Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
M I C R O S T R U C T U R A L engineering is an interdisciplinary approach to the quantitative prediction of the thermal, microstructural, and mechanical property evolution
of a metal subjected to a given thermomechanical process. Recent demands on the metals industry to improve
product quality and performance, while at the same time
reducing cost, have spurred the development of this
methodology. The root of the microstructural engineering approach is imbedded in the mathematical model,
which links the basic principles of heat and mass transfer
and microstructural phenomena to the operating process.
In addition, both laboratory experiments and industrial
trials are necessary to obtain empirical and semiempirical relationships characterizing transport phenomena by which the model can be tuned to operating
variables.
In the present study, microstructural engineering has
been applied to the Stelmor cooling of steel wire rod, Ill
a process situated after the finishing stand of a rod mill
which provides controlled cooling of the steel through
the temperature range of austenite decomposition. The
process was developed to replace lead patenting, which
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
IV.
B
Cc
(E
ip
PREVIOUS W O R K - - H E A T
D
Fig. 1--Schematic diagram of the Stelmor line: (a) delivery pipe and
water boxes, (b) laying head, (c) conveyor, (d) plenum chambers,
and (e) coil forming chamber.
Ill.
TRANSFER
OT
qre = PCp
-~t
[1]
where qrR is the heat released due to the austenite decomposition reactions. This equation can be solved utilizing numerical techniques, as outlined in Part III of this
article. 09/An important aspect of the solution of Eq. [1]
is the characterization of the boundary condition at the
rod surface, which can be written as
r = ro
OT
-k-= h o v ( T s - Ta)
Or
[2]
where hov represents the overall heat-transfer coefficient. Although the Stelmor process employs forced air
to cool the steel rods, radiation from the rod surface also
contributes to the removal of heat. As a result, the overall heat-transfer coefficient must be linked to the combined effects of convection and radiation, or in equation
form:
hov = hc +
hR
[3]
Radiation heat losses from a cooling rod can be quantified by the following equation:
he = irE \ Ts
Ta /
[4]
where F is a radiation factor which accounts for the emissivity and relative geometries of the cooling body and
its surroundings while temperatures are absolute (K).
Assuming that the rod is capable of radiating unhindered
to a black body at ambient temperature, F simply reduces to e, the emissivity of the steel ( = 0 . 8 for an oxidized surfacet6]), which allows ready solution of
Eq. [4]. In an actual system, such as the Stelmor process, the value for F will depend on the geometry of the
overlapping rods, for which a simple solution is not
available in the literature. As a result, experiments, or
detailed radiative calculations, are required to determine
the radiation factor as a function of bed position and steel
temperature.
Clearly, the heat-transfer coefficient, due to convection, is the key thermal variable which must be controlled in the Stelmor process. Correlations for convective
heat transfer from cylindrical bodies in crossflow are
available in the literature for a range of cooling fluids.t7.8.9]
All of the correlations are empirical and relate the Nusselt
number (Nu) to the Reynolds number (Re) and Prandtl
number (Pr). One of the equations, as given by Kreith
and Black, E71 is
Nu = CReXpr y
[5]
V.
In order to cool steel rod under well-defined conditions in a crossflow of forced air and thereby simulate
the Stelmor process, the apparatus shown in Figure 2
was constructed. The equipment made use of a "constant
velocity duct" (CVD) at the discharge end to provide a
uniform air velocity at the rod surface, over a length of
200 mm. A 10-hp Rootes-type compressor with a rated
capacity approaching 100 1/s supplied air to the CVD,
resulting in a peak air velocity of 22 m / s . The velocity
was controlled by bleeding air from a parallel line originating at the compressor. Five vanes were mounted inside the upper zone of the CVD to facilitate uniform air
flow through the discharge end. To increase back pressure in the system and enhance the uniformity of the
velocity distribution at the bottom of the CVD, a 60-mesh
Fig. 2 - - Diagram showing test rod m position under constant velocity duct for typical laboratory rod cooling test.
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
screen was inserted 50-mm upstream of the air discharge. A pitot tube was employed to evaluate the distribution of air velocities at the discharge end of the duct.
An orifice plate situated upstream from the CVD was
calibrated against the average air velocity exiting the apparatus and was utilized to measure the air velocity for
each test. Owing to heatup of the compressor during its
operation, the air temperature was measured with a thermometer, and a mean temperature was recorded for each
cooling test.
The composition of all steel grades utilized in the laboratory and plant tests is presented in Table I. The steels
employed in the experiments were obtained from Stelco
Inc. in Hamilton, ON, Canada and are typical of plaincarbon material rolled in a rod mill. The steel grades can
be divided into three categories: (1) eutectoid or neareutectoid grades (steels A, B, and F in Table I),
(2) medium-carbon grades (steels C, D, G, and H), and
(3) lower carbon grades (steels E, I, and J). Steel
grades A through E were employed for the laboratory
experiments, while grades C and E through J were under
study in the plant trials. Table II summarizes the conditions investigated during the laboratory tests for which
four different rod diameters, between 8 and 15 mm, were
adopted and air velocities from the CVD ranged from 6
to 22 m/s. A summary of conditions in the plant trials
is presented in Table III; three rod diameters (7.5, 9.1,
and 15 mm) were examined in the tests, and two locations on the Stelmor deck were investigated, as indicated
in the table. In total, 68 tests were performed in the plant.
During the campaign, the conveyor speed ranged from
0.43 to 0.71 m / s , but for the majority (90 pct) of the
trials, it was 0.46 to 0.56 m/s.
For the laboratory tests, 350-mm lengths were cut from
the rod loops supplied by Stelco and straightened, with
some of the samples being machined down to smaller
diameters. As indicated in Figure 2, the centerline temperature in the rod samples was monitored by a thermocouple which was connected to a chart recorder (Kipp
and Zonen model BD 41) and data logger (John Fluke
Manufacturing Inc. model 2280). The method employed
for attaching the thermocouple to the rod is depicted in
Figure 3. As can be seen, two holes were drilled into
the centerline of the rod, one through which a 0.25-mmdiameter
mullite-sheathed,
CHROMEL-ALUMEL
thermocouple was introduced and the other through which
Table I.
Rod
Diameter
(mm)
A (1080)
10
B
B
B
C
C
D
E
E
15
11
8
11
8
11
11
8
(1070)
(1038)
(1037)
(1020)
Air
Velocity (m/s)
20, 18, 16, 14, 21, 20,
9, 11, 19,22
22, 16, 11, 9
22, 10, 6
22, 15, 6
22, 15, 10, 6
22, 13,6
22, 16, 12
22, 15, 13, 6
22, 12, 6
Rod
Diameter
(mm)
Number of
Center
Bed Tests
Number of
Edge
Bed Tests
C
E
F
F
G
H
I
J
15
15
9.1
7.5
9.1
7.5
9.1
7.5
7
7
4
5
4
6
6
5
4
1
3
4
3
2
2
5
a steel set screw was threaded to anchor the thermocouple junction. This arrangement provided an effective
means for ensuring good contact between the therrnocouple and the rod while minimizing disturbance of the
thermal response being measured.
The experimental technique followed for the laboratory tests, involving pitot tube and rod temperature response measurements, was repeated in the plant, at the
Stelco Hilton Works No. 2 Rod Mill, with minor changes.
For temperature response determination, thermocouples
were mounted at the rod centerline utilizing the same
technique, but longer rod lengths ( - 4 5 0 ram) were cut.
Heating of the samples was once again accomplished in
Chemical Analysis of Rod Samples Employed in Laboratory and Plant Experiments (in Weight Percent)
Grade
Code
Mn
Si
Cu
Ni
Cr
Mo
Cb
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
0.789
0.69
0.393
0.377
0.201
0.772
0.369
0.335
0.183
0.200
0.74
0.76
0.82
0.79
0.50
0.87
0.77
0.72
0.38
0.95
0.021
0.014
0.016
0.007
0.005
0.011
0.006
0.010
0.002
0.004
0.033
0.019
0.021
0.024
0.009
0.017
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.007
0.237
0.022
0.28
0.238
0.017
0.163
0.19
0.244
0.004
0.174
0.005
0.088
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.008
0.006
0.007
0.002
0.005
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.052
0.028
0.027
0.034
0.020
0.024
0.024
0.026
0.014
0.023
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.027
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
Fig. 3 - - S c h e m a t i c diagram of method employed to mount thermocouples at centerline position in rods for Stelmor simulation tests.
shell of thermobestos insulation and encased in an aluminum tube. The furnace was 690 m m in length and
designed for a peak temperature of 900 ~ operating with
a 220 V power supply. To minimize scale formation on
the test rods, a flow of nitrogen of approximately 3 to
6 1/min was maintained through the furnace. Measurement of the axial temperature profile down the furnace
showed that the 200-mm center section was isothermal
to within ---5 ~
VI.
PROCEDURE
A. Laboratory Tests
Prior to each laboratory test, the tube furnace was heated
to, and held at, the desired austenitizing temperature while
being flushed with nitrogen at a flow rate of 3 1/min.
For the medium- and high-carbon grades, an austenitizing temperature of 850 ~ was chosen, whereas for the
low-carbon grades, a temperature of 875 ~ was adopted.
Rod samples were placed in the tube furnace, and the
centerline temperature was monitored with the strip chart
recorder. Once the desired temperature had been achieved,
the samples were held for an additional 5 minutes soaking time. For the laboratory tests, the rods were then
withdrawn quickly from the furnace and placed in the
cross flow of air, as indicated in Figure 2. During coolMETALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
2773
VII.
900
......
850
0
e,....
8OO
Z}
750
r'~
7O0
E
(l)
I---
650
Steel B 1070
8-ram Dia.
22 m/s Vel.
Steel E 1020
1l-ram Dia.
6 m/s Vel.
",,/'-",,
600
550
500
20
40
60
80
100
Time (s)
Fig. 6--Typical laboratory thermal responses measured in 8-mmdiameter (steel B 1070) and 1l-ram-diameter(steel E 1020) rods cooled
with air velocities of 22 and 6 m/s, respectively.
RESULTS
A. Laboratory Tests
The results of the pitot tube measurements of the velocity profile over the length of the CVD for three orifice
plate pressure drops are shown in Figure 5. The results
confirm the essentially uniform (-+ l0 pct) air velocity
over the length of the CVD.
Two typical thermal responses measured at the centerline of a high-carbon (steel B 1070) and a low-carbon
(steel E 1020) steel rod cooled during the laboratory tests
are shown in Figure 6. Recalescence due to both the
austenite-ferrite and austenite-pearlite transformations is
evident for the 1020 grade, while recalescence due only
to the austenite-pearlite transformation is apparent for the
1070 steel. Owing to the differences in rod diameter, as
well as cooling air velocity, a significant difference between average rod cooling rates exists in the two samples. Similar results were obtained from the remainder
of the laboratory tests, and a complete report can be found
elsewhere. [~31
The cooling curves were employed to determine heattransfer coefficients as a function of rod diameter and air
30
28
26
24
22
g
-~a
o
o)
>
?<
20
18
U-Tubeah=8.8 rnrn Hg
16
14
12
10
U-TubeAh=2.7 rnm Hg
8
6
4
, , , ,
3
11
13
15
17
19
Fig, 5 - Velocity profiles for three orifice plate pressure drops. Note
the constant velocity across the width of the duct.
2774--VOLUME 22A, NOVEMBER 1991
hD
Bi = - k
[6]
where h is the heat-transfer coefficient, D is the rod diameter, and k is the thermal conductivity of the material.
In general, if Bi < 0.1, there will be a small error in
assuming negligible internal gradients for calculation of
the heat-transfer coefficients. [~4] For this condition, the
heat-transfer coefficient is given by
hov - -proC~ In
2t
LT---~-TAJ
[7]
A plot of calculated heat-transfer coefficient as a function of rod centerline temperature, employing both techniques for a cooling test on steel C (1037), is presented
in Figure 7. It may be noted that in the temperature range
from 620 ~ to 700 ~ where the austenite decomposition reactions occur, the latent heat released by the
transformations makes calculated h values meaningless.
However, it can be seen that for temperatures before and
after the transformation, little difference exists between
the heat-transfer coefficients calculated by the two methods. It is also evident that the change in the magnitude
of the overall heat-transfer coefficient as the sample cools,
~ 1 9 0 W / m 2 ~ at 800 ~ reducing to ~ 1 2 0 W / m 2 ~
at 500 ~ is due primarily to the decrease in radiative
heat transfer. Plots similar to that shown in Figure 7 were
utilized to determine the variation in overall heat-transfer
coefficient as a function of temperature for all laboratory
tests.
Comparisons between theoretically predicted and empirically calculated values for h have been made for the
laboratory data at several temperatures. Utilizing Eq. [5]
with the properties of air evaluated at the mean film temperature, as given by Kreith and Black, ~71the convective
heat-transfer coefficient was calculated from the following equation:
\ 0.466 ~
hc = 0 . 6 8 3 -
~ 1/3
[8]
\ k II
D\lx]
~"
E
t-t--
90
8o
7-
70
o
0
03
525 ~
200
180
--
1
I
I
[] Measuredh o
190
[]
Predicted h
t~
170
r
160
~E
150
o
O
140
03
c"
t-O3
7-
[]
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
0.6
0.'8
1
V 0,466
1.2
1.4
D o.534
Fig. 8 - - M e a s u r e d heat-transfer coefficient at 525 ~ for the labodiameter) ~
The
solid line is based on the combined effects of radiation and convection
300
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
'~
(1)
o
210
Test C7
280
o Finite-Difference Method
Lumped-Parameter Method
t~
t~
t~
260
240
220
9-~
O
200
[]
O 13
mO@Om0 +
[]
[]
[]
[]
160
140
120
I--
[]
100
~o
o
60
60
500
540
580
620
660
700
740
780
Temperature (~
Fig. 7--Heat-transfer coefficients calculated from measured rod
centerline temperature, utilizing both a lumped-parameter and a finitedifference technique. The results are for a steel C (1037) 8-mm-diameter
rod cooled with an air velocity of 6 m / s .
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
40
~
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
V 0.466
D 0.534
1.4
1,6
1.8
B. Plant Trials
850
800
750
......
', ~
',,
~
',,,, \\, / _ ~
--
Steel F 1080
7.5-rnm Dia.
Edge FFFF
Steel E 1020
15-mmDia.
700
280
260
~E
240
~,
220
D_
t-
E:
650
o
0
O
0
B
O
200
o :~
180
160
600
140
550
I-t~
"1-
120
500
100
80
2(3
40
6()
'
80
Time (s)
60
0.7
09
1.1
V 0.466
D 0.534
80
c~ Center of Bed Tests
~.
7O
, , m
6o
o
50
~t-
4o
F--
30
T
~
._.
20
"~
rr
10
VIII.
400
500
600
700
800
Temperature (~
Fig. 13--Calculated values for radiative heat-transfer coefficient from
the plant trials plotted against temperature. Also included is the predicted value from Eq. [4].
Ts
TA/'
[9]
Results from the plant trials have been employed to obtain the value of R for the center (Rc) and edge (RE)
position of the bed. Each is plotted in Figure 14 as a
function of rod temperature. The equations are
Rc = 2.02x-~
-~176176176
[1 1]
NOMENCLATURE
Bi
C
1.1
0.9
In this first part of a three-part paper on microstructural engineering applied to the controlled cooling
of steel rod, the question of heat transfer in the process
is addressed experimentally and theoretically. A series
of experiments, conducted in the laboratory as well as
on an operating Stelmor line, has been performed to
measure the thermal response of an instrumented steel
rod under controlled cooling conditions. Results from the
experiments were utilized to back-calculate the overall
heat-transfer coefficient, and a comparison of the measured values was made with empirical correlations. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the work:
1. The experimental technique employed for the laboratory and plant tests provided a reproducible means
for measuring the thermal response at the centerline
of a cooling rod.
2. Comparison between predicted and measured heattransfer coefficients for the laboratory tests showed
that reasonable estimates of hR and hc could be made
utilizing standard equations for laboratory conditions.
3. For an operating Stelmor line, heat-transfer coefficients reflected the radiative interaction among adjacent loops on the bed. By assuming the portion of
the overall heat-transfer coefficient due to convection
can be predicted reasonably by a published equation,
correlations for hR as a function of rod temperature
and position on the bed have been determined.
[10]
RE = 8.94x-~176176176
//~
- Predicted
D
F
h
hc
0.7
0.6
0.5
hov
hR
0.4
~
rr
O.3
k
Nu
Pr
qrR
0.2
0.1
Biot number
empirical constant used in Eq. [5]
specific heat, J kg -1 ~
rod diameter, m
radiation factor in Eq. [4]
heat-transfer coefficient, W m -2 ~ t
heat-transfer coefficient due to convection,
W m -2 ~
0.8
u_
~
- - ' r ~ - ' ~ r ~ - - - ~ r - - ~
400
500
600
r
700
800
Temperature (~
Fig. 14--Radiation correction factor for center and edge of bed plotted against temperature. Lines are calculated from the regression
equations for both parameters (Eqs. [10] and [11]).
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A
ro
R
Rc
RE
Re
t
TA
To
T~
x
Y
P
o
8
/z
v
Reynolds number
time, s
temperature, K or ~
ambient temperature, K or ~
initial temperature, K or ~
surface temperature, K or ~
empirical constant used in Eq. [5] and
symbol denoting undercooling, ~ in
Eqs. [10] and [11]
empirical constant used in Eq. [5]
density, kg m -3
Stefan-Boltzman constant,
5.6710 -8 W m -2 K - 4
emissivity
kinematic viscosity, m 2 s -1
air velocity, m s -1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada for support
of research expenses. The University of British Columbia
awarded a University Fellowship, while the Cy and
Emerald Keyes Foundation provided a scholarship to P.C.
Campbell. The cooperation of Steltech and Stelco Steel
in organizing the plant trials is deeply appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. J.K. Brimacombe, E.B. Hawbolt, I.V. Samarasekera, P.C.
Campbell, and C. Devadas: in Proc. Thermec "88, I. Tamura,
ed., Iron and Steel Institute of Japan, Tokyo, pp. 783-90.
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS A