The Effect of Mould Flux Properties on Thermo-mechanical Behaviour during Billet Continuous Casting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During continuous casting mould powder forms a pool of liquid flux which infiltrates into the solidifying shell/mould gap and forms a flux film containing liquid and/or solid layers. Subsequent crystallisation of the film results in the formation of an air gap at the mould wall. An air gap can also be formed by the shrinkage of the solidified shell. In practise, no air gap is formed by shell shrinkage in the upper mould since molten flux will flow immediately into and fill any gap formed. However, in the lower mould, if the shell temperature falls below the break temperature of the flux there is no liquid to fill any gap formed by shell shrinkage and hence an air gap can form. A model was developed which determines the effect of the various layers (including the air gap) on the horizontal heat transfer between shell and mould. A fully coupled, heat transfer/stress analysis was used to calculate: (i) the thickness of the various layers of the flux film; (ii) horizontal heat flux; and (iii) the resultant stress in the solidified shell.The model predicted that: (a) the hoop stress increased as the interfacial thermal resistance decreases (i.e. the heat flux increases); (b) the maximum hoop stress at the exit decreased with increasing flux film thickness; (c) the ferro-static pressure tended to hinder the formation of an air gap at mid-face positions whereas in the corners the thicker shell tended to counteract the ferro-static pressure resulting in air gap formation; (d) the thickness of the liquid film at various positions in the mould was computed for fluxes with optimum break temperatures to determine if they provided liquid lubrication throughout the mould; and (e) the maximum stress occurred in the corner when casting with mould fluxes but at the mid-face when using oil.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".