Process metallurgy

Separation of nonmetallic particles in tundishes

Bernhard Kaufmann, Alois Niedermayr, Hermann Sattler and Alfred Preuer

The separation of nonmetallic particles by buoyancy in tundishes is investigated theoretically. It is shown, that the best possible separation
is achieved if the projection of the region through which flow from the inlet to the outlet mainly occurs, covers as large a part of the surface
as possible. In contrast, the volume of this region, its distance from the surface and the mean retention time do not influence separation
directly. Numerical calculations of the flow fields and particle separation in two different tundish geometries with and without a baffle predict
no significant differences in the capability of separating nonmetallic particles. This surprising result may be explained by the principle stated
above. In contrast to these findings, observations made during production provide indirect evidence that the insertion of a baffle reduces
the concentration of AI203 at the outlet of the tundish significantly. This would mean that besides buoyancy, another process contributes
significantly to the separation of nonmetallics. Such a process is not identified in this paper, but it is shown that turbulent diffusion and
inertial impaction are not likely candidates.

Aufschwimmen von nichtmetallischen Verunrelnigungen in Verteilern. Die auftriebsbedingte Abscheidung nichtmetallischer Partikel
in Verteilern wird theoretisch untersucht. Es zeigt slch, daB die bestrnogliche Abscheidung dann erreicht wird, wenn die Projektion des
Bereichs, durch den der Materialtransport hauptsachlich erfolgt, einen moglichst groBen Teil der Oberflache des Stahlbads ausfOIit. 1m
Gegensatz dazu beeinflussen das Volumen und die Entfernung des DurchfluBbereichs von der Obertlache, sowie die mittlere Verweilzeit
die Abscheidung nicht direkt. Die numerische Berechnung der Stromungsfelder und der Abscheidegrade fOr zwei verschiedene Verteiler-
typen mit und ohne Lochplatte sagt keine signifikanten Unterschiede in der Abscheidefahigkeit veraus. Dieses Oberraschende Resultat
wird durch das oben angegebene Prinzip erklart. 1m Gegensatz zu diesen Ergebnissen deutet die betriebliche Erfahrung darauf hin, daB
bei Verwendung einer Lochplatte die Al203-Konzentration am AuslaB des Verteilers signifikant reduziert ist. Das wOrde bedeuten, daB
neben dem Auftrieb noch ein anderer ProzeB einen bedeutenden Beitrag zur Abscheidung nichtmetallischer Verunreinigungen leistet. Ein
solcher ProzeB wird in dieser Arbeit nicht angegeben, aber es wird gezeigt, daB turbulente Diffusion und Tragheitsabscheidung keine
wahrscheinlichen Kandidaten dafOr sind.

In the LD3 plant of VA Stahl Linz in Linz, Austria, all
slabs are produced by the continuous casting process. As
is common practice, a tundish is used to intermediately
contain steel poured in from the ladle and to release it in
a well defined way into the mould. This practice makes
it possible to maintain a continuous flow of steel into the
mould even during the process of changing the ladle and
to distribute the steel to the moulds in case that there is
more than one strand. Another benefit of a tundish is that
it allows the separation of nonmetallic particles during re-
tention time of the steel in the tundish. This paper reports
investigations which have been performed to identify the
parameters which are in control of the efficiency of separa-
tion of particles in tundishes. As nonmetallics can exert an
adverse influence on the quality of the cast products, their
removal during the liquid phase is a highly appreciated tar-
get.
Nonmetallic particles mainly originate from the deoxi-
dation and desulfurisation treatment and from erosion of
refractories and entrainment of slag. Chemically they are
metal oxides or sulfides and their density is lower than
that of liquid steel. Therefore, under the influence of buoy-
ancy, they will rise to the surface and there they may be
absorbed by the slag. Generally it is held that the flow
field in the tundish exerts an important influence on the
degree of separation which can be obtained. A number
of publications' )-5) is available which are concerned with
variations of tundish geometry and of the location and size
of dams and weirs and their influence on the flow field and
ultimately on the separation of nonmetallic particles. There
seems, however, to be no general agreement on which prop-
Dr. Bernhard Kaufmann; Dr. Alois Niedermayr; Dipl.-lng. Dr. Hermann
Sattler; Dipl-Ing, Dr. Alfred Preuer, Voest-Alpine Stahl Linz GmbH, Aus-
tria
erties of the flow field actually do have a strong influence
on separation.
By means of theoretical considerations the present paper
tries to identify the properties of the flow field which actu-
ally modify the buoyancy-driven separation of nonmetallic
particles. In a second step, numerical calculations of the
flow field and separation of particles are performed for two
different tundish geometries. The results are compared and
interpreted using the principles which emerge from the ba-
sic reasoning presented in the first part of this publication.
Buoyancy-driven separation of particles
Particles of a density ep which are suspended in a fluid,
will experience the buoyancy force
(1)
where g is the vector of acceleration due to gravity, Vp is
the volume of the particle and b..e = e- ep is the dif-
ference between the density of the fluid and that of the
particle. Together with other forces which originate from
inhomogeneities in the velocity field this force .will cause
motion of the particles with respect to the fluid. Friction,
which depends on the velocity difference between particle
and fluid, will have a damping effect on this motion. If one
neglects the forces related to velocity gradients, the friction
force
(2)
becomes the second important force term which determines
the acceleration of the particle compared to the fluid. In

steel research 64 (1993) No.4 203

Process metallurgy

Table 1. Dependence of particle Reynolds number Rep = dp v,lv way, it should be kept in mind that the parameter which
and relative speed of particle with (vflOkes) and without (v,) Stokes characterizes the particles in our calculation, is the veloc-
approximation on the diameter dp of the particle. The following con- ity difference Vr . As the true shape of the particles is not
stants have been used: density of fluid (liquid steel) f2 = 7000 kg/m3 , known, d p only signifies a characteristic diameter which is
density difference between steel and particles D..f2 = 4400 kg/m3 , defined such that a sphere with equal density and diameter
kinematic viscosity of steel v = 10- 6 m2/s, acceleration due to grav- dp has the same buoyancy velocity Vr as the particle under
ity g = 9.81 m/s2 consideration.
dp Rep vStokes Vr
In the subsequent calculations, it is assumed that all par-
r
[mm] [-] [mm/s] [rnrn/s] ticles in the tundish rise with their characteristic velocity
vr(d p ) and are captured by the slag when they arrive at the
0.02 0.0027 0.137 0.137
0.548 0.542
surface of the steel bath. Absorption of particles by the
0.04 0.022
0.1 0.32 3.4 3.2 walls is not accounted for. It is also assumed that all par-
1.0 83.0 340.0 83.0 ticles are carried in from the ladle and therefore particle
generation by erosion or entrainment of slag in the tundish
is neglected. In this case, due to mass conservation of the
particles, the following balance must hold:
equation (2), Cw is a dimensionless friction factor, Vr the
speed of the particle relative to the fluid, Vr its magnitude
and dp is a characteristic dimension of the particle. In the (9)
further calculations it shall be assumed that the particle is
of spherical shape so that dp is actually the diameter of the where q is the volumetric flux of steel into the tundish
particle. The factor Cw depends on the particle Reynolds [m3/s], Cn and Cout are the concentrations of the particles
number [kg/kg] at the inlet and at the outlet, respectively, As is
the area of the surface of the steel bath [m2 ] and Cs is
(3) the average concentration of the particles at the surface as
defined by
where u is the laminar kinematic viscosity of the fluid. We
are looking for a steady-state solution, therefore one has to
postulate:
Cs = (liAs)' r
}Surface
c s]. (10)

(4) The last term on the left hand side of equation (9) describes
the flow of particles from the surface into the slag. Near
From that, one gets: the surface, the velocity of steel must be tangential to the
surface, therefore the flux of particles out of this area is
dependent only on Vr and not on the velocity of steel. From
4gD..f2dp equation (9) the fraction of particles which is not removed,
(5)
3f2c w (Re p) . is given by:

That means, the particles behave like a second phase which
moves with a constant velocity Vr with respect to the fluid
phase in the direction of the gravity force. The magnitude
of Vr is given by the nonlinear equation (5). For a rigid
spherical particle, Cw can be expressed by the following
terms"):
24
Cw = R-(1 + 0.15Re~687) for Rep < 800.
ep
If equation (6) is approximated by Stokes' law
Cw = 241Rep,
then equation (5) reduces to:
Table 1 illustrates the difference between the Stokes solu-
tion and the more elaborate friction law equation (6). Up
to 0.1 mm, the difference between the two methods of cal-
culation is less than 10 % in the velocities. As the particle
sizes which are of interest in our calculation do not exceed
0.1 mm, Stokes' law has been applied in this work. Any-
(11)
Noting that always Cs ::; C in , a lower limit for the particle
penetration may be given as:
Cout ) = 1- Asvr (12)
( Cm min q
(6)
The parameters of influence which are accessible for opti-
mization are therefore the area of surface of the steel bath
As, the volumetric flow rate of steel q and the ratio Cs/Cin
of the mean concentration of particles at the surface to
(7)
their concentration in the incoming steel. It emerges, that
increasing the volume of the tundish without changing the
surface area (e.g. by increasing the depth) will not affect the
separation of particles, though this would increase the av-
(8)
erage retention time. If the shape of the tundish is fixed and
the volumetric flow rate q is determined by the demands
of production, the task remains to make the mean concen-
tration C', at the surface as large as possible by guiding the
flow of steel in a proper way. This flow may be manip-
ulated by placing obstacles like dams and weirs into the
tundish.
What kind of velocity field would produce a maximum
mean concentration C s at the surface? Let us tackle this

204 steel research 64 (1993) NO.4

 Process metallurgy

important question by assuming that one can divide the total

flow in the tundish into two parts and that the exchange of
mass between these parts may be neglected:
- the mainstream which connects the inlet with the outlet
and is assumed to carry all of the net flux through the
tundish;
- the dead zones which do not contribute to the transport
of material through the tundish. They might be stagnant Figure 1. Schematic diagram of flow regions in a tundish. Trans-
regions, but usually they will contain recirculating flow. port of steel from inlet to outlet is assumed to occur only in the
region called "main stream". On the left side a recirculating region
Figure 1 gives a schematic illustration of the surface is sketched. This region prevents rising particles from re-entering
of the mainstream in an assumed situation. It should be the "main stream" and thereby improves separation
noted that the geometry of the mainstream may be quite
complex, but as only a single inlet is considered, it must
be a connected region. A simple example may help to illustrate these reflections.
The mass balance for the particles now may be written Consider the idealized situation of a tundish, where sepa-
as follows: ration occurs in a box-shaped region the flux of which may

«; - qCout - J CVr df = 0, (13)

where the integral is over the total surface of the main-
stream with the exception of the inlet and the outlet and
df is the vector of the infinitesimal surface element. It is
evident, that the integral gives the net removal rate of the
particles. As Vr is constant and always points in the direc-
tion opposite to gravity acceleration, the integral actually
is over the projection of the surface to the horizontal plane.
If the path of the uprising particles would cross the surface
of the mainstream just at one point, the separation flux of
the particles would be given by:
be classified into two regions, figure 2: a rectangular chan-
nel with constant velocity all over its cross-section which
is responsible for all mass transfer across the tundish, and
surrounding it a dead zone which does not contribute to
mass transfer through convection. The walls of the chan-
nel are assumed to be without friction and permeable to
the particles. Particle diffusion is neglected. In this sim-
ple case, the concentration profile may be easily predicted
and will appear as depicted in figure 3. The whole volume
will be separated into a region with zero concentration and
above it a region where the concentration equals the inlet
concentration, which is assumed to be constant over the
inlet cross-section of the channel. These two regions are
separated by a plane with a certain inclination towards the

separation flux of particles = Vr J

C dx d y (14)

where C is the concentration at the upper part of the surface

of the mainstream projected to the horizontal plane and the
integral extends over the area of this projection. Due to
the complex shape of the surface of the mainstream, how-
ever, it may happen that a particle which leaves this region
at a certain point of the surface may re-enter it at a dif-
ferent point. If the projection of the dead zone which is
transgressed by the particle is completely contained in the
projection of the surface of the mainstream, equation (14) Figure 2. Flow in a rectangular channel, where material enters
still holds as all the particles which enter this dead zone by the shaded slit at the left, traverses only the shaded region and
finally will have to leave it and re-enter the mainstream. leaves by a slit of equal size on the right. In this idealized situation,
The net flux out of the mainstream therefore is still given the non-shaded regions contain fluid as well, but do not contribute
by the flux through the upper part of the surface (equation to transport
(14)). If, however, the projection of the recirculating dead
region extends beyond the limits of the projection of the
mainstream, particles may be carried out of this region and
therefore those dead regions may contribute to separation.
It is important to understand that in this case equation (14)
is a pessimistic lower limit to the separation flux as now
dead zones, too, contribute in part to separation depending
on the amount of particles which they are able to capture ~
and to release. ==----------i~
The message of these findings is that the mainflow should
be conducted in such a way that the projection of this re-
Figure 3. Side-view of a channel. Fluid which contains particles
gion to the surface has as large an area as possible. It is, with a concentration Gin enters in the region of the left side which is
however, of no importance, where in the tundish these re- indicated by arrows and is transported to the right side only in the
gions are localized or which part of the total fluid volume is indicated part of the channel. Due to buoyancy, the particles rise
inhabited by the mainstream. Especially, it is not necessary towards the surface of the channel. In this idealized situation only
to require that this flux passes near the surface in order to two concentrations exist (Gin and 0) and are separated by a plane.
optimize the separation of particles. In this example, not all of the particles are removed by buoyancy

steel research 64 (1993) NO.4 205

Process metallurgy
Figure 4. Shape of the V-tundish
Figure 5. Shape of the E-tundish
horizontal. The amount of particles which are not separated
is given by:
C out blv,
-=1~­ (15)
Cin q ,
where b and I are the width and length of the channel, re-
spectively, and q is the volume flux into the channel. If this
expression becomes negative or zero, no particle will arrive
at the outlet. It can be seen from equation (15) and figure
3 that the height at which the channel is located inside the
tundish does not influence the degree of separation. The
height of the channel does not influence the separation ei-
ther. The width b of the channel is, however, of importance,
therefore if it is decreased, it will be of no use to increase
the height h, even if this keeps the velocity of flow at a con-
stant value. In this example, optimizing separation would
simply mean to increase b as much as possible. If this can
be achieved only with a small h and corresponding high
velocities in the mainstream, and even if this region of flux
is situated near the bottom of the tundish, this would make
no difference with regard to the separation of particles by
buoyancy.
Numerical modelling
Numerical calculations of flow and separation have been
performed for two different tundish geometries which are
shown in figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows one half of a
V-shaped tundish which has been cut at its plane of sym-
metry. Figure 5 shows a simple trough-like tundish, also
called E-tundish, which has also been cut at a symmetry
plane. In both cases, a weir is placed near the outlet, and in
206
the case of the Evtundish, also the effect of placing a baffle
near the inlet has been investigated. Because of symme-
try, the calculations have been performed for the depicted
halves only.
The equations governing the motion of fluid in the
steady-state case are:
conservation of mass:
div(Qv) = Sm (16)
with the density of steel Q = 7000 kg/m', v is the velocity-
field and Sm is the mass-source;
Navier-Stokes equation for velocity-component Vk:
p is the static pressure and J1 is the effective dynamic vis-
cosity which is the sum of the laminar and turbulent part.
The turbulent viscosity is calculated with the standard k - e
model") which entails the solution of transport equations
for k and e additionally. The concentration C of the parti-
cles is given by the advection-diffusion equation
div(g(v + vr)C) = div(gDgradC) + Sc- (18)
The terms Sm, Svk and Sc are the sources of mass, mo-
mentum and concentration. They are used to express the
boundary conditions. D is the effective diffusivity [m2/s],
Vr the uprising speed due to buoyancy as previously defined
and
t/ Vt
D=-+- (19)
Sc SCt
with the laminar kinematic viscosity v and the turbulent
viscosity Vt. Sc and SCt are the corresponding Schmidt
numbers. The laminar diffusion of macroscopic particles
is made possible by Brownian motion. In this case, with
the assumption that each degree of freedom has an average
kinetic energy of 1/2 kT (k is Boltzmann's constant and
T the temperature in Kelvin), the laminar Schmidt number
for a spherical particle of diameter d p is given by:
(20)
which in the present case and with a diameter of 1 pm and
a temperature of 1800 K amounts to 2.65 x 106 • Evidently,
laminar diffusion will be negligible. On the other hand, tur-
bulent Schmidt numbers are usually expected to be found
much nearer unity, therefore turbulent diffusion has to be
accounted for and in the present model it is included by
choosing SCt = 1.
Equations (16)-(18) have been solved with the aid ofthe
commercial CFD code Phoenics. The following boundary
conditions were applied: constant mass flow of steel and
constant particle concentration at the inlet, constant pres-
sure at the outlet, friction at the impermeable walls of the
tundish, the surface of the steel bath is a frictionless wall.
Through this "wall", particles are removed with a rate cor-
responding to v.Ce], Temperature is not calculated. As the
particles have a velocity different from that of steel, they
steel research 64 (1993) NO.4
 Process metallurgy

Figure 7. Velocities at the surface of the E-tundish without a baffle

.» ~

- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

H~H
~-

- --- --- --- ---'" ··· --. -..

~

->
-> , , ,
->
, , ,
,
- --- -
==t~ =* =$ =a .[J:o " :
-> -+
-- -- -- -- -- ......
-- - - - - - -- -- -- -
-> ->
~----..
<,

Figure 8. Velocities at the surface of the E-tundish equipped with

a baffle near the inlet

Figure 6. Velocities at the surface of the V-tundish

Figure 9. Center-surface velocities in the V-tundish. This surface
belongs to the grid and is therefore not a plane
actually constitute a second continuous phase, but as their
volume concentration is rather low, the change in density
and the flow of momentum from the particles to the liquid
steel phase may be neglected. Therefore, equations (16)-
(18) describe the situation correctly. ,
I -.-
.»
-- ~

~
----
-- ..................
The numerical results were routinely inspected for viola- » ~ ->
\'
tions of the continuity equation. In all cases, the difference
between inflow and outflow was less than 0.02 % of the
... ..
~ =a =a
'" '"
--
=$ =to

-- ....
-- ---- ~--
'/".

\ -,
amount of steel flowing into the tundish per second. In the
case of the V-shaped tundish (figure 4) with its complex
velocity field, the net flow rate through every grid surface Figure 10. Velocities at the bottom of the E-tundish without a baffle
approximately perpendicular to the main flow direction was
calculated additionally. Between the shroud and the exit
opening, the difference of these flow rates to the flow rate
in the shroud was always less than 0.5 %.
The velocity field at the surface is shown for both
tundishes in figures 6 and 7. Figure 8 shows the surface
velocities for an E-tundish which has been equipped with
a baffle. Flow rate of steel into the domain of computation
is 2.5 t/min for the V-shaped tundish and 1.5 t/min for the
Figure 11. Velocities at the bottom of the E-tundish with a baffle
E-tundish. In both cases steel enters through a submerged
shroud with a cross-section of 3.2 x 10- 3 m". The distri-
bution of velocities in the vertical direction is illustrated in mum calculated by equation (12). It can be seen that the
figure 9 for the V-tundish. It can be seen that the part near difference of the numbers for both tundishes is very small,
the bottom is inhibited by a recirculating zone, so the main and that the transmission factor is very close to its optimal
flux is forced to pass near the surface. In contrast, no such value almost everywhere. This is a remarkable result, as
recirculation is expected for the other tundish as the flow geometry, size and velocity field are quite different in both
near the bottom does not display regions of recirculation, tundishes and the baffle, too, considerably changes the flow
figure 10. Recirculation near the bottom, however, appears field. The volume of the V-shaped tundish is 50 % larger
again in the E-tundish, if a baffle is inserted near the inlet, than that of the other one, the surface even twice as large.
figure 11. In both tundishes, the step after the inlet is very efficient in
Figure 12 shows the ratio of particles which arrive at distributing the flux in the horizontal direction. As a con-
the outlet compared to the theoretically obtainable mini- sequence, the separation in both models is almost optimal

steel research 64 (1993) NO.4 207

Process metallurgy

100.---------,-------,---,------,----,-----,
boxes ..... V-tundish
a
x: ••••••••. E-tundish
80
diamonds .. E-tundish with perforated plate
~ Al 203 particles had a size of about 100 /-lm. In this case
~o •
g 60
~ is, however, not likely that 100 /-lm particles could migrate
~
g 40
Ul
"
I 20
0.0 0.5 1.0
AggApdp2
18!1q
Figure 12. Dependence of the degree of particle transmission
on normalized particle diameter for the three configurations. The
normalized particle diameter is the expression Asgl::1{Jd~/(18/-lq),
where As is the surface area, g is the gravity acceleration, b..(} is
the density-difference between particles and liquid steel, d p is the
particle diameter, /-l is the dynamic viscosity of steel and q is the
volumetric flow rate (m3/s) of steel into the tundish
and could not further be improved significantly by adding a
baffle. Unfortunately, this optimum means than only 10 %
of the particles with a diameter of 20 /-lm will be separated
by buoyancy.
It is difficult to check the results of separation experi-
mentally. It is known, however, that Ah03 has a strong ten-
dency to stick to the walls of the submerged entry nozzle.
We assume that the thickness of this deposition is pro-
portional to the concentration of Al203 at the outlet and
to the amount of steel which has been cast through this
tube. To account for this growing deposition, the stopper
above the outlet must be moved upwards in order to main-
tain a constant flow rate. Therefore, the increase in the
height of the stopper provides indirect information about
the concentration of Al 203 at the outlet. Figure 13 shows
the dependence of the stopper height on casting time to-
gether with the casting velocity for an E-tundish with and
without a baffle. Using a baffle, it was not necessary to in-
crease the height of the stopper during the casting period,
while without it, figure 13 shows an almost constant in-
crease from each heat to the next. In contrast to the result
of the present calculation, this finding indicates that Ah03
is removed more efficiently if a baffle is inserted. This find-
ing could be reconciled with our calculation, if most of the
the calculated transmission ratio is 1.3 % with a baffle and
3.1 % without, which differs by a factor larger than 2. It
fast enough to the walls of the submerged entry nozzle to
explain the observed amount of deposition. Additionally,
investigations of inclusions in sheets report most of them
to have a size of less than 10 /-lm. Although, as long as
the size distribution of the particles in the liquid phase is
not known, this information is not enough to make firm
a
conclusions on the degree of separation, and though sep-
1.5 2.0 2.5
3.0 aration could also take place in the mould, these findings
nevertheless could shed some doubt on the validity of our
assumptions.
A weak point in these considerations could be the pas-
sive role of the slag. Could not the slag remove particles
at a rate higher than just C(X)Vr? It could, but in this case
too, the supply of particles to the surface would still deter-
mine the rate of removal. If buoyancy is the process which
brings particles to the surface, the rising velocity v, still
will determine the rate of removal.
Can turbulent diffusion be an effective transport mech-
anism? Diffusion into a solid surface out of a turbulent
fluid moving parallel to this plane has been considered
by several investigators-)"). Several semi-empirical expres-
sions are available for the Sherwood number, which de-
scribes the mass transfer into the solid. Here, the following
expression") was taken:
(21)
With the assumption, that the particle concentration at the
surface of the slag is zero, the diffusive volumetric flux
of particles Ie through a unit area at the surface may be
written as:
Jc = voc, (22)
where vn is given by

open Ivariation of Stopper Positionl

"
90 .. .. .. ... ... ..
v· Iheped Tundilh. CellSize:1260 x 210mm
... .. . . .

S 80 . ~.-- .. ' .. .. .. ... : .. : .. .. .. .". ..

t
o 10 I . , ...
nobellle casting time:
..
2~Omin
..
I .. .. ... .. .~ . ..
p ~ :
... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _-- .. ... .. ... .. .. . _~ . ,-_.
: 60 ~.
r ... . -_.
.. ..
j n
...
60 ..
wflb beme casting time: 210mln
P ~O
o
I
i
30
V
/

~
-----~
t 20 2
~
i
....... . __..
: 10
.. .. .. .. .. ... ... . _-- ... ... ... .. .. ---- ... .. .. 1 Figure 13. Upper two curves: dependence
mlmin of the stopper height on the number of heats in
o an E-tundish with and without a baffle. Lower
dosed 1 6 6 10
No01 Heellin Sequenca two curves: casting speed

208 steel research 64 (1993) NO.4


D 4S 1/
vD =-N
L Sh =0037-Re
. L / Sc- 213 . (23)
With a characteristic length L = 1 m, a characteristic veloc-
ity of 1 mis, 1/ = 10- 6 m2/s and, as suggested by equation
(20), Sc = 106 , one obtains VD = 2.3 X 10- 7 m/s. If equation
(22) is compared to the expression for the buoyancy-driven
flux of particles through the unit surface, v.C, it can be seen,
that the ratio VD/Vr determines the relative importance of
diffusion compared with separation through buoyancy. Ta-
ble 1 shows that for the particle sizes which are of interest,
Vr is larger than VD, at least by a factor 1000. Turbulent dif-
fusion, therefore, does not give a significant contribution to
the separation of particles.
Inertial impaction is another mechanism which could re-
move particles from a moving fluid. This means that a
particle with a finite mass will not move perfectly with the
fluid, but instead, due to inertia, at places where the fluid
is accelerated, it will submit only partly to the required
acceleration. In the tundish, the place where this process
could be most effective, is where the jet emerging from the
shroud is intercepted by the bottom. The time it takes for
a particle to react to a change in the velocity is character-
ized by the particle-relaxation time T p = d~epI18el/. For
a 50 Jim particle T p = 0.05 ms. With a maximum velocity
of 2 mls in the tundish, this time corresponds to a distance
of 0.1 mm. The particle is removed only at those places,
where a deviation of 0.1 mm from the streamlines suffices
to hit the wall. Only the most central regions of the jet from
the shroud will fulfill this condition. A rough estimate of
the collection efficiency may be obtained by using the re-
sults about impactors as they are cited in textbooks!"). The
dimensionless parameter which characterizes the collection
efficiency is the Stokes number Stk = TpU/r, where T p is
the particle-relaxation time, U is the velocity at the nozzle
and r is the radius of the nozzle. If one takes the radius of
the shroud r = 0.045 m, U = 2 mls and T p = 0.05 ms, one
gets Stk = 0.002. This has to be compared with the Stokes
number for 50 % collection efficiency which is reported for
circular nozzles to be Stk so = 0.24 10) . For Stokes numbers
lower than this, the collection efficiency soon becomes very
low, so that no significant collection efficiency is predicted
in the present case. It must be mentioned that these results
are only an approximation, as the relation Stk so = 0.24 is
limited to Re < 3000, where Re = 2rU/I/. In the present
case, Re = 180000 which significantly exceeds this range.
As, however, no observations of depositions at the bottom
of the tundish directly beneath the shroud have been re-
ported, and as it has been shown that simple theoretical
considerations do not predict them, it is concluded that in-
ertial impaction is not of importance in the tundish.
steel research 64 (1993) No.4
Process metallurgy
Conclusions
The numerical investigation of flow and buoyancy-driven
separation of nonmetallic particles in two completely dif-
ferent tundishes revealed significant differences in the flow
field, but only minor differences in the capability of sep-
arating particles. The calculation assumed that removal of
particles occurs only at the surface and that buoyancy is
the only mechanism of importance which moves them to
the surface. It was shown that this model makes it possible
to predict the degree of separation which can be obtained
by an optimal configuration of the flow field for a given
geometry and flow rate. In both tundishes, the calculated
separation was already very near optimum.
It is shown that the requirement for a flow field to be
optimal for buoyancy separation is only that the projection
of the region through which flow from the inlet to the out-
let mainly occurs, covers as large a part of the surface as
possible. In contrast, the volume of this region, its distance
from the surface and the mean retention time do not influ-
ence separation directly.
More experimental evidence will have to be provided in
order to check the validity of the simple model which has
been considered. In the scope of this work it is not pos-
sible to consider all the processes, which might contribute
to separation of nonmetallic particles too. It was shown,
however, that turbulent diffusion of particles or inertial im-
paction are not likely to be of importance.
(A 00751; received: 3. September 1992;
in revised form: 17. December 1992)
References
I) Kemeny. F.; McLean, A.; Meadowcroft, TR.; Young, f.D.: Proc. Con-
tinuous Casting Conf., Linz, Austria, 1984, p. 232/45.
2) Ludwig, f.e.; Tacke, K.H.: Proc. Conf. Mathematical Models for Met-
als and Materials Applications, Sulton Coldfield, England, 12-14 Oc-
3 tober 1~87, The Institute of Me~als, London 1987, p. 17.1/17.6.
) Ilegbusi, OJ.; Szekely, 1.: Castmg of Near Net Shape Products, The
Metallurgical Society, 1988.
4) Zuba, G.; Preuer, A.; Sattler, H.; Vlcek, L: Proc. CCC'90 Linz, Austria,
June 1990, p. 21.1/21.13.
5) Berg, A.e. van den: Proc. 4th Int. Phoenics User Conf., Miami, 1991,
p.51m.
~) Schiller, L.; Naumann, A.z.: Ver. Deul. lng. 77 (I~33), p. 318/20.
) Launder, B.E.; Spalding, D.B.: Computer Methods m Appl. Mech. Eng.
3 (1974), p. 269/89.
8) for reference, see e.g.: Szekely, f.; Evans, 1.w.; Sohn, Hong Young:
Gas-Solid Reactions, Academic Press, 1976.
9) Hdrkki, f.; Palander, M.: Proc. 23rd Int. Colloquium on Refractories,
Aachen, September 23-26, 1991, p. 216/38.
10) Hinds, w.e.: Aerosol Technology, Properties, Behavior, and Measure-
ment of Airborne Particles, John Wiley & Sons, 1982.
209