19

(a) (b)
(a)12. (a) Low SEN depth 110 mm (Case 4) vs. (b) high(b)
Figure SEN depth 350 mm (Case 8) flow
streamline.
Figure12.
Figure 12. (a)
(a)Low
LowSEN
SENdepth
depth110
110 mm
mm (Case
(Case 4) vs.
4) vs. (b)(b) high
high SENSEN depth
depth 350 mm
350 mm (Case(Case 8) flow
8) flow streamline.
streamline.

(a) (b)
(a) 13.
Figure
Figure 13. (a)
(a)Low
LowSEN
SENdepth
depth110
110mm
mm(Case
(Case4)4)vs.vs.
(b)(b)
high (b)SEN
SEN
high depth 350350
depth mmmm
(Case 8) Lorentz
(Case 8) Lorentz
force distribution.
force distribution.
Figure 13. (a) Low SEN depth 110 mm (Case 4) vs. (b) high SEN depth 350 mm (Case 8) Lorentz
force distribution.
Figure
Figure 14 14 shows
shows the the surface
surface standing
standing wavewave height
height comparison.
comparison. A A higher
higher SENSEN depth
depth
increased
increased the height
the14height of the
ofthe recirculation
thesurface
recirculation zone,
zone, which
which was more cluttered
was comparison.
more cluttered with more
with more molten
Figure shows standing wave height A higher SENmolten
depth
steel.
steel. This
Thisresulted
resulted in a larger amplitude forforthethe
surface standing wave. WithWitha lowerlower
SEN
increased the height in a larger
of the amplitude
recirculation zone, whichsurface
was more standing wave.
cluttered with moreamolten
depth,
SEN the flow was directly impacted by the Lorentz force dampening it. As shown in
steel.depth, the flowinwas
This resulted directly
a larger impacted
amplitude forby thethe Lorentz
surface force dampening
standing wave. Withit. As shown
a lower SEN
Figure
in 15, 15,
Figure as the
as flow
the recirculated, the surface velocity was larger for thefor
high SEN depth
depth, the flow wasflow recirculated,
directly impactedthe by surface
the Lorentzvelocity
forcewas larger
dampening it.the
Ashigh
shownSEN in
relative
depth to the low
relative to SEN
the lowdepth.
SEN With
depth. theWith
average
the velocityvelocity
average magnitude at the surface
magnitude at the increas‐
surface
Figure 15, as the flow recirculated, the surface velocity was larger for the high SEN depth
ing by 30% by
increasing with30%thewith
increase in SEN depth,
the increase inaverage
SEN as depth,
mentioned, at a lower SEN,
as mentioned, the EMBr was
relative to the low SEN depth. With the velocity magnitude atatthe a lower
surface SEN, the
increas‐
applied
EMBr directly next to the injection port of the SEN. The peak surface standing wave for
ing bywas30%applied
with the directly
increase next into
SENthe depth,
injection as port of the SEN.
mentioned, at a The
lower peak
SEN,surface standing
the EMBr was
awave
low SEN depth
fordirectly
a low SEN was 7.04 mm, with an average height of 4.29 mm. While for a high sur‐
applied nextdepth
to the was 7.04 mm,
injection port ofwiththean average
SEN. The peakheight of 4.29
surface mm. While
standing wave for
for
face standing
aa high surface wave the peak
standing wave wasthe8.55
peakmm,wasand themm,
8.55 average
and surface
the standing
average wave
surface height
standing
low SEN depth was 7.04 mm, with an average height of 4.29 mm. While for a high sur‐
was
wave 5.12 mm.was
height When 5.12 the
mm.SEN Whendepth thewas
SEN increasedwas from 110 mmfrom to 350110mm, the average
face standing wave the peak was 8.55 mm,depth increased
and the average surface standing mmwaveto 350 mm,
height
height increased
the average height byincreased
19%. Figure by 16
19%.shows the16
Figure total fluxthe
shows volume in the
total flux mold comparison
volume in the mold
was 5.12 mm. When the SEN depth was increased from 110 mm to 350 mm, the average
between
comparison a low and high
between a lowSEN and depth. At 110
high SEN mm, At
depth. the110
fluxmm,
volume decreased
the flux volumeby 6 × 10−7 m
decreased by3
height−increased by 19%. Figure 16 shows the total flux volume−7in 3the mold comparison
10 7 mwhile
6 ×second
per 3 per second
at 350 mm,while theatflux
350volume
mm, thedecreased
flux volume by 8decreased
× 10 m per × 10−7Increas‐
by 8second. m3−7per3
between a low and high SEN depth. At 110 mm, the flux volume decreased by 6 × 10 m
second.
ing the SENIncreasing the SEN depth
depth increased the fluxincreased
entrainmentthe flux
byentrainment
2.6% (Table 4). by 2.6% (Table 4).
per second while at 350 mm, the flux volume decreased by 8 × 10−7 m3 per second. Increas‐
ing the SEN depth increased the flux entrainment by 2.6% (Table 4).
 Materials2023,
Materials 2023,16,
16,1042
1042 13ofof19
13 19
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 13 of 19

Figure 14.14.
Figure
Figure 14. Low
LowLowSEN
SEN
SEN depth
depth
depth (Case
(Case 4)4)vs.
(Case vs.vs.
4) high
high SEN
high
SENSENdepth
depth
depth (Case8)8)standing
(Case
(Case standing
8) wave
standing comparison.
wave
wave comparison.
comparison.

Figure
Figure 15.15. Low
Low SEN
SEN depth
depth (Case
(Case 4)
vs.vs. high SEN depth (Case 8) surface velocity comparison.
Figure 15. Low SEN depth (Case 4)4)vs. high
high SEN
SEN depth
depth (Case
(Case 8)8)surface
surface velocity
velocity comparison.
comparison.
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 14 of 19
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 14 of 19

Figure
Figure 16.16.
LowLow SEN
SEN depth
depth (Case
(Case 4) vs.
4) vs. high
high SENSEN depth
depth (Case
(Case 4) flux
4) flux volume
volume comparison.
comparison.

Table
Table 4. 4. Comparison
Comparison of of cases
cases with
with a high
a high and
and low
low SEN
SEN depth,
depth, namely
namely Cases
cases 4 and
4 and 8. 8.

LowLowSEN Depth
SEN 110
Depth mm
110 mm High SENDepth
High SEN Depth350
350mm
mm
Results
Results Diff.
Diff.
Case
Case 4 4 Case
Case88
Peak
Peak Wave
Wave Height7.04 mm
Height 7.04 mm 8.55
8.55 mmmm 21.45%
21.45%
Average
Average WaveWave Height 4.29 mm 5.12 mm 19.00%
4.29 mm −7 3
Volume of Flux Rate 5.12 mm−7 3 19.00%
Height 6 × 10 m per s 8 × 10 m per s 2.60%
of Decrease
Volume of Flux
6 × 10−7 m3 per second 8 × 10−7 m3 per second 2.60%
Rate of Decrease
3.4. Impact of Mold Width
In this
3.4. Impact section,
of Mold Width mold widths of 1.067 m and 1.50 m were utilized as the geometry
domain. Reducing the mold width lowered the surface area for the molten steel to re-
In this as
circulate, section,
shown mold widths
in Figure 17.ofThe
1.067 m within
flow and 1.50 m were
each mold utilized
design wasas the geometry
simulated at a
domain. Reducing the mold width lowered the surface area
constant EMBr strength and SEN depth. Figure 17 provides the flow formation for the molten steel to recir‐
for the
culate, as shown
different mold in Figurewhile
widths, 17. The flow within
Figure 18 showseach mold
the design
applied was simulated
Lorentz force. Based at a con‐
on the
stant EMBr strength and SEN depth. Figure 17 provides the flow formation
figure, Case 5 with the lower mold width has a larger surface area, where the Lorentz for the differ‐
force
entismold widths,
applied while the
to dampen Figure
flow,18compared
shows thewith
applied
CaseLorentz
7 with aforce.
largerBased
moldon the figure,
width. With all
case 5 with
of the the lower
constant mold width
parameters, per thehasapplied
a larger surface
EMBr, area, where
reducing the moldthe width
Lorentz force isthe
lowered
applied to dampen the flow, compared with case 7 with a larger mold width.
surface velocity due to the larger surface area coverage of the overall molten steel injected. With all of
theAsconstant
shown in Figure 19, at a lower mold width (Case 5), the peak surface standingsur‐
parameters, per the applied EMBr, reducing the mold width lowered the wave
face
height wasdue
velocity 8.37tomm thewith
larger ansurface
averagearea coverage
wave height ofof 4.48
the overall molten
mm, while steel
at the injected.
higher mold
As(Case
shown in Figure
8) width, the 19, at surface
peak a lowerstanding
mold width
height(case
was5),
8.65themm,
peak surface
and standing
the average wave
height was
height was 8.37
4.87 mm. Thismm waswith
due an average
to the largerwave height
surface of 4.48
velocity permm,thewhile
Lorentzat the
force higher moldAs
induced.
(case 8) width,
shown the peak
in Figure surface
20, the averagestanding height
surface was increased
velocity 8.65 mm, and the average
by 22% height wasthe
when increasing
4.87 mm. This was due to
mold width from 1.067 m to 1.50 m. Increasing the mold width increased the averageAs
the larger surface velocity per the Lorentz force induced. sur-
shown in Figurewave
face standing 20, the average
height surface
by 8.71%. velocity
Figure increased
21 shows that, atbya22% when
higher mold increasing
width, thethe flux
mold width
volume from 1.067
decreased by m
8× to10 −7 m.
1.50 m3 Increasing
per secondthewhilemold
at awidth
lowerincreased
width thethefluxaverage
decreasedsur‐by
face − 8
8 ×standing
10 m wave 3 height Reducing
per second. by 8.71%.the Figure
mold21width
shows that, at the
increased a higher mold width,
slag entrainment bythe
0.9%
flux volume
(Table 5). decreased by 8 × 10−7 m3 per second while at a lower width the flux decreased
by 8 × 10−8 m3 per second. Reducing the mold width increased the slag entrainment by
0.9% (Table 5).
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 15 of 19
Materials 2023,
Materials 2023, 16,
16, 1042
1042 15
15 of 19
of 19

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 17. (a) Low mold width 1.067 m (Case 5) vs. (b) high mold width 1.50 m (Case 7) flow
Figure 17. (a)
streamline.
Figure 17. (a) Low
Lowmold
moldwidth
width1.067
1.067mm (Case
(Case 5) 5)
vs.vs.
(b)(b) high
high mold
mold width
width 1.501.50 m (Case
m (Case 7) flow
7) flow streamline.
streamline.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 18.
18. (a) Low
(a) Low mold
Low mold width
moldwidth 1.067
width1.067 m
1.067m (Case
m(Case 5)5)vs.
(Case5) (b)
vs.(b) high
(b) mold
high width
mold 1.50
width m (Case
1.50 7) Lorentz
Figure
Figure 18. (a)
force distribution. vs. high mold width 1.50 mm (Case
(Case 7) Lorentz
7) Lorentz
force distribution.
force distribution.
 Materials 2023, 16, 1042 16 of 19
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 16 of 19
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 16 of 19

Figure 19. Low mold width (Case 5) vs. high mold width (Case 7) standing wave comparison.
Figure 19. 19.
Figure Low mold
Low width
mold (Case
width 5) vs.
(Case high
5) vs. mold
high width
mold (Case
width 7) standing
(Case wave
7) standing comparison.
wave comparison.

Figure 20. Low mold width (Case 5) vs. high mold width (Case 7) surface velocity comparison.
Figure 20. Low mold width (Case 5) vs. high mold width (Case 7) surface velocity comparison.
Figure 20. Low mold width (Case 5) vs. high mold width (Case 7) surface velocity comparison.
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 17 of 19
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 17 of 19

Figure
Figure 21. Low
21. Low mold
mold width
width (Case
(Case 5) high
5) vs. vs. high
moldmold width
width (Case
(Case 7) flux
7) flux volume
volume comparison.
comparison.

Table
Table 5. Comparison
5. Comparison of cases
of cases withwith a high
a high andand
lowlow mold
mold width,
width, namely
namely Cases
cases 5 and
5 and 7. 7.

ResultsResults Low WidthLow Width

1.067 1.0675mHighHigh
m Case WidthWidth
1.501.50 m
m Case 7 Diff.
Diff.
Case 5 Case 7
Peak Wave Height 8.37 mm 8.65 mm 3.35%
Peak Wave
Average Wave Height
Height 4.48 mm 8.37 mm 8.65 mm
4.87 mm 3.35%
8.71%
Average Wave Height 4.48 mm 4.87 mm 8.71%
Volume of Flux Rate of
Volume of Flux Rate of 8Decrease × 10 − 7 3 8 −8×m − 8 3 0.90%
× 10−7 m3 8per secondm per s 8 × 10 103 permsecond
per s 0.90%
Decrease
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In industrial practice, in order to prevent excessive surface wave causing surface
In industrial
defects, EMBr practice,
is applied in to
order to prevent
generate excessive
a Lorentz forcesurface wave causing
that dampens surface
the molten de‐ In
steel.
fects, EMBr is applied to generate a Lorentz force that dampens
this research, utilizing the developed MHD model, application of EMBr was simulated the molten steel. In this
research,
based utilizing the developed
on a realistic Nucor caster. MHD Themodel,
modelapplication of EMBrtowas
was validated simulated
accurately basedthe
predict
on abehavior
realistic of
Nucor caster. The model was validated to accurately
the surface standing wave under certain casting conditions. By usingpredict the behavior ofthe
thetwo-step
surface standing
approach, wave undersingle-phase
including certain casting andconditions.
three-phase Bysimulations,
using the two‐step
the stabilityap‐ of
proach, including single‐phase
the simulation was ensuredand andthree‐phase simulations,
the computational timethewasstability
reduced.of the simulation
There are three
wasmajor
ensured and the computational
parameters, EMBr strength,time SENwas reduced. There
submergence depth,areand
three major
mold parameters,
width, that can be
EMBr strength, SEN submergence depth, and mold width, that
optimized by a manufacturer to optimize the steel quality by reducing the surface can be optimized bywave.
a
manufacturer to optimize the steel quality by reducing the surface wave.
They were analyzed for their impact on the surface standing wave. The validation case was They were ana‐
lyzed for theirwith
simulated impact1.58onmm theaverage
surfacedifference
standing wave.
from the Themeasured
validation casedata.
plant was simulated
It was found
with 1.58
that mm average
increasing the difference
EMBr strength from from
the measured
2975 G toplant4350data. It was found
G decreased that increas‐
the average surface
ingstanding
the EMBrwave strength fromby2975
height G to At
12.5%. 4350 G decreased
a lower EMBr the average
strength, thesurface standing
flux volume wave
decreased
height
by 8by 10−7 mAt
× 12.5%. 3 per
a lower
second, EMBr strength,
while the fluxEMBr
at the higher volume decreased
strength, the byflux8 layer
× 10−7 decreased
m3 per
second, while− 7at 3
the higher EMBr strength, the flux layer decreased
by 2 × 10 m per second. Increasing the EMBr strength reduced the flux entrainment by 2 × 10 −7 m3 per

second. Increasing
by 4.25%. the EMBr
Increasing the strength
submergencereduced the increased
depth flux entrainment
the height by 4.25%.
of theIncreasing
recirculation
thezone
submergence
around the depth
centerincreased the height
of the applied EMBr. of When
the recirculation zone around
the submergence depth was the increased
center
from
of the 110 mm
applied to 350
EMBr. Whenmm, thethe submergence
average height increased
depth by 19% and
was increased fromthe110fluxmmentrainment
to 350
mm, increased by 2.6%.
the average Increasing
height increased thebymold
19%width
and from 1.067
the flux m to 1.50 mincreased
entrainment increased by the2.6%.
average
surface the
Increasing standing wave height
mold width from 1.067by 8.71% and m
m to 1.50 theincreased
slag entrainment
the average by surface
0.9%. Reducing
standingthe
wavesurface
height defects
by 8.71% is feasible
and thebyslag applying the appropriate
entrainment conditions.
by 0.9%. Reducing theItsurface
is also defects
evidentisthat
the application
feasible by applying of the
EMBr is a criticalconditions.
appropriate method to Itregulate
is also molten
evidentsteel. Increasing
that the applicationthe EMBr
of
strength had the largest impact on reducing the surface standing wave, then decreasing
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 18 of 19

the submergence depth, and lastly reducing the mold width, which had the lowest impact.
This article provides a practical approach to optimize EMBr-related settings. Although this
paper only considered the direct impacts of the three key parameters, future study could
look at ideal EMBr strength per defined condition, replacing physical work with numerical
simulations to improve steel quality.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.E.F., W.R. and A.K.S.; Methodology, S.T.; Validation,
M.E.F. and W.R.; Formal analysis, S.T. and M.W.; Investigation, S.T.; Resources, S.T.; Data curation,
M.E.F.; Writing—original draft, S.T.; Writing—review & editing, M.W. and A.K.S.; Supervision, A.K.S.;
Project administration, C.Z.; Funding acquisition, A.K.S. and C.Z. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to thank Nucor Steel Decatur for funding this project.
Data Availability Statement: Restrictions apply to the availability of the data presented in this study.
Any further detail is subject to confidentiality for Nucor Steel Decatur, LLC.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Nucor Steel Decatur for funding this project. The
Center for Innovation through Visualization and Simulation (CIVS) at Purdue University Northwest
is also gratefully acknowledged for providing all the resources required for this work. The authors
also appreciate the help from all the Steel Manufacturing Simulation and Visualization Consortium
(SMSVC) Project Technical Committee (PTC) members.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Singh, R.; Thomas, B.G.; Vanka, S.P. Large Eddy Simulations of Double-Ruler Electromagnetic Field Effect on Transient Flow
during Continuous Casting. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2014, 45, 1098–1115. [CrossRef]
2. Puttinger, S.; Saeedipour, M.; Pirker, S. Evaluating the Damping Effect of a Slag Layer on the Mold Flow in Continuous Casting
of Steel. In Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Symposium on Flow Visualization and Image Processing, Kumamoto, Japan, 1–3
December 2017.
3. Brian, T.; Ramnik, S.; Rajneesh, C.; Pratap, V. Flow Control with Ruler Electromagnetic Braking (EMBr) in Continuous Casting
of Steel Slabs. In Proceedings of the BAC 2013, Fifth Baosteel Biennial Academic Conference, Shanghai, China, 4–6 June 2013;
pp. 1–10.
4. Thomas, B. Chapter 14 in Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, 11th ed.; Cramb, A., Ed.; AISE Steel: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2003;
Volume 5.
5. Sen, A.; Prasad, B.; Sahu, J.K.; Tiwari, J.N. Designing of Sub-entry Nozzle for Casting Defect-free Steel. In Proceedings of the 4th
National Conference on Processing and Characterization of Materials, Rourkela, India, 5–6 December 2014; IOP Publishing Ltd.:
Bristol, UK, 2015.
6. Hibbeler, L.C.; Thomas, B.G. Mold Slag Entrainment Mechanisms in Continuous Casting Molds. In Proceedings of the AISTech
2013 Iron and Steel Technology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 6–9 May 2013; pp. 1215–1230.
7. Li, Z.; Zhang, L.; Ma, D.; Lavery, N.P.; Wang, E. A narrative review: The electromagnetic field arrangement and the “braking”
effect of electromagnetic brake (EMBr) technique in slab continuous casting. Metall. Res. Technol. 2021, 118, 218. [CrossRef]
8. Thomas, B.; Cukierski, K. Flow Control with Local Electromagnetic Braking in Continuous Casting of Steel Slabs. Metall. Mater.
Trans. B 2008, 39, 94–107. [CrossRef]
9. Jin, K.; Vanka, S.; Thomas, B.G. Large Eddy Simulations of the Effects of EMBr and SEN Submergence Depth on Turbulent Flow.
Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2017, 48, 162–178. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, Y.; Zhang, L. Fluid flow-related transport phenomena in steel slab continuous casting strands under electromagnetic brake.
Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2011, 42, 1319–1351. [CrossRef]
11. Xu, Y.; Xu, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, T.; Deng, A.; Wang, E. Dendrite Growth Characteristics and Segregation Control of Bearing Steel Billet
with Rotational Electromagnetic Stirring. High Temp. Mater. Process. 2017, 36, 339–346. [CrossRef]
12. Chaudhary, R.; Thomas, B.G.; Vanka, S.P. Effect of Electromagnetic Ruler Braking (EMBr) on Transient Turbulent Flow in
Continuous Slab Casting using Large Eddy Simulations. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2012, 43, 532–553. [CrossRef]
13. Davidson, P. A Introduction to Magnetohydrodynamics, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.
14. Yang, H.; Kesavan, S.; Maite, C. The Influence of Thermo-Physical Properties on Slag Entrainment during Continuous Casting
of Steel in Billets and Slabs. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Modeling and Simulation of Metallurgical
Processes in Steelmaking, Toronto, ON, Canada, 13–15 August 2019; pp. 711–719. [CrossRef]
15. Thomas, B.G.; Zhang, L. Mathematical Modeling of Fluid Flow in Continuous Casting of Steel. ISIJ Int. 2001, 41, 1181–1193.
[CrossRef]
Materials 2023, 16, 1042 19 of 19

16. Balsara, D.S. Divergence-Free Adaptive Mesh Refinement for Magnetohydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 2001, 174, 614–648.
[CrossRef]
17. Sakane, S.; Takaki, T.; Aoki, T. Parallel-GPU-accelerated adaptive mesh refinement for three-dimensional phase-field simulation
of dendritic growth during solidification of binary alloy. Mater. Theory 2022, 6, 3. [CrossRef]
18. Liu, Z.; Vakhrushev, A.; Wu, M.; Kharicha, A.; Ludwig, A.; Li, B. Scale-Adaptive Simulation of Transient Two-Phase Flow in
Continuous-Casting Mold. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2019, 50, 543–554. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.