Materials Science and Engineering, A 181/A182 (1994) 1237-1242

1237

Theoretical expectation of strip thickness in planar flow casting process

J. K. Sung, M. C. Kim, C. G. Park and Y. S. Kim
Research b~stitute of lndustrial Science and Technology, Pohang, Kyung-Buk (South Korea)

Abstract
The objective of this study is to obtain a simple analytical solution that will predict the strip thickness with given planar flow casting (PFC) processing variables. Mass balance and the Bernoulli equation are used to formulate the final analytical solution. The focus is on the evaluation of the friction loss (dissipation of mechanical energy over the volume of the entire flow field)in the Bernoulli equation. Friction loss in the PFC process can be attributed to (1) a sudden contraction of the melt path (crucible to slit), (2) flow through a slit and, finally (3) an abrupt change in the size and direction of the melt path at the gap between the nozzle and the roll. Among these causes, friction loss resulting from an abrupt change in the size and direction of the melt path at the gap is the most significant factor under PFC conditions. Our experimental results show that the effects of the gap on the friction loss factor can be expressed as el,gap=0.172 (h/b) 25, where h and b represent the gap size between the nozzle and the roll, and the slit breadth respectively. The accuracy of our formulation is evaluated by comparing the experimental data with theoretical expectation.

1. Introduction
Planar flow casting (PFC) is a rapid quenching process to fabricate thin, wide amorphous and crystalline strips directly from the melt [1]. In this process, molten metal is ejected onto a moving chill roll through a nozzle, by supplying pressurized gas into the nozzle. Therefore, the molten metal supply can be controlled by varying the size of the nozzle slit and the level of applied pressure. In PFC, a nozzle with a rectangular slit is used, and the distance (gap) between the moving chill roll and the nozzle tip is narrow (generally less than 1 mm). Since the thickness of a strip is known to affect the cooling rate of the strip, and so the microstructure and magnetic properties of the strip, the prediction of the strip thickness as a function of the process variables has been studied for PFC process [2-6]. In PFC, since the molten metal supply through the nozzle slit will be affected by the formation of a puddle at the narrow gap, the effects of the puddle on the strip thickness (fluid flow) should be considered. Fiedler et al. [2] suggested that the strip thickness followed the relationship

from an abrupt change in the flow direction, using el,gap= 0.29(h/b)-2.43 + 0.5. According to the computer simulation by Yu [3], the nozzle gap has a rather minor effect on the strip thickness. However, a systematic research programme has not been conducted which covered both theoretical and experimental views on the effects of the gap on strip thickness variation. The objective of this study is to develop a simple formulation that will predict the strip thickness. To achieve this goal, the effects of the gap on the molten metal supply through a nozzle slit should be quantified. Also, one of the critical factors in PFC experiments is the precise measurement of the gap during the process. Thermal expansion of the nozzle during heating and ejecting of alloys is known to prevent precise control or measurement of the gap [7]. In this study, to reduce the effects of thermal expansion on the gap, tin (a material with a low melting temperature, 232 C) was used as a casting material. In addition, the gap size was measured at the ejecting temperature.

2. Experimental procedure

t~tripC( h/b )25

where t is the strip thickness, h the gap size between the nozzle and roll, and b is the slit breadth. Anestiev [6] tried to analyze the effect of the gap on the strip thickness in terms of a friction loss resulting
0921-5093/94/$7.00 SSDI 0921-5093(93)05659-D

2.1. Experimental details" To observe effects of the gap on the thickness variation, a tin strip was produced on a massive copper roll with a diameter of 40 cm. The experimental conditions are listed in Table 1. The concentricity of the roll was such that the radius varied by _+15/zm along its
1994 - Elsevier Sequoia. All rights reserved

1238

J. K. Sung et aL /

Theoryof strip thickness in PFC

TABLE 1. Process variables of PFC process Slit size Breadth Width (/~m) (cm) 230 420 2 1 12.52, 20, 6.86, 13.92, 100 29.31 35.87 600 VroH (m s-~)
Pappl - Pamb Gap (kPa) (~m)

Ejecting temperature (C) 350

The velocity of the melt at the nozzle slit can be obtained from the Bernoulli equation such that
f alP+ Pappl Pliq it 2 c2

q-gAhl-Ef=O

(3)

circumference. The nozzles were made of quartz tube with a rectangular slit in one end. A heating tape was used to melt and heat the tin up to 350 C (ejecting temperature), and the temperature of the melt was monitored using a K-type thermocouple. The gap size was measured using a thickness gauge at the ejection temperature. When the temperature reached 350 C, argon gas was supplied to the nozzle to apply pressure. The applied pressure was measured using a transducer, and the pressure history was recorded using a chart recorder. The nozzle was located at the top of the roll and was perpendicular to the roll (impinging angle, 90). The strip thickness was calculated from the relationship between the density and weight
tstri p = {(weight)/(width
x

where P is the pressure, g is gravity, Ah is the melt height, Ef is the friction loss (Ef, cr~c+Ef, comr+ Ef, slit+ El, gap , where Ef = 0.5ef V 2) and ef is the friction loss factor. Since, we have

Vcruc=lAcruc ]

s,it

(4)

with Aslit the cross-sectional area of the slit and Acr~c the cross-sectional area of the crucible, the Bernoulli equation can be expressed as a function of the velocity of the melt at the nozzle slit (Vslit), such that 1
Pliq Asiat 2

+ gAh + Vslit2ef = 0

(5)

length)}/density

(1)

where

Since the effects of surface roughness and pores on the strip thickness can be removed, the above way of measuring is a superior method compared with direct measurement. To maintain a constant effect of the metallostatic pressure on the strip thickness, a sample was picked up at the location where the melt height was approximately 1.5 cm.
2.2. Data analysis The aims of this analysis are (1) to describe the effects of the gap on the strip thickness as a function of the friction loss factor, and (2) to develop a simple formulation that will predict the strip thickness under given experimental conditions. Variation of the strip thickness by changing the gap size can be analysed in terms of friction loss in the puddle area, using mass balance and energy balance equations (the Bernoulli equation). By applying the mass balance equation, the strip thickness can be expressed as

ef ~ ~Acruc ! ef, cruc -'1-ef, contr -t- ef, slit --I-ef, gap

( li )2

= f ( R e ) = / ( Vslit)

(6)

tstrip=(-~) ~ b \Psol]

Vslit

(2)

where /strip is the thickness of the strip, p is the density of the melt, b is the breadth of the slit and V is the velocity of the melt. Therefore, the thickness of the strip can be obtained by inserting the velocity of the melt at the nozzle slit ( ~lit)-

where Re is the Reynolds number at the slit. Therefore, if a theoretical or an experimental expression for the friction loss factors (ef) is given under certain experimental conditions, we can determine the velocity of the melt at a slit in eqn. (5), and thereby the strip thickness. In this study, the effects of the gap on the friction loss factor are experimentally determined. To determine the friction loss factor resulting from the gap, we should know the strip thickness under certain experimental conditions, as well as the friction loss factors resulting from crucible flow, sudden contraction and slit flow. The friction loss factor at the crucible (ecc~u) can be neglected, not only because the melt speed at the crucible will be slow but also because the value of (Aslit/Acruc) 2 will be very small. The friction loss factor resulting from sudden contraction and slit flow (ef, contr -I-el, slit) was measured experimentally under free jet conditions, which means no thickness variation resulting from a change in the gap size (gap ->slit breadth; ef.g,p= 0). Under free jet conditions, since we know the strip thickness and all the processing variables, such as the applied pressure and slit dimension, one can regard the total friction loss factor as being those resulting from sudden contraction

J. K. Sung et al. /

Theory of strip thickness in PFC

60 VRoI! (m/sec) : 12.52 Slit Breadth (~tm) : 230 ,~-----~"~- Papp-Pamb (KPa) 35.87 o 13.92 6.86

1239

and slit flow (i. e. ef, cruc+ ef,gap= 0). After calculating the friction loss factor resulting from sudden contraction and slit flow, one can calculate the friction loss factor resulting from the gap by inserting all the parameters into eqns. (2) and (5). Then, we developed an empirical relationship between the friction loss factor and the gap size. To determine the strip thickness, the empirical equation was inserted into eqn. (5) to form an analytical solution.

50 .~ 40

20

f
~ , ~ 100 200 , 300 ~ 400 Slit Breadth (lain) : 230 Papp-Pamb (KPa) : 35.87

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Effects of the gap on the strip thickness Impingement of the melt on the chill roll within a certain distance can affect the melt flow rate at the nozzle slit. Figure 1 shows the effect of the gap on the strip thickness under various experimental conditions. When the gap size is larger than 400/zm, the slopes of the curves are relatively flat, meaning almost no thickness variation. However, as the gap becomes narrow (less than 300 pro), the strip thickness decreases rapidly. This result suggests that, under our experimental conditions, when the gap is larger than around 400/zm, the effects of the melt impingement on the moving chill roll disappear (free jet conditions). Therefore, the confinement of a puddle between the nozzle lip and chill roll appears to be responsible for the reduction in strip thickness (melt flow). Under constant experimental conditions, the variation of the strip thickness by changing the gap size would be attributed to a change in the melt passage, which will induce a variation in the friction loss (Ef) at the puddle area. The constrained puddle can be described as a twodimensional melt passage, which consists of two regions: region 1, where the direction of melt flow and size of the melt passage vary, and region 2, which is confined by the front nozzle lip and the moving chill roll (Fig. 2). Therefore, the friction loss in the puddle can be attributed to (1) friction loss resulting from a change in the melt passage at the end of the nozzle slit, which results from the difference in dimension between the gap size and slit breadth; (2) friction loss resulting from a change in the direction of melt flow (region 1); and (3) friction loss from the front end of the nozzle slit to the detaching point (region 2). Figure 3 shows the effects of the gap on the friction loss f a c t o r (el, gap). The friction loss factor is plotted against the normalized gap (h/b), where h and b represent the gap size and slit breadth respectively. Since the contraction ratio of the melt passage at the end of the nozzle slit has the most significant effect on the thickness variation, the gap size was normalized by the slit breadth [2, 6]. As the gap becomes narrow ((h/b)<-0.5 ), the friction loss factor increases very rapidly. Under
l0 I 0 (a) 60 , 500 ~ 600 , 700 800

Gap (l,tm)

50
V R o l l

(m/sec) 40 [] 12.52 20.00

3O

Unstable

10 0

1013 200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(b)
60 VRoll (m/sec) Papp-Pamb (KPa) 50

Gap (I.tm)
: 12,52 : 13,92 Slit Breadth (gin)

"~

40

420 230

"= [-.

30

2O

10

0 (c)

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

G a p (~rn)

Fig. 1. Effect of gap on ribbon thickness as a function of (a) applied pressure, (b) roll speed and (c) slit breadth.

our experimental conditions, the effects of the gap on the friction loss factor can be expressed as ef,gap= 0.172(h/b)-2"5. Although the trend in the variation of the friction loss factor resulting from the puddle confinement is similar to that proposed by Anestiev

1240

J. K. Sung et al. /

Theoryof strip thickness' in PFC factors in the PFC process. The friction loss factors resulting from sudden contraction and slit flow are well documented [9, 10]. It should be noted that we do not consider the effect of the inlet shape on the friction loss factor resulting from sudden contraction [10]. The friction loss factor resulting from the gap is determined experimentally (Fig. 3). By inserting the friction loss factors in Table 2 into eqn. (5), the Bernoulli equation becomes a quadratic equation of ~tit, such that (7) where the values of A, B and C are given in Table 2. Therefore, the strip thickness can be expressed as
AVslit2 + B Vslit + C = 0

rear lip
3 mm

I~-'4~0"~ [.,i " -'~

Melt Flow [

front hp

_-1
I

Rear End of Nozzle~ S l l tI 1-3 ~'~

1"21"/
AP (KPa) 35.87 35.87 35.87 13.92 6.86 13.92 6.86 I b

2.5-3 mm ] Front End of NozzleSlit ~1~ Down StreaDetaching [m/ Point

lOOG'~gm I ~ U M P e ~ i n i--'---I~" ~ u ~ eniscus ~ S ~ s i Strip:15-501.tin Chill Roll : 10-30 m/sec

Fig. 2. Schematicdiagram of puddle area in PFC.

10

I/

8 "~ 6 ~ O "r. t~ 4

Slit Breadth (~an) 230 230 * 230 o 230 + 230 o 420 M 420 ~ ThisAnalysis \ ef =0.172 x (h/b)"2"5 ~, \.~ Elbowswith I

VRoU (m/sec) 12.52 20.00 29.31 12.52 12.52 12.52 12.52 a I =~

Wso,]

t-

(8)

sharpcornersL / ~ / / "

L~--~---~-J h I

f= 0.29 x (h/b)-2"43+ 0.5 0 0.0 , 0.5 1.0 ,-~ . : 1.5 '-

2.0

Normalized Gap(h/b)

Fig. 3. Effect of the gap on the friction loss factor. (elbows with sharp corners, ef, gap=O.29(h/b)-243+ 0.5) [6, 8] (Fig. 3), our experimental data always show smaller friction loss factors than does Anestiev's expectation. Since the shapes of the melt passage in PFC and elbows with sharp corners are similar, the friction loss factors in both situations appear to show a similar trend. The difference in friction loss factors between the experimental data and those of elbows with sharp corners may be explained by momentum transfer of the melt resulting from the fast movement of the roll. The momentum transfer of the melt would facilitate a change in the direction of the melt, which would reduce the friction loss. 3.2. Theoretical expectation of the strip thickness To obtain a formulation that will predict the strip thickness, the melt velocity at the nozzle slit (V~lit) in eqn. (2) should be determined. Therefore, the friction loss factors (ef) in the Bernoulli equation (eqn. (5)) should be determined. Table 2 shows the friction loss

Since the casting material in our PFC experiments was tin, whose melting point is much lower than those for conventional PFC materials, the accuracy of our analysis on the friction loss factor should be evaluated by comparing the experimental data with our expectation. Table 3 shows the data (A1-4%Cu) of Wilde and Matthys [11], where the gap was accurately observed using a high speed video-recording system. Although the data in Table 3 show a good agreement with our expectation, two datum points deviate significantly from our expectation (runs 8 and 10). The discrepancy between the data and the expectation may stem not from our expectation but from a misreporting of the roll speed. Run 7 shows a higher applied pressure and a slower roll speed than does run 9 with a similar strip thickness. Although there is a difference of 135/zm in the gap size, the strip thickness of run 7 should be much higher than that of run 9. Similarly, in runs 8 and 10, the small difference in applied pressure (3.33 kPa, 35.8%) yielded a large increase in the strip thickness (44/~m, 65.7%). According to the pressure dependence of the strip thickness [2], the strip thickness would be increased by 16.5%, which is much lower than 65.7%. Furthermore, by inserting the roll speed of runs 8 and 10 as 23 m s- 1 (the other standard roll speed in their experiments) instead of 14 m s-1, the strip thickness of our expectations agrees well with the experimental data. This point should be reconfirmed by the original authors (Wilde and Matthys). Unfortunately, for higher melting point materials, no experimental data with accurate gap measurements has been reported yet. Further study will be conducted on this point.
4. Conclusions

(1) The impingement of the melt on the chill roll within a certain distance affects the melt flow rate at the

J. K. Sung et al.

Theory of strip thickness in PFC

1241

TABLE 2. Friction loss factors in PFC process and constants in the Bernoulli equation (eqn. (7)) ef Sudden contraction Slit Laminar 0.64 + 38/Re a Turbulent

0.5tl -(A,/A, )}~'

0.316Lid)/(Re)25; b or {-152 540(1/Re)2 + 107.25(1/Re) + (I.022 332}(L/d), where 4000- R e < 13 000 < -

(Lid)k/Re, where k = 96 - 1 lO.7(b/a)+ 84.6(b/a) 2 ~' O<(b/a)<-0.6 O.172(h/b) 25

0.5{1 -(A2/A ,)2 + 0.64 + O.172(h/b) -2-5} 0.5(~l/pld) {96(Lid) + 38}

Gap Constants A
B

O.172(h/b) -2-~
0.5{1-(A2/AI)2 +0.45(l - A2/A~)

+ 0.022 332(L/d) + 0.172( h/b)- 25} 0.5{ l O7.25( rl/p/d)( L/d)}

-{1/p( Papv,- Pamb)- gAh }

-[1/p( P~pp,- P,,mb)- gAh + 0.5{152 540(L/d)(tl/p/d)2}]

Sudden contraction Crucible ~1___._ ]Slit Slit flow t melt

D is the diameter of the crucible; d is the hydraulic diameter of slit (= 2 ab/(a + b )); A l = ~D2/4; A 2 = ab; Re is the Reynolds number ( = p Vd/~l) at the slit, with p the density of the melt, r/the viscosity of the melt and V the velocity of the melt; L is the length of the slit; h is the distance between the roll and nozzle slit (gap).

melt

d=a~ ~-

b~..~)_

"Ref. 9, pp. 46, 51, 71. bRef. 10, p. 71.

TABLE 3. Comparison of experimental data [11] with data from the theoretical expectation (eqn. (8)) i AP Gap /strip &trip Run 1%, number Slit breadth (m s ~) (kPa) (/~m) (data)(expected) (ram) (/~m) (/~m) 1 3 7 9 8 10 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 23 23 14(23 ~) 23 14(23 ~) 14 15.33 14.00 15.33 9.33 9.33 12.67 280 350 370 505 440 440 62 68 77 76 67 111 59.34 70.35 126.71(77.13 a) 76.82 114.98(69.99 a) 132.71

(2) A n analytical solution is developed that will predict the strip thickness with processing variables such as the ejection pressure, width, b r e a d t h and length of the slit, roll speed, gap between the nozzle and roll, diameter of the crucible, and density and viscosity of the casting materials.

Acknowledgments
T h e authors gratefully acknowledge the facilities provided in the Rapid Solidification L a b o r a t o r y at the Research Institute of Industrial Science and Technology (RIST). This w o r k was supported by the K o r e a n Ministry of C o m m e r c e and Industry under Contract 911-2-2.

Casting material, AI-4%Cu; r/=0.001 26 kg m -~ s 1; p~q= 2340 kg m-3; p~{,~= 2700 kg m-3; crucible diameter, 7 mm; slit length, 11.5 ram; slit width, 7.37 ram; melt height, 2 cm. ~'Assumed.

nozzle slit (strip thickness). T h e friction loss resulting f r o m the puddle confinement between the nozzle lip and chill roll seems to be responsible for the decrease in the melt flow rate at the nozzle slit. T h e effects of the gap on the friction loss factor can be expressed as ef, gap= 0.172(h/b) -")5 where h and b represent the gap ", between the nozzle and the roll, and the slit b r e a d t h respectively.

References
1 M.C. Narasimhan, US Patent 4221257, 9 September 1980. 2 H. Fiedler, H. Muhlbach and G. Stephani, J. Mater. Sci., 19 (1984) 3229. 3 H. Yu, Metall. Trans. B, 18 (1987) 557. 4 S.A. Berger and D. K. Ai, Metall. Trans./3, 19 ( 1988) 571. 5 S. Takayama and T. Oi, J. Appl. Phys., 50 (7) (1979) 4962.

1242

J. K. Sung et aL /

Theoryof strip thickness in PFC

9 R. D. Blevins, Applied Fluid Dynamics Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1984, p. 42. 10 G. H. Geiger and D. R. Poirer, Transport Phenomena in Metallurgy, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1980, p, 117. 11 P.D. Wilde and E. E Matthys, Mater. Sci. Eng., AI50 (1992) 237.

6 L.A. Anestiev, Mater. Sci. Eng., A131 (1991) 115. 7 M. J. Fleetwood, A. G. Law, J. E. Whittle, A. G. Todd and J. H. Vincent, in P. W. Lee and J. H. Moll (eds.), Rapidly Solidified Materials: Properties and Processing, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1988, p. 115. 8 I. E. Idelchik, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, Hemisphere, Washington, DC, 1986, p. 293.