Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Gau
R. Viskanta
Fellow ASME
Heat Transfer Laboratory,
Scool of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Introduction
Heat transfer in the processing of materials involving
solid-liquid phase transformations (melting and solidification) is commonplace in such fields as metallurgy, crystal
growth from melts and solutions, purification of materials,
and solidification of metals. The associated density gradients
in a gravitational field can induce natural convection flows.
Convection in the liquid phase influences the process in two
different ways, one of which is beneficial and the other of
which can be detrimental. During melting convection increases the overall transport rate and, hence, the growth rate
of the new phase, which is desirable. On the other hand,
during solidification convection decreases the growth of the
new phase and also seems to affect the morphology of the
solid-liquid interface adversely [1, 2]. The nature of the solid
is largely determined by what occurs in the vicinity of the
solid-liquid interface. The heat release (absorption), density
change, and other processes that take place in the vicinity of
the transformation front result in nonuniformities along the
front that cause its shape to change. The resulting density
gradients in the liquid generate buoyancy-driven convection
that can affect the transport of heat, constituent chemicals,
and the growth rate.
Melting and solidification heat transfer from a vertical side
(wall) has been receiving research attention, and a recent
review is available [3]. However, most of the studies have
been with materials other than metals. The authors have been
able to identify only relatively few studies which were concerned with the effects of buoyancy-induced natural convection in the liquid metal during solidification [4-7]. The
effect of natural convection on solidification of metals has
been recognized for some time and a review is available [4];
however, much of the information is qualitative in nature and
very little effort has been made to give a quantitative interpretation of solidification and of melting in the presence of
natural convection. Szekeley and Chhabra [5] appear to have
been the first to demonstrate experimentally and analytically
the importance of natural convection on the interface shape in
a rectangular tank with the heat source and sink on the two
opposite, vertical sidewalls. Solidification experiments from
above with lead [6] and with a Lipowitz metal [7] have shown
that convection in the melt decreases the rate of solidification.
The composition stratification of a eutectic before the
initiation of melting from below was found to suppress
natural convection and to decrease the melting rate [7]. The
heat transfer literature has failed to reveal any melting and
solidification studies with pure metals in which the interface
shape and motion, the phase-change rate, and convective heat
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF
HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received by the Heat Transfer Division February
10, 1984.
Nomenclature
A
Aw
c
Fo
H
Ahf
L
Nu
k
Ra
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
TrfHP/av
Ste = Stefan number = cj(Twb
Tf) /Ahf for melting and cs (7}
Tw,/Ahf for solidification
Journal of Heat Transfer
s
T
t
V
V0
W
x
v = kinematic viscosity
r = dimensionless time; 77 =
Fo/Ste/ for melting and TS =
FOjSte^. for solidification
Subscripts
c = characteristic length or cooled
h = heated wall
/ = fusion point of material
/ = liquid phase
s = solid phase
w = wall
FEBRUARY 1986, Vol. 108/175
Time (min)
Time(min)
6 8
10 12.5 15 17 19
5 6 | 8 10 12 14
I I
17
I
I
Interface
Location
Data
V
Top Wall
D
Center
A
Bottom Wall
I V
V
D
V
0.6
a
0.4
Neumann Model
V
D
0.2
'
/
&
Q ^ * ^
--
A
A
,
10
TjXIO*
Fig. 3 Comparison of the local melting rate with the Neumann
solution for Ste s = 0.0408,4 = 0.714
0.8
0.6
v/v 0
0.4
0.2
0.05
T 0.843
Fig. 4
0.15
0.10
(1)
0.30
0.35
0.25
RQ0.0504A-0.I4
Vc
0.20
Data t(min)
u
0
4
A
8
A
12
O
16
20
a
39
36
T(C)
fi
8 ggg g
33
30
il^Bl
27
0
,
0.2
mm*
m1 j 1 j | | j |
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
x/L
Fig. 5 Temperature distribution along the centeriine during melting
from a side: Twh = 38.3C,A = 0.5
A 0.0137
(2)
Ste
0.4
0.3
fi
Nu
A
" 4 -&
CM
A
0.714
0.500
0.286
0.500
0.714
Ra^4
0.2
A
A
O
0.041
0.042
0.044
0.009
0.083
0.2
0.4
0.6
TJJ
X I0
0.8
1.0
1.2
10'
ste
r
m
A
A
o
Nu r
A
0.714
0.500
0.286
0.500
0.714
0.041
0.042
0.044
0.009
0.083
o%x
fgF*^
\Eq.(6)
10
i
I0 3
10"
I0 5
I0 6
I0 7
I0 8
Rac/s\eJt
Fig. 7 Correlation of the average Nusselt number in terms of the
characteristic Bayleigh number Rac
center, and the bottom wall were linear and were nearly the
same. Conduction was the dominant mode of heat transfer.
At later times, the fluid motion produced by buoyancy
resulted in nonlinear temperature distributions which were
different at each height [13]. Due to the expected clockwise
circulation of the melt driven by buoyancy, steep horizontal
temperature gradients were observed at the two boundaries of
the liquid-filled cavity (Fig. 5). Along the vertical heated wall
the largest temperature gradient occurred near the bottom
region and the smallest near the upper region. Along the
interface the trends were opposite. The horizontal temperature gradients at each height near the heated wall and the
interface changed little after natural convection was initiated
and established.
The temperature gradients at the three different heights in
the region away from the heated wall and interface gradually
decreased as the melting proceeded. The reduction of the
temperature gradient is attributed to the growth of the main
circulation flow and of the melt layer. The temperature
gradient along the center line (Fig. 5) decreased the most and
approached zero at later stages of the melting process (? = 16
min). No reversal of temperature gradient was ever observed.
The gradual change of temperatures suggests that no
significant change of flow structure can be expected. The flow
was laminar and remained so for the entire duration of the
melting process.
Temperature fluctuations were measured near (4.74 mm)
SM
I i ! )
/":/
'/
if/f
//If
A]
y /
(b)
5.0
7,5
12.5
15.0
20.0
25.0
Fig. 8 Traces of interface shape along (a) the front wall and (b) the
back wall of the test cell during solidification from a side: Twc =
10.2C, Twh = 33.2C,4 = 0.714
and farther away (24 mm) from the heated wall. The traces of
the thermocouple output indicated a sharp increase and small
fluctuations shortly after the interface passed over the sensor
[13]. However, the frequency and the mean temperature
showed gradual increases and became steady at later times as
the fluid circulated in a much more stable manner.
0.8
Analysis Data
J
1
Ste s
'
0wh
0.0909
\.\/4f
0.6
v/v0
o
0.4
-Z^^
0.2
-/
1
16
12
20
24
T, XIO2
Fig. 9 Comparison between experimental data and predictions for the
melted volume fraction
ttl
ft
A(T-Tf)t
Bag
Lo>-
(3)
(4)
m
A
A
O
10
0
J vtU)
1 m. m m
A
a
o A
aa
o
a
a
0
2
6
10
14
26
0 A A
a o
a
20 _Data t(min)
15 -
Plc,(Tl(p)-Tf)dVl
m m m BHBB
T(C)
cAT/-T0(p))dVsip)+p,V,Ui/
+\
@@B
A i
30
where the total heat input Q, or heat stored in the phasechange material is given by
a=
25 -
qdA dt
A{T-Tf)t
35
A A
O
A
a O
m
A
AA
d &
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
x/L
Fig. 10 Temperature distribution along the center line during
solidification from a side: Twc = 12.5C, T w /, = 34.0C, and A = 0.5
(5)
ki
(6)