Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DeYoung
TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society), 2008
Abstract
Transient heat transfer models of the single-wheel meltspinning process are developed and applied to quantify the
effect of process variables including interface depressions on
solidification, temperature evolution, thickness variations, and
surface depressions in the cast product. Firstly, a transient
one-dimensional heat-transfer model of the melt-spinning
process called STRIP1D was developed for Al -7% Si strips
on a Cu-Be substrate and validated. Next, transient two- and
three-dimensional heat-transfer solidification models of the
process were developed and validated using the STRIP1D
model. The models have then been used to understand the
effect of process conditions including casting speed, puddle
length (length of contact zone), gap height, superheat and
interfacial depressions (gaps) on heat transfer in the strip, with
the help of experimental measurements from a pilot caster in
Cornell. The effects of interfacial boron nitride deposits and
air gaps were quantified by measuring and modeling
longitudinal and transverse surface depressions observed on
the wheel-side surface of the strip. Interfacial depressions
decrease heat conduction to the wheel and thereby cause
surface depressions on the opposite side of the strip. The
predicted depression shapes match well with experimental
measurements. The control of surface depressions in the
melt-spinning process could enable strip casting with
imprinted textured surfaces.
Liquid side
Wheel side
50 mm
Casting direction, Vc
5 mm
~ 5mm
I. Introduction
Longitudinal depression
(continuous cylindrical trench)
Wavy transverse
surface depressions
Liquid side
Wheel side
793
y
z
Nozzle
Metal Entry
Downstream Meniscus
P
B
D
G
Crucible
Zone I
Nozzle
Contact zone
Zone III
(T 3)
Strip
Strip
Detachment
Ts
Upstream
Meniscus
Zone II
Zone III
Vc
12.7 mm
Zone I (T 1)
Zone II (T 2)
100mm
Plates
24"
Copper-Beryllium
Wheel
794
A. Model Description
A two-dimensional steady-state fluid-flow and heat-transfer
model was used to obtain the velocity and temperature
distribution in the liquid pool by solving the Navier Stokes
equations, k- turbulence model, and energy balance
equations using the SIMPLE finite-volume algorithm with
FLUENT. The domain includes the entire length and shape of
the liquid pool, which was measured from a video recording
of the process. The domain, process, and boundary conditions
are shown in Fig. 3(a) and Table 1.
795
630
680 690
660 670
710
vN
710
690
680
620
vz=vr=0, T=714oC
714
670
660
650
630
640
~ 620
~
~
Strip-wheel interface
inlet
80
s0 = 0.215mm results using fluid-flow model
Ceramic Wall
G
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
B. Model Results
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.012
Distance, z (mm)
0.015
A. STRIP1D Model:
STRIP1D is a one-dimensional
transient heat-transfer model that solves the following Fourier
heat conduction equation[37].
2
Fig 4 shows the heat flux profile output along the interface
between the liquid and the solidification mushy zone. This
heat flux profile is input as superheat flux into the STRIP1D
Model which is discussed in the next section. The superheat
flux is a direct function of casting speed[33], superheat
temperature[33], and strip thickness. Assuming that the curve
shape is relatively independent of puddle length, the effect of
changes to these four casting conditions on the superheat flux
c p
2T k T k T
T
+
=k 2 +
+Q
r r t r
r
t
(1)
796
The process is at steady state, including the fluidflow pattern and resulting superheat distribution
along the solidification front.
There is no relative motion between the strip and
wheel
Heat loss across the width of the strip ( y direction
as in Fig 2) is negligible
Circumferential heat conduction in both the wheel
and strip along the casting direction is negligible, as
the Peclet number, Pe, is large.
Strip thickness remains the same after it exits the
liquid puddle at the end of zone I.
The mushy zone moves with the wheel at the
casting speed without any change in shape.
hgap
h0
1
= 10 4 3
h0
> t > 10 4
t 10 4
tdet ach
and h0 is given by
h0 = 225G
GAP/ Wheel-strip
interface - hgap
Tsn
qsn
wn
1
Tamb
sf
s(f+1)
sn
rw
qamb
qwn
Twn
(4)
Cu-Be wheel
w(i +1)
wi
w(i -1)
rs
Solid strip
qsup
Aluminum strip
s(i -1)
si
s(i +1)
Liquid strip
z, t
Tliq +T
(3)
(6)
Zone III (Non-contact Zone): After exiting Zone II, the parts
of the domain representing the solid strip and the wheel are
mathematically separated. Thus, this zone consists of the rest
of the wheel and the detached portion of the strip.
797
(7)
(8)
c p
2 T 2T
T
= k 2 + 2 + Q
t
y
r
(9)
y
z
Symmetry planes
qsup = f (t)
mm
50
w
L
s
Casting direction
w = 0.25 mm
L= 2.0 mm
hgap = f (t)
(10)
104
hgap ( z , t )(kW / m 2 K ) = 225G (mm)
tlocal
tlocal > 104
798
0.33
(11)
y
z
qsup = f (z,t)
Liquid side
Casting direction
Symmetry plane
Symmetry plane
w
0.1 mm
Wheel side
w = 0.25 mm
L = 2.5 mm
b = 0.05 mm
= 5 mm = 2L
hgap = f (t,z)
(spacing between
depressions =2b)
799
Gap, G (mm)
0.6
G = -0.0879t + 0.8707
0.8
G= -0.0833t + 0.7843
0.4
Experimental measurements (Steen et al, 2007)
High points
Low points
0.2
0
0
Time, t (sec)
80
100
Zone III
Zone II
fs :Solid fraction
Hot Face
us
fs :0
.8
fs :0
.5
0.05
Cold Face
0
0.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
Time (ms)
12.0
1.5
2.5
Sol
id
0.1
fs :0
.3
id u s
0.15
0.2
L iq u
Zone I
Puddle
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.05
Distance (mm)
60
0.1
time (sec)
40
0.15
20
0.2
0.25
15.0
800
CR =
(Tliq Tsol )
tsol
600
550
Zone II
Zone I
500
0.0030
0.0060 0.0090
Time (sec )
0.0120
(13)
650
5
Experimental measurements (Byrne et al , 2007)
SDAS ( m)
650
450
0.0000
(12)
= 5(4.9tsol )0.333
700
Shell temperature ( C)
STRIP1D prediction
625
t=0 ms
600
I exit
Zone
t=6 ms
575
t= 10 ms
550
it
Zone II ex
t= 13.6 ms
525
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Distance (r) from Cold face (mm)
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
801
.
F. Wheel temperatures: To evaluate the wheel temperature
predictions, the temperature profile 2mm below the wheel
surface was used to predict the thermocouple temperature
with the aid of an additional model of the thermocouple[34].
The results in Fig 13 show excellent agreement with the
experimental measurements for all ten casting cycles.
Cycle # 5
150
150
Experimental TC temperature measurements (Steen et al, 2007)
STRIP1D predicted temperature 2 mmbelowwheel surface
130
130
Zone III
110
110
90
90
70
70
50
50
30
30
1.09 1.19 1.29
3
4
Time (sec)
Zones I &II
Wheel Outer
surface
Wheel Inner
surface
The wheel heats up each cycle and never reaches steady state.
The hot face where heat is input naturally reaches high
temperatures very fast. Heat is extracted from the strip
mainly by the cold thermal mass of the wheel, which heats up
monotonically only a little each cycle. The increase in wheel
temperature decreases with each passing cycle because the
initial heat transfer coefficient h0, decreases with cycle owing
to the general decrease in gap height during the cast. Because
air cooling of the wheel is very small, there is a limit to the
number of cycles possible before the wheel becomes too hot
to solidify any strip.
The STRIP1D-predicted wheel temperatures match well with
the measurements while the strip is contact with the wheel.
During this time, there are steep temperature gradients in the
wheel and only the surface layer of the wheel is heated (see
Fig 13). The wheel acts almost like a semi-infinite domain
and its thickness is not very important. Once there is no more
metal-substrate contact, however, internal temperature
gradients subside as the wheel undergoes only ambient
cooling. The predicted temperature no longer matches the TC
measurement. This is because the heat transfer coefficient
during this period (hamb) is very small (25 W/m2K). This
drops the Biot number, internal temperature gradients subside,
and the wheel behaves as a lumped system. The cooling rate
in this regime increases in cases of less thermal mass. Since
the thickness of the wheel near the thermocouple is only 2mm
thick (owing to the hole drilled to place the thermocouple),
the cooling rate near that region increases. This results in a
faster rate of cooling measured by the thermocouple, relative
to elsewhere in the wheel. Thus, the predictions are no longer
expected to match the measurements.
0.35
Experimental observation
Model predictions using actual casting conditions
Model predictions varying casting speed only
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
5
10
802
2P
(15)
s = a
G
2
Vc
Further setting the constant a=1[31], and substituting the values
for pressure head, P, Vc, and density, , from Case 43 gives
(14)
s = 0.273G
Experimental observation
Predictions using STRIP1D
only PL =f(G)
only h 0 =f(G)
PL & h 0 =f(G)
s=0.273G, Steen et al
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Gap height, G (mm)
(16)
0.8
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
Experimental observation
Predictions using STRIP1D
Vary PL only
PL & h0=f(G)
0.1
0.05
0
9
11
13
15
17
19
803
starting from the top right of the solid line in Fig 16.
However, towards the end of cast, the smaller gap height
lowers the heat transfer coefficient greatly, while only slightly
decreasing the strip thickness. The net effect is that the puddle
length must increase to allow time for this strip thickness to
solidify. This effect is captured by the end of the solid line in
Fig 16, where the puddle length increases for gap heights less
than 0.37mm. The shortest puddle length is 10.45 mm[40].
This indicates that the puddle length is dictated by the heat
transfer and the strip thickness, both of which are determined
by the gap height.
insulated
0.25 mm
0.215 mm
Liquid side
100
No depression
0.2
Zone I
Liquidus
Zone II
0.15
At depression
0.1
Solidus
0.05
0.003
0.006
0.009
Time (s )
Solidification
front
0.012
growth
0.015
profile
Zone II: q =0
Al-7% Si elements
0.25
Figure 18:
(BN case)
80
0.3
0
0.000
distance (mm)
40
60
0.35
20
BN elements
0.001 x 0.001 mm
804
Temperature (oC)
Along A
Along B
620
6.1 oC
610
BN gap
600
Strip thickness, s = 0.215 mm
590
to 407oC
t=2.36 ms
580
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Distance (mm)
0.215m
0.216m
610
0.037 mm
0.378 mm
604
594
590
0.023 mm
5 mm
2.5 mm
0.25mm
0.05 mm
B
A
C
0.023mm
0.15mm
614
0.3 mm
0.1 mm
0.25 mm
Strip length
0.25 mm
FRONT VIEW
Strip width
584
t=2.36 ms
805
r
y
614
183 m
612
610
608
602
50 m
592
598
4
9
5
t = 2.27 ms
A
Figure 22: Temperature Contours through the strip at
Zone
I
exit
showing
transverse
depression
(Air gap case)
r
Re
ST
a li
RI
ty
P1
D
I : Inversely proportional
time
Substrate
texture
Puddle length
614
612
610
608
592 594
602
598
0.183 mm
0. 250 mm
Strip thickness
D : Directly proportional
Casting speed
I
Superheat
0.185 mm
Flow rate
Puddle
Gap height
Pressure Head
Reservoir
t = 2.27 ms
Flow rate
s
Reservoir
IX. Discussion
Flow rate
Superheat
Substrate
texture
Casting speed
I
I
D
Strip thickness
time
I
D: Directly proportional
I : Inversely proportional
Puddle length
806
X. Proposed Mechanism
XI. Conclusions
807
hgap
h0
1
= 10 4 3
h0
4
> t > 10
t 10 4
tdet ach
experimental
References
1. H. H. Liebermann, "Ribbon-Substrate Adhesion Dynamics
in Chill Block Melt-Spinning Processes", Metall. Mater.
Trans. B, vol. 15 (1) (1984), pp. 155-161.
2. R. E. Maringer, "Solidification on a Substrate", Mater. Sci.
Eng., vol. 98 (1988), pp. 13-20.
3. S.Kavesh, " Metallic Glasses", ASM, J. H. Gilman and H.
J. Leamy, eds.,Metals Park, OH, 1978, pp. 36-73.
4. M. Bussmann, J. Mostaghimi, D. W. Kirk and J. W.
Graydon, "A numerical study of steady flow and
temperature fields within a melt spinning puddle", Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 45 (19) (2002), pp. 3997-4010.
5. J. K. Carpenter and P. H. Steen, "Heat transfer and
solidification in planar-flow melt-spinning: High
wheelspeeds", Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 40 (9)
(1997), pp. 1993-2007.
6. C. J. Byrne, E. A. Theisen, B. L. Reed and P. H. Steen,
"Capillary puddle vibrations linked to casting-defect
formation in planar-flow melt spinning", Metall. Mater.
Trans. B, vol. 37 (3) (2006), pp. 445-456.
7. T.J.Praisner, "Experimental study of process behavior in
planar flow melt spinning", Metall. Mater. Trans. B, vol. 26
(1995), pp. 1199-208.
8. J. S. J. Chen, R. C. Ren and A. A. Tseng, "Interface HeatTransfer in Metal Casting on a Moving Substrate", J.Mater.
Proc. Manufac. Sci., vol. 3 (4) (1995), pp. 373-386.
9. J. K. Carpenter and P. H. Steen, "Planar-Flow Spin-Casting
of Molten Metals - Process Behavior", Journal of Materials
Science, vol. 27 (1) (1992), pp. 215-225.
10. J. P. Papai and C. E. Mobley, "Int. Symp. on Casting of
Near Net Shape Products", TMS, Y.Sahai, J.E.Battles,
R.S.Carbonara and C.E.Mobley, eds.,Warrendale, PA,
1988, pp. 79-90.
11. S. C. Huang and H. C. Fiedler, "Effects of Wheel Surface
Conditionson on Casting of Amorphous Metal Ribbons",
Metall. Mater. Trans. B, vol. 12 (6) (1981), pp. 1107-1112.
12. P. H. Steen and A. H. Hirsa, "New Technologies for the
Environment: Environmentally Benign Manufacturing
Casting by design", (2002).
13. P.H. Steen, B.G. Thomas and S. Baker, "Collaborative
Research: Contacting and Solidification in Casting-byDesign", (2005), vol. MPM # DMI0423791, pp. T/BGT/124.
14. P. H. Steen, U.S Patent 7,082,986 2006.
808
809
Name
Validation Case
Case 43
BN
(standard)
Case
1.5
0.74
0.78
0.63
23. 3
16.6
16.6
20.1
77.9
79.5
63.7
6.23
7.02
7.02
8.85
Ts = Superheat: (K)
100
100
100
100
3.74
2.36
2.36
2.27
170
166.5
175.5
141.7
0.233
0.206
0.215
0.183
(4.39,0)
(3.13,14.7)
(3.13,15)
(3.13,12)
h0
Interfacial
heat
transfer
coefficient
(kW/m K)
s = Strip thickness (mm)
o
Angles 1, 2 ( )
Table 1 : Process conditions for different cases
810