Stirring velocity effectiveness of two- and three-phase EMS for small to medium cross section billets and blooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To use an experimentally calibrated turbulent flow model to determine whether two- and three-phase electromagnetic stirrers provide equivalent stirring when continuously casting steel billets and blooms. Design/methodology/approach The results obtained in this paper were obtained by using a 3D quasistatic electromagnetic model to obtain the Lorentz forces that act on the liquid steel. A computationally efficient method was used to account for the effect of the conducting fluid motion on the forces. A 3D turbulent flow model that incorporated Reynolds stresses and high order upwinding was used to predict the fluid flow. The model has been calibrated using the experimental data. Findings The paper shows that for square and rectangular cross section casting moulds, having inside dimensions of 140 × 140 mm and 140 × 196 mm, respectively, a two-phase electromagnetic stirrer consistently produces stirring velocities that are 12-15 percent below those produced by an equivalent three-phase design. Research limitations/implications The impact on the fluid entering the casting mould through the submerged nozzle has been neglected. The model should be further developed to consider this important factor. Practical implications A two-phase stirrer is much more compact than the equivalent three-phase design, and since space is at a premium in the vicinity of the casting mould, being able to use a compact design is desirable. The two-phase design was long believed to produce inferior stirring due to the negative impact of electromagnetic space harmonics. This paper shows that for the range of mould dimensions considered in the paper, there is a good trade-off between the compact two-phase design and the slightly lower stirring velocities that result. Originality/value The paper presents the first quantitative comparison between two- and three-phase electromagnetic stirrers that illustrates, in a practical sense, the stirring effectiveness of each approach. The paper will be of value to users of this equipment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".