STUDYING THE POSSIBILITY OF USING COHERENT TYPE NOZZLES FOR BOF BLOWING AT THE GAS DYNAMIC SIMULATION STAND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The BOF technology is the leading one in the production of structural steel due to its undeniable advantages.Problem Statement. In the conditions of most Ukrainian converter shops, when the blowing parameters change significantly during the campaign (temperature of the lining, dimensions of the workspace, quality of scrap metal, temperature and composition of iron), and the bath is blown at a constant flow rate with conventional Laval nozzles, sometimes it is impossible to ensure a stable purging process with high rate of post-combustion of CO up to CO2. Therefore, one of the main problems of oxygen conversion is the improvement of the designs of blowing devices, in particular, the nozzles.Purpose. The purpose of this research is to study the possibility of using nozzles of the coherent type for the top oxygen blowing of the converter.Material and Methods. In the research, we have used samples of coherent-design laboratory nozzles having different central part-to-periphery ratio under fixed equal general conditions of jet output (percentage of the annular gap to the total area of the nozzle, %: 75, 65, 50, 45, 35, 25). They have been studied by calculating the jet momentum, through weighing and taking shadow shots when the gas flow velocity reaches 2 M. The results have been compared with those for the cylindrical nozzle.Results. When the gas is supplied at 2 M, the coherent-type nozzles with a fraction of the outer part of 65—75% contribute to the formation of 1.5—1.6 times wider jets as compared with the cylindrical nozzle, with a multinode structure. It helps to increase the jet momentum by 45—55%.Conclusions. The design of a coherent type nozzle with an outer part share of 75% can be recommended to be used as the second tier or the second level nozzles of the top oxygen lance for post-combustion in an oxygen converter due to an increase in the surface area of the jet contact. The efficiency of post-combustion of CO from waste converter gases is expected to increase due to the increasing reaction surface area of additional oxygen jets.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".