A Comparative Experimental and Numerical Study to

Investigate the Relative Merits of Convectors and

‘‘C’’ Inserts in Cooling Cold-Rolled Coils
TATHAGATA BHATTACHARYA, DEBADI CHAKRABORTY, and VIKAS SINGH

The coil cooling and storage unit (CCSU) is used to cool cold-rolled coils to the temper rolling
temperature after the annealing cycle is over at the batch annealing furnace (BAF) in a cold rolling
mill (CRM). In the CCSU, the coils are kept on the cooling bases for any fixed time irrespective of the
grade and tonnage. Therefore, the need for a mathematical model to accurately predict the cooling
time of the coils was felt. The current study involves experimental and numerical analysis of a stack of
coils with respect to heat transfer and fluid flow. A comparative study was carried out to ascertain the
relative merits of convectors and ‘‘C’’ inserts (CIs) in the cooling the coils. The air flow distribution
for the case of different convectors and CIs was measured by means of a full scale physical model.
Two different mathematical models were applied to model the fluid flow and flow distribution through
the stack of coils. The first flow model uses the hydraulic resistance concept for estimating the air flow
rate distribution, whereas the second flow model uses commercial computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) software and predicts the velocity distribution in the flow path between two coils in a stack.
The predictions from these two models compare well with the experimental data. The flow models
were used to calculate the average heat-transfer coefficient in different flow passages in a stack. The
heat-transfer coefficients thus obtained were used to tune and validate a two-dimensional transient
heat-transfer model of coils. The heat-transfer model predicts the cooling time of coils accurately and
also suggests a possible reduction of cooling time if CIs are used in place of convectors.

I. INTRODUCTION
COLD-ROLLED coils are annealed in the batch anneal-
ing furnace (BAF) for obtaining the desired properties and
mechanical strength to render the cold-rolled sheets ame-
nable to subsequent forming operations (e.g., deep drawing
of auto body parts). In the BAF, the coils are stacked inside
a furnace and annealed for long hours (40 to 50 hours) in a
hydrogen atmosphere. There are three stages in the anneal-
ing cycle, namely, heating, soaking, and cooling. The coils
are heated to a temperature of 720 °C and kept for soaking
at that temperature for a certain time before they are cooled
at a slower rate first (up to 500 °C) and then at a faster rate
using a bypass cooling system until the hot spot (core) of
the coils reaches 160 °C.
It is the coil cooling and storage unit (CCSU) in which
the coils are made to pass through a final cooling step so
that the hot spot temperature comes down to around 50 °C.
Thereafter, the coils may be taken to the skin pass mill
(SPM) for final property and surface finish compliance.
In the CCSU, identical coil stacks are built after finishing
the cooling cycle on the annealing bases at the BAF. Figure
1(a) shows a typical stack configuration for a CCSU base
with four coils. The first coil of the stack is placed on a
bottom convector plate (CP). An intermediate convector
plate is placed between each two coils of a stack. A top
convector plate is placed above the top coil of a stack.
These three types of convector plates normally have differ-
ent designs. For example, the base convectors have 16 short
and equal numbers of long fins on each side, whereas the
intermediate convectors may have 20 short and long fins
each on both sides. The top convectors, on the other hand,
have 16 long fins only on one side with the fin thickness
nearly double those of the previous two types. Figure 1(b)
shows the top view of a typical base convector plate.
The stacking as well as the destacking of coils is a time-
consuming process, which may take 30 to 45 minutes for a
single stack depending upon the number of coils. In order
to reduce the time loss during stacking and destacking, the
intermediate convectors can be replaced by ‘‘C’’ inserts
(CIs). Figure 2(a) shows a CI with typical dimension. The
arrangement of CIs is such that between two coils, there are
four CIs at diametrically opposite locations making a 90
deg angular distance (refer to Figure 2(b) for arrangement).
The present work investigates the effect of using CIs on the
cooling time of coils in CCSU as compared to the practice
with convectors by predicting the cooling time of coils.
Cooling of the coils is done by passing dehumidified air
from the bottom of the stack through the eyes of the coils
and the convector plates (or the CIs). After stacking, each
stack is covered by a single hood in order to collect the
dehumidified air that has passed the convectors or CIs. To
avoid oxidation of the outer layers, the relative humidity of
the recirculated air for cooling the coils has to be less than
29 pct.

II. METHODOLOGY
TATHAGATA BHATTACHARYA, DEBADI CHAKRABORTY, and
VIKAS SINGH, Researchers, are with Research and Development, Tata A. Overview
Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, PIN 831001, India. Contact e-mail:
tathabhatt@yahoo.com Extensive work[1–18] has been carried out on the process
Manuscript submitted September 2, 2005. of batch annealing furnaces, but there appears to be very

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006—1015

Fig. 1—(a) Typical CCSU stack arrangement with convectors between the coils. CIs can also be kept in place of the intermediate convectors. (b) Top view of
the base convector of a CCSU stack. The dotted line shows the peripheral locations where velocity measurements were carried out in the physical model.
Fig. 2—(a) Different views of a CI used in CCSU. (b) The radial arrange-
ment of the CIs on the top surface of a coil. Another coil sits on top of
these CIs, making a passage for the air in between two coils. All dimen-
sions are in millimeters.
1016—VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006
little literature available for CCSU, because the heat-trans-
fer process is somewhat similar to the BAF. The present
work involves experimental and numerical analysis of heat
transfer and fluid flow in a stack of coils. The analysis was
employed to compare the effectiveness of convectors and
CIs in cooling the coils. The heat-transfer model was used
to predict the cooling time of coils. The air flow distribution
for the case of different convectors and CIs was estimated
by means of a full scale physical model in which velocity
measurements were carried out. A flow model using the so-
called hydraulic resistance concept was developed for esti-
mating the flow distribution through convectors or CIs. A
commercial CFD package, Fluent,[19] was employed to
obtain the velocity distribution through the flow passages
of convectors and CIs. The actual velocity measurements
were compared with the CFD simulation. The information
from the flow models was used to calculate the average
heat-transfer coefficients for a coil. The heat-transfer coef-
ficients were used to tune and validate the heat-transfer
model. Plant trials were conducted to record the temper-
ature of a particular point of a coil with time when CIs were
used. The prediction of cooling time from the heat-transfer
model was compared with the measurements from the
plant trials.
B. Experimental Measurement of Flow Distribution
The estimation of the distribution of flow exiting each of
the convectors and CIs has been obtained from measure-
ments on a full scale physical model. The experimental
setup consists of four identical coils stacked on a bottom
convector. The coils have been made from plywood board
with scrap cold-rolled sheets as the inner and outer cylin-
drical surfaces. The convector plates have also been fabri-
cated from plywood board, and the fins have been made
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
from wood with very high surface finish so as to offer the
same flow resistance as that of the actual convectors made
up of weldable steel plates. The equivalent roughnesses of
galvanized sheet steel and plywood are comparable (0.12 to
0.15).[20] The fabrication using plywood and wood made
the coils and the convectors lighter and easy to handle.
The CIs are also fabricated from wood with dimensions
as shown in Figure 2(a). The experimental setup has been
shown in Figure 3(a) with actual dimensions.
The air flow was supplied from a blower through pipe,
which was fitted at the bottom chamber of the stack. A
grate was placed at the eye of the bottom convector to make
the flow uniform when it passed through the first convector
and coil. The flow delivered by the blower was calculated
from the difference of water column in a ‘‘U’’-tube man-
ometer. The cover on the stack is fitted with small windows
at different heights in order to access the convectors and the
CIs during velocity measurements. At each level, there
were six windows. Velocity measurements were carried
out through these windows using a vane-type anemometer
at peripheral locations of a coil on the convector plate (refer
to Figure 1(b) for measurement locations) and also periph-
erally in the gap between two coils when CIs were used.
Fig. 3—(a) Experimental setup of the physical model with convectors. CIs
were also kept in place of the intermediate convectors. (b) The various
resistances offered by different flow paths in a stack with four coils. (c)
The flow resistance network to estimate flow through different convectors
for a four coil stack. All dimensions are in millimeters.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
The measurements were taken for three different flow rates
each for convectors and CIs. In the case of intermediate
convectors, the velocities were measured for both sides of
the convector plate along the periphery of the coils. The
average velocity was calculated at a particular convector or
CI, and the average flow was then calculated from the flow
area. For intermediate convectors, the average flow was
calculated by taking the mean of the average flows of both
sides of the convector plate.
C. Estimation of Flow Distribution Using
Hydraulic Resistance
A flow model was developed for predicting the flow
distribution through convector plates using the hydraulic
resistance concept. The various resistances offered by var-
ious flow paths such as diverging slots between two radial
fins on the convector plate and the tube-like part at the inner
surface of coils have been shown in Figure 3(b) using dif-
ferent shades. The resistance network thus formed has been
depicted in Figure 3(c).
The following relations have been used with some mod-
ifications for the resistances[21] offered by different flow
paths.
(a) For flow through the tube region of the coil, i.e., for
resistances R2, R4, R6, and R8 in this case,
 

 Pin
R ¼ ð128mLÞ ðpD4 Þ [1]
P
where m 5 viscosity of air flowing, L 5 length of flow path,
D 5 hydraulic diameter of flow path, Pin 5 pressure at inlet
to the flow path, and P 5 average pressure of the flow
path 5 [(Pin 1 Pout)/2].
(b) For flow on the convectors, the resistance equation
for the rectangular cross section has been used in approx-
imation.
Therefore, resistances R1, R3, R5, and R7 can be calcu-
lated from the equation
h
iP 
2 in
R ¼ a ðCmLÞ ðknA YÞ [2]
P
where a 5 a tuning parameter; C 5 a constant (=2824.859,
if all parameters are in SI units); m 5 viscosity of air
flowing; L 5 length of flow path; k 5 1 for base convector,
2 for intermediate convectors; n 5 number of long fins on
one side of convector plate; A 5 average cross sectional
area of the flow path; Y 5 correction factor for height-to-
width ratio of the flow path cross section, e.g., Y 5 1 for
square cross section;[21] Pin 5 pressure at inlet to the flow
path; and P 5 average pressure of the flow path 5 [(Pin 1
Pout)/2].
In reality, the flow path between two fins is a diverging
slot obstructed by a midbar (short fin), as shown in Figure
1(b). The tuning parameter a differs for base and intermedi-
ate convectors, and is used for tuning the model with data
sets obtained from the flow measurements in the physical
model since the original equations are ideal for laminar
flow with regular geometries. The P for any flow path has
been calculated by the iterative method using the correction
from the previous iteration. It may be noted that the resist-
ance of the cylindrical tube of the coils is far less than that
VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006—1017
of the resistances through the convectors. Therefore, the
minimum pressure drop occurs through the inner cylindri-
cal core formed by the stack of coils, and it will be shown
in Section IV that the maximum flow leaves through the top
convector since air flow takes the least resistant path. The
mathematical model for CIs can also be developed similarly.
D. Estimation of Velocity Distribution using CFD
A commercial CFD software package (FLUENT)[19] has
been used to predict the velocity profiles inside the flow
passage through different convectors and CIs under steady-
state conditions. This program is a finite volume code, which
uses a cell-centered, nonstaggered grid. The Reynolds-
averaged Navier–Stokes equations and the transport equa-
tions of the turbulent quantities are solved by the pressure
correction algorithm SIMPLE[22] (semi-implicit method for
pressure-linked equation). In the current study, the fluid is
considered as incompressible. The fluid properties are
assumed to be constant. The governing equations as given
by Eqs. [3] and [4] describe the flow through the flow
passage between two coils in a stack.
Mass Conservation:
where Pk represents the shear production term:
 
@U i @Uj @U i
Pk ¼ nt 1 [9]
@xj @xi @xj
With the exception of the low-Reynolds number k-e
models, the damping functions f1, f2, and f3 are equal to
one. The model coefficients in the standard k-e model are
given subsequently:

Cm ,C1 ,C2 ,sm ,se 5 ð0:09,1:44,1:92,1:0,1:3Þ [10]
A detailed description of this model can be found in Launder
and Spalding.[23]
Figures 4(a) and (b) show the computational domain for
convectors and CIs, respectively. The geometry was
meshed using structured hexahedron cells. No slip boun-
dary conditions were used for the walls specified by the top
and bottom coils and also for the side walls of convector
fins and CIs. In the case of convectors, the outer surfaces of
the included T-shaped short fins are also considered for no-
slip boundary conditions. The air flow rate was specified at
the inlet and ambient pressure was applied as the outlet
boundary condition.

@U j E. Heat-Transfer Modeling and Temperature

50 [3] Measurement of Coils
@xj
The spatial and temporal thermal profile of any coil is
Momentum conservation: obtained through the heat balance of the control volume
method in the cylindrical coordinate. A computer program
  was written for the same. Owing to the cylindrical symme-
@U j U i 1 @p @ @U i
¼
1 n
ui uj [4] try of the coils, only the rz plane is analyzed. It is assumed
@xj r @xi @xj @xj
that there is no temperature gradient in the u direction.
where ui uj is the unknown Reynolds stresses. Convective boundary conditions have been used at the four
The standard k-e model was used to model the turbulent
flow field. In this model, two entities that are used for
describing turbulence are introduced: the specific kinetic
turbulent energy k and its dissipation e. For both entities,
differential transport equations are introduced, which are
solved in addition to the other Eqs. [3] and [4]. Using the
Boussinesq hypothesis, the Reynolds stresses can be
described as follows:
 
@U i @U j 2

ui uj ¼ nt 1
kdij [5]
@xj @xi 3

the eddy (turbulent) viscosity vt is obtained from

k2
n t ¼ Cm f m [6]
e
The kinetic turbulent energy k and its dissipation e are
determined using the following transport equations, respec-
tively:
  
@U j k @ nt @k
5 n1 1 Pk
e [7]
@xj @xj sk @xj

   Fig. 4—(a) The geometry of the divergent flow passage between two long
@U j e @ nt @e e fins on the convector plate. The obstructing midbar and short fins (making
5 n1 1 ðC1 f 1 Pk
C2 f 2 eÞ [8] a T shape) could also be seen in the figure. (b) The geometry of the flow
@xj @xj se @xj k passage between two CIs separated radially by 90 deg on top of a coil.

1018—VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

boundaries, i.e., at the in, out, top, and bottom surfaces of
the coil. The grid arrangement along with a typical heat
balance for any internal node (control volume) has been
shown in Figure 5. It should be noted that there are nodes
at the surface (half node), corner (quarter node), and at the
interior (full node). The alternating-direction implicit
(ADI)[15,24] method was used for obtaining the sets of linear
algebraic equations. In ADI formulation, heat flows in the
r direction for half of the time-step, and it flows in the
z direction for the other half. The resulting linear algebraic
equations are solved by the tri-diagonal matrix algorithm
(TDMA).
A suitable Initial temperature profile (i.e., at time t 5 0)
of the coil has been used because the coils have a temper-
ature gradient owing to the thermal history at the BAF. Two
thermal conductivities have been used, Kr and Kz, for radial
and axial directions, respectively. The main barrier to trans-
forming heat from the coils is the low radial thermal con-
ductivity, which depends upon the sheet thickness and air
gap between sheets. The radial conductivity varies from
5 to 12 pct of the axial conductivity.[16] The low radial
thermal conductivity decreases production rates and causes
high thermal gradients in the steel coils. The simulations
were performed with a time-step of 100 seconds, and 51
nodes were used in both the r and z directions after check-
ing for the grid and time-step independency.
Empirical correlations have been used to determine
the heat-transfer coefficients at the inner, outer, top, and
bottom surfaces of the coils. The heat-transfer coefficient
is defined by
NuK g
h5
Dh
Fig. 5—(a) Cross section of a coil showing different nodes and the nomen-
clature adopted for the mathematical model. (b) A typical interior element
(I,J) and the heat balance for the volume element.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
where Nu is the Nusselt number, Kg is the thermal conduc-
tivity of fluid (i.e., air), and Dh is the hydraulic diameter of
the flow passage defined by 4(area/perimeter). The heat-
transfer coefficient at the inner surface has been obtained
from the following Nusselt number correlation (due to
Dittus–Boelter) for flow through circular ducts:[25]
Nu 5 0:023Re0:8 Pr0:3 [12]
where Pr 5 Prandl number for air, Re 5 Reynolds number 5
VDh/n, V 5 average velocity, and n 5 kinematic viscosity
of air.
The following Nusselt number correlation (due to
Gnielinski) for flow through cylindrical annuli is used for
calculating the heat-transfer coefficient at the outer surface
of coil:[26]
ðf =2ÞðRe
1000ÞPr
Nu 5
1 1 12:7ðf =2Þ0:5 ðPr2=3
1Þ [13]

2
f 5 ð1:58 ln Re
3:28Þ
where Re and Pr are the same as mentioned earlier.
In the case of flow through the convectors (i.e., through
the diverging slot between two fins) or CIs, the correlations
for flow in rectangular ducts (due to Sleicher and Rouse)
may be used:[26,27]
Nu 5 5 1 0:015Rea Prb
a 5 0:88
0:24=ð4 1 PrÞ [14]
ð
0:6PrÞ
b 5 0:333 1 0:5e
Because the diverging slot on the convector can be
[11]
thought of as made up of many rectangular cross sections
along the radial direction, the local Nusselt number and
hence the local heat-transfer coefficients were calculated
for the case of convector plates, and then they were aver-
aged to be used as the bottom and top heat-transfer coef-
ficients in the heat-transfer model.
The heat-transfer model was validated against actual
temperature measurements carried out in the plant for a
coil in which CIs were used for stacking. For this measure-
ment, a multipoint type hybrid chart recorder was used
along with some K-type contact thermocouples, and the
temperature data of some locations on the coil were
recorded for nearly 40 hours. The heat-transfer coefficients
were calculated for any coil of the stack for different input
flow rates and flow distribution. This was done for both the
convectors and CIs. In the case of the coil used for valida-
tion of the heat-transfer model, an input flow rate (less than
the maximum capacity of 10,100 m3/h per base in the plant)
and a flow distribution were assumed (which falls in the
range of the physical model findings for flow distribution
using CIs, refer to Table II). The calculated heat-transfer
coefficients for the coil under the aforementioned inputs
were tuned later to validate the model. This will again be
discussed in Section III.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. The Flow Distribution
Tables I and II show the percentage of flow distribution
in the physical model through the convectors and the CIs,
VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006—1019
 Table I. Percentage Distribution of Air Flow through Different Convectors for Three Different Input Flow
Rates in the Physical Model

Percentage Distribution
Total Flow (m3/hr) Base Convector CP 2 CP 3 CP 4 Top Convector
1775 (200-mm WC) 10 10 18 20 42
2173 (300-mm WC) 10 11 18 20 41
2509 (400-mm WC) 13 17 23 21 26
Range (approximately) 10 to 13 10 to 17 18 to 23 20 to 21 26 to 42

Table II. Percentage Distribution of Air Flow Through Different CI Location for Three Different Input
Flow Rates in the Physical Model

Percentage Distribution
Total Flow (m3/hr) Base Convector CI 2 CI 3 CI 4 Top Convector
1775 (200-mm WC) 9 14 19 18 40
2173 (300-mm WC) 10 17 21 19 33
2509 (400-mm WC) 9 16 20 19 36
Range (approximately) 9 and 10 14 to 17 19 to 21 18 to 19 33 to 40

Fig. 6—The measured velocities at different peripheral locations when CIs

were used between coils 2 and 3 for a flow rate of 2173 m3/h (300-mm WC). Fig. 7—Comparison of percentage distribution of flow through different
convectors obtained by the flow model (hydraulic resistance concept) and
the physical model measurements for a flow rate of 2509 m3/h. Error bar is
8 pct of the experimental value.

respectively, for three different input flow rates. It is

obvious from these data that the maximum percentage of
flow leaves through the top convector and the reverse hap-
pens through the bottom convector. This result is expected,
since the resistance to flow through the central core of the
stack is less due to its circular geometry, and the flow goes
vertically upward taking the least resistant path. For this
reason, the maximum of the flow leaves through the top
convector (CP 5 here for a four coil stack). The bottom
convector has only one side exposed to the flow and thereby
offers less normal flow area compared to the other convec-
tors. It should be noted from Tables I and II that the flow
distributions are nearly reproducible, because the range of
distribution for a particular convector or CI is very close.
This is particularly evident in the case of CIs, where it was
observed that the peripheral velocity distribution for CIs
was nearly uniform (refer to Figure 6).
Figures 7 and 8 compare the flow model (hydraulic
resistance) and the physical model results through each
convector for two flow rates: 2509 and 2173 m3/h (blower
pressure difference of 400- and 300-mm water column
(WC), respectively). There is good agreement between
the observed and the calculated values of flow distribution
at least for three convectors. Some discrepancies may be
attributed to the fact that the average pressure P may not be
proper in the equation for hydraulic resistance (Eqs. [1] and
[2]). The tuning parameter a is 250 for the bottom CP and
300 for intermediate CPs for all flow rates. Therefore, the
mathematical model can be used to get a rough idea regarding

1020—VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

the flow distribution for situations where we do not have
experimental data, for example, if more coils with different
dimensions are used in the stack and if convectors/CIs with
different dimensions are placed.
Figures 9 and 10 show the average velocities obtained for
three different flow rates at different CP and CI positions,
respectively, in the physical model. The velocities at each
CP/CI increase as the input flow rates increase. The com-
parisons of the average velocity of air passing through CPs
and CIs have been shown in Figure 11 for a flow rate of
2509 m3/h. It is quite evident that the air passes through the
top and bottom of the coils at higher velocities when the
intermediate convectors are replaced by the CIs. The effec-
tive available normal flow area at the outlet between two
coils (1500-mm o.d.) for a convector is nearly 1.78 times
Fig. 8—Comparison of percentage distribution of flow through different
convectors obtained by the mathematical model (hydraulic resistance con-
cept) and the physical model measurements for a flow rate of 2173 m3/h.
Error bar is 8 pct of the experimental value.
Fig. 9—Average velocities at the outlet of flow passages (at coil OD)
through different convector positions (base to top) for three flow rates in
the physical model.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
that of a CI. Therefore, the velocity through the CI would
be higher as compared to the CP for the same flow rate.
This observation provides a clue to the better effective-
ness of using the CIs compared to the convectors because
higher velocity means higher heat-transfer coefficient and,
hence, faster cooling. This issue is again discussed with an
example of cooling time of a particular coil in Section C.
B. The Velocity Distribution
The results obtained from the CFD model are discussed
in this section. The velocity distribution obtained through
the numerical simulation gives a better insight of the flow
phenomena taking place between two coils in a stack.
Figures 12(a) through (c) show the velocity distribution at
different planes in one of the flow passages of a convector
plate for a total stack input flow rate of 1775 m3/h (200-mm
WC). Similar contour plots are shown in Figures 13(a) and
(b) for a CI, located on top of the base coil, at the mid and
Fig. 10—Average velocities through different CIs for three flow rates in the
physical model.
Fig. 11—Comparison of average velocity of air passing through convectors
and CIs for a flow rate of 2509 m3/h in the physical model.
VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006—1021
exit planes of the flow passage. It is clearly visible from the
preceding plots that the maximum velocity at the outlet is
nearly 10 pct higher for CIs as compared to convectors.
Table III compares velocities at the outlet of the flow pas-
sage for experimental measurements in the physical model
and the prediction from the CFD model. There is good
agreement between the actual measurements and prediction
at lower flow rates. Although the prediction values for aver-
age exit air velocity are always below the measured values,
we must mention that the agreement between these two
become poorer as we increase the air flow rate. For lower
flow rates, the difference is as low as 5 pct from the mea-
surements; however, for higher flow rates, this discrepancy
is nearly 30 pct. The reason for this is perhaps that at higher
velocities, the degree of turbulence may not be captured
properly by the present turbulence model. This validated
CFD model would enable the parametric analysis for selec-
tion of a suitable design of a convector/CI in future.
C. The Heat-Transfer Model
As outlined earlier in Section II–E, two sets of temper-
ature measurement data were used to validate the mathe-
matical model for heat transfer in the coil. The initial
temperature profile has been generated by running the
heat-transfer code and setting the initial temperatures of
all nodes to a high value (as if, it is simulating the cooling
cycle after soaking in BAF) with high heat-transfer coeffi-
cients, and then interrupting the program after a suitable
temperature condition has been reached (e.g., when the hot
spot has reached 160 °C after a specified time as obtained
from the annealing cycle curves for the BAF). The initial
heat-transfer coefficients obtained assuming a total input
flow and a flow distribution are tuned to validate one set
of temperature profile data. This tuned model is then
applied to predict the temperature profile of another set of
data. Figure 14 shows the model predictions and actual
measurements along with the temperature profile of the

Fig. 12—Velocity (m/s) distribution at a plane (a) located 24 mm from bottom, (b) located 14 mm from bottom (i.e., mid plane), and (c) at the outlet of the
divergent flow passage between two long fins in the case of CP 1. The total input flow rate entering the stack was assumed to be 1775 m3/h (200-mm WC) in
the simulation.

Fig. 13—Velocity (m/s) distribution (a) on the midplane and (b) at the outlet of the flow passage between two CIs located on top of the base coil. The total
input flow rate entering the stack was assumed to be 1775 m3/h (200-mm WC) in the simulation.

1022—VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

hot spot of the same coil. There was good agreement mind that the predicted values of the heat-transfer coeffi-
between the predicted and the measured temperatures. This cient are not exact.[28] The results obtained by various
validation of the plant data provides confidence in the use experimenters, even under carefully controlled conditions,
of the mathematical model. differ appreciably. In turbulent flow, the accuracy of a heat-
As has been discussed earlier, it is expected that CIs will transfer coefficient predicted from any available equation or
be very efficient in cooling the coils. The plot of local heat- graph is no better than 620 pct. In the transition region,
transfer coefficients along the radial direction has been where the experimental data are scant, the accuracy of the
shown in Figure 15, where the use of the CI has been Nusselt number predicted from available information may
compared with the use of the convector on top of the base be even lower.
coil of a stack for a total input flow rate of 10,100 m3/h For validation of the model in the present case, the tuned
(which is maximum in a base in the plant). The plot clearly heat-transfer coefficients are 22, 17, 38, and 20 W/(m2 K)
shows that the heat-transfer coefficient at any radial loca- for in, out, top, and bottom surfaces of the coil, respec-
tion is much higher if the CP is replaced by the CI. In the tively. Correspondingly, the computed values from empiri-
same plot, the isolated asterisk with a high value of heat- cal equations are 23.32, 1.83, 27.93, and 18.52 W/(m2 K),
transfer coefficient is for the presence of midbar (refer to respectively, assuming a flow rate of 10,100 m3/h and a
Figure 1(b)) on the convector plate, which tries to restrict suitable flow distribution for the CI. This shows that only
the flow by reducing the cross section of the flow path, thus the heat-transfer coefficient at the outer surface has been
increasing the velocity suddenly due to this sudden contrac- tuned extensively, whereas the other three agree reasonably
tion, and hence, the local heat-transfer coefficient shoots up well. Therefore, the computed values from the empirical
at that radial location. equations of the heat-transfer coefficient can be used to
In the application of any empirical equation for forced obtain a fair idea about the heat-transfer coefficients for
convection to practical problems, it is important to bear in any coil in the stack, at least, in the three surfaces. So, by
using them, the temperature profile of any coil can be rea-
sonably predicted by the heat-transfer model.
Table III. Actual and Predicted Velocities for a Particular
Convector and CI at the Outlet of the Flow
Figure 16 shows the temperature contours of the coil
Passage for Different Flow Rates after 36 hours. It is evident from Figures 14 and 16 that
the hot spot of the coil reaches 50 °C after 36 hours of
Average Velocity cooling. We can also compare the time for the hot spot to
(m/s) at the Outlet reach 50 °C if the convectors are used in the stack. From
the previous discussion, it is imperative to say that the hot
Flow Passage Total Flow (m3/h) Actual Predicted
spot of the coil will take up much more time if the con-
Base convector 1775 (200-mm WC) 0.461 0.42 vectors are used. With the use of the CI, the effective heat-
2173 (300-mm WC) 0.540 0.511 transfer area at the top or bottom of a typical coil goes up
2509 (400-mm WC) 0.874 0.589 from nearly 75 pct (for the CP) to 95 pct.
Cls on the top of 1775 (200-mm WC) 0.776 0.735 Therefore, there is a possibility of reduction of cooling
the base coil 2173 (300-mm WC) 1.161 0.90 time of coils if CIs are used in place of convectors. In the
2509 (400-mm WC) 1.254 1.041
absence of a proper predictive model, the coils were kept
for 40 to 50 long hours on the cooling bases irrespective of

Fig. 14—The validation of the mathematical model showing the predicted

and actual measurements of temperature for two different locations on the
coil. Location 1 is 480 mm below the top edge and location 2 is 280-mm-
inside from outer edge on the top surface of the coil. The predicted temper-
ature profile of the hot spot of the coil is also shown here (-m-). The hot
spot reaches 50 °C after nearly 36 h of cooling.
Fig. 15—Local heat-transfer coefficients along the radial direction on top
of a base coil for the case of convectors (CP) and CIs. The isolated asterisk
is for the presence of the midbar on the convector plate, which reduces the
flow area.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006—1023


Fig. 16—Different contour plots showing spatial temperature distribution
after different hours of cooling of the coil obtained from the heat-transfer
model.
the coil tonnage and grade. For example, the coil for which
the mathematical model was validated was kept for 50
hours on the cooling base before it was sent to storage or
SPM. Therefore, we can clearly appreciate the fact that
there could have been a savings of nearly 14 hours if the
cooling time was optimized with a mathematical model.
For a typical four coil stack (strip width 1485 mm), cooling
down from the 160 °C hot spot temperature to the 50 °C hot
spot temperature in the CCSU takes nearly 47 hours if con-
vectors are used for stacking.[29] For the same strip width,
the present mathematical model provides nearly 45 hours to
cool if CIs are used. So, with the use of CIs, the cooling time
is expected to be reduced. This can only be realized with the
proper application of the mathematical model to accurately
predict the cooling time while using CIs.
D. Application of the Heat-Transfer Model
A lookup table has been constructed with the off-line
data produced for the cooling time of several thousand coils
having different dimensions. The standard cooling time
data for a particular stack could be viewed through the
look-up table as soon as a stack of coils was built. This
suggested cooling time would be used by the operator to
determine the duration of cooling for a particular stack. The
undercooling or overcooling of coils, thus, can be mini-
mized by reducing the human intervention.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn in view of the
observations made in the preceding sections.
1. The air flow distribution through different convectors or
CIs in a stack falls within a close range for different
input flow rates. The distribution is therefore independ-
ent of the flow rate entering a base.
2. The velocity of air on the top or bottom of any coil
increases if intermediate convectors are replaced by
CIs. Therefore, it results in an increased heat-transfer
1024—VOLUME 37B, DECEMBER 2006
coefficient and makes the cooling process faster. More-
over, the effective heat-transfer area is higher in the case
of CIs.
3. The mathematical model can be used to predict the tem-
perature profile of any coil provided the heat-transfer
coefficients are properly tuned. The empirical equations
used for computation of the heat-transfer coefficient give
reasonably good values.
4. The cooling time is expected to be brought down by the
use of CIs and the actual cooling time can be accurately
predicted with the application of the mathematical
model.
REFERENCES
1. S.S. Sahay: J. Phys. IV, 2004, vol. 140, pp. 809-17.
2. S.S. Sahay, A.M. Kumar, and A. Chatterjee: Ironmaking and Steel-
making, 2004, vol. 31, pp. 144-52.
3. B. Sarkar, B.K. Jha, and A. Deva: J. Mater. Eng. Performance, 2004,
vol. 13, pp. 361-65.
4. J. Shi and D. Cui: Mater. Manuf. Processes, 2003, vol. 18, pp. 51-66.
5. S.S. Sahay and A.M. Kumar: Mater. Manuf. Processes, 2002, vol. 17,
pp. 439-53.
6. R.D.F. Antunes, M. Das Gracas, and M.M. Cesar: Metal. Mater. ABM,
2002, vol. 57, pp. 18-23.
7. P.K. Roy, S.M. Merchant, and S. Kaushal: J. Electron. Mater., 2001,
vol. 30, pp. 1578-83.
8. S.S. Sahay, A.M. Kumar, S.B. Singh, A.N. Bhagat, and M.S.S. Sharma:
Tata Search, 2001, pp. 39-46.
9. X. Peng, X. Wang, Z. Ru, and Q. Cao: J. Univ. Sci. Technol. Beijing,
2000, vol. 22, pp. 223-26.
10. A. Buckley, A.J. Moses, and L. Trollope: Ironmaking and Steelmaking,
1999, vol. 26, pp. 477-82.
11. C.J. Kang and C.D. Huang: Technol. Training (Taiwan), 1999, vol. 24,
pp. 1-10.
12. A. Fouarge, L. Chefneux, M. Cambier, and H. Meunier: Cahiers d’In-
formations Techn., 1995, vol. 92, pp. 945-51.
13. K. Steck, K.F. Huttebraucker, and H. Fischer: METEC Congr. 94, 2nd
Eur. Continuous Casting Conf., 6th Int. Rolling Conf., Dusseldorf,
Germany, 1994, vol. 2, pp. 319-22.
14. W. Scheuermann, P. Wittler, and T. Bovalina: Metallurgical Plant and
Technology International, 1993, vol. 16, pp. 140-42, 144, 146, 148,
150.
15. R.I.L. Guthrie: Engineering in Process Metallurgy, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, 1989.
16. A.R. Perrin, R.I.L. Guthrie, and B.C. Stonehill: Iron Steelmaker, 1988,
vol. 15, pp. 27-33.
17. Y. Jaluria and K.E. Torran Computational Heat Transfer, 1st ed.,
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC, 1986.
18. K.V.V. Iyer: Steel India, 1984, vol. 7, pp. 43-53.
19. FLUENTÒ 6.1 User’s Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH, 2003.
20. I.E. Idelchik: Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, 3rd ed., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 1994.
21. A. Roth: Vacuum Technology, 3rd ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.
22. S.V. Patankar: Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere,
New York, NY, 1980.
23. B.E. Launder and D.B. Spalding: Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng.,
1974, vol. 3, pp. 269-89.
24. M.N. Ozisik: Finite Difference Methods in Heat Transfer, 2nd ed.,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995.
25. F.P. Incropera and D.P. DeWitt: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1990.
26. S. Kakac and Y. Yener: Convective Heat Transfer, 2nd ed., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 1995.
27. L.C. Burmeister: Convective Heat Transfer, 2nd ed., John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, 1993.
28. F. Kreith and M.S. Bohn: Principles of Heat Transfer, 6th ed., Harper
and Row, New York, NY, 2000.
29. Performance Guarantee Test Results for Tata Steel: Technical Manual
for Batch Annealing Furnace, LOI Thermoprocess Gmbh, Germany, 2000.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B