Numerical Simulation of the Effects of Horizontal

and Vertical EMBr on Jet Flow and Mold Level

Fluctuation in Continuous Casting
LIN XU, ENGANG WANG, CHRISTIAN KARCHER, ANYUAN DENG,
and XIUJIE XU

In this article, a new type of electromagnetic braking (EMBr), named vertical EMBr (V-EMBr)
was introduced in the continuous casting process. In order to investigate its capability and
applicability, the impacts of horizontal and vertical EMBrs on the flow pattern in a continuous
casting mold were simulated by means of an implemented Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
(RANS) SST k–x turbulence model. The characteristics of electromagnetic field and flow field
inside a 1450 mm 9 230 mm mold with Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr have been compared. The
numerical simulation results indicate that the static magnetic field generated by Ruler-EMBr
can cover the main part of the discharging jet flow, which has a better control of the flow pattern
in lower part of the mold. The static magnetic field generated by V-EMBr can cover both the
vicinity of the mold narrow faces and the impingement region of the jet flow, which can
effectively control the liquid steel flow in the upper recirculation zone. The parametric study also
shows that the large vortices beneath the jet flow can be almost completely eliminated at an
optimized magnetic flux density with Ruler-EMBr. In addition, the surface velocity and steel/
slag interface fluctuation can be suppressed with the application of V-EMBr to
acceptable values even with a wide variation of SEN port angles. It is estimated that to reach
the same level of braking effect on the upper recirculation flow, a magnetic flux density of 0.1 T
is sufficient for V-EMBr, while 0.2 T is needed for Ruler-EMBr. Based on the results, a
second-generation V-EMBr has been developed, which combines both of the merits of
Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-018-1342-4
Ó The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2018

I. INTRODUCTION level fluctuations in the mold is key to producing high

IN the continuous casting process, especially under
the condition of high casting speed, increased flow rate
of the liquid steel at the outlet of submerged entry nozzle
(SEN) can easily cause disturbances at the steel/slag
interface at the top of the mold. This phenomenon may
cause mold flux entrapment and result in entrainment of
inclusions and bubbles into the liquid steel, which are
entrapped in the newly formed steel shell, thus affecting
the slab quality.[1,2] Therefore, effectively controlling
LIN XU, ENGANG WANG, ANYUAN DEN, and XIUJIE XU
are with the Key Laboratory of Electromagnetic Processing of
Materials (Ministry of Education), Northeastern University, No. 3-11,
Wenhua Road, Shenyang 110004, P.R. China and also with the School
of Metallurgy, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110004, P.R. China.
Contact e-mail: egwang@mail.neu.edu.cn CHRISTIAN KARCHER is
with the Institute of Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics, Technische
Universität Ilmenau, P.O. Box 100565, Ilmenau 98684, Germany.
Manuscript submitted December 15, 2017.
quality steel slabs. Equipment which controls fluid flow
in the mold through the application of static magnetic
fields is referred to as an electromagnetic brake (EMBr).
The design of EMBrs is continuously being improved,
and they have been demonstrated to be effective in
reducing the potential for liquid steel breakouts from the
strand shell, and decreasing slab and final product
surface defects.[3–6]
Up to now it has been developed into three typical
types: Local EMBr,[3,4] Ruler-EMBr[5–9] and flow con-
trol mold (FC-Mold) EMBr.[10] Local EMBr has a
characteristic that two separate magnets are located
near the SEN ports, which is mainly used to suppress
molten steel velocity from the nozzle and prevent mold
flux entrapment. Ruler-EMBr utilizes one pair of
magnets, which covers the entire wide faces of the mold,
with the aim to stabilize the meniscus velocity and
prevent mold flux entrapment. To better control menis-
cus fluctuations and molten steel flow behavior in the
mold, a third-generation electromagnetic brake
(FC-Mold EMBr) was proposed. FC-Mold EMBr

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

consists of two pairs of magnets across each wide face.
One is located on the meniscus of the mold, and the
other is located below the SEN port.
Currently, there are two widely used EMBr devices:
Ruler-EMBr and FC-Mold EMBr.[11,12] It was found
that, in the slab continuous casting process, the braking
effects of Ruler-EMBr on the surface velocity and level
fluctuation are not significant and usually Ruler-EMBr
was u nable to suppress mold flux entrapment effec-
tively.[6] Compared to Ruler-EMBr, FC-mold is good at
controlling meniscus velocity and level fluctuation.
However, it’s not applicable for the continuous casting
of thin slabs due to large volume, heavy weight and
complicated structure. Therefore, on the basis of under-
standing the characteristics of the existing EMBr, a new
type of EMBr, named vertical electromagnetic brake
(V-EMBr) was proposed by our research group in
previous publications.[13–16] Two pairs of magnetic poles
are installed vertically on the mold wide sides close to
the narrow faces for V-EMBr while a pair of magnetic
poles is mounted on the mold wide sides horizontally for
the Ruler-EMBr as shown in Figure 1. The special
characteristic of V-EMBr device lies in the fact that the
static magnetic field covers both the vicinity area of the
narrow faces of the mold and the impingement region of
liquidmetal jet from the SEN. Hence, it shows the
potential to suppress the upper recirculation flow and
control the fluctuation of meniscus.
From the perspective of investigating the fluctuation
behavior of the surface flow, most previous research
focused on the numerical simulation in which the
deformed interface was simplified as a plane.[17] For
example, Hwang et al.[18] utilized a finite volume method
to analyze the influence of EMBr on the flow of liquid
steel in the mold with different operation parameters,
Fig. 1—Schematics of (a) Ruler-EMBr and (b) V-EMBr.
and the shape of liquid surface was calculated by the
pressure distribution on the free surface. Harada et al.[19]
simplified the deformed interface to a flat surface, and
compared the damping effect of the local magnetic field
with the level magnetic field. In recent years, the
researchers improved the simulation method of the
deformed interface, and the simulation results showed
that the fluctuation behavior of the surface flow were
more practical. For instance, Anagnostopoulos et al.[20]
showed a volume tracking method to simulate the
behavior of three-dimensional (3D) water–oil interface
fluctuation in continuous casting mold. Yu et al.[21]
utilized a volume of fluid (VOF) model to investigate the
effects of the casting speed and the shape of nozzle on
the fluctuation behavior of steel/slag in the mold under
the condition of argon blowing. In comparison, the
VOF method is more applicable to the numerical
simulation of two-phase turbulent flows.[22–25]
Another aspect addressed in the present study is the
turbulence modeling. Until now, three approaches have
been commonly employed to predict the effects of turbu-
lence, i.e., direct numerical simulation (DNS), large eddy
simulation (LES), and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
(RANS). DNS is a direct approach of solving the
Navier–Stokes equations for turbulent flows which is a
powerful research tool for investigating simple turbulent
flows at moderate Reynolds numbers. Nevertheless, due to
the high computational cost, it is inapplicable to practical
engineering systems with complex geometry or flow
configurations.[26] In the LES approach, larger-scale vor-
tices are separated from smaller-scale ones using low-pass
filtered Navier–Stokes equations. Subsequently, the larger
unsteady turbulent motions are directly represented,
whereas the smaller-scale motions are modeled. Obviously,
it can capture the instantaneous turbulence characteristics,
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
e.g. the coherent structure within the turbulent boundary
layer.[27,28] However, the computational cost of LES is still
high which hinders its extensive use in turbulent flow
modeling. The approach of RANS is widely utilized in
various turbulence flows, in which Spalart-Allmaras
model, k–e model, and k–x model are developed to close
the RANS equations.
The k–e model is the most widely used complete
turbulence model.[26] Many efforts have been made to use
the k–e model to reveal the influence of a static direct
current (DC) magnetic field on the mean flow and the
turbulent fluctuation in the mold. For example, Tian
et al.[29] utilized a low-Reynolds-numbered k–e model to
study the influence of EMBr on the liquid steel flow in a
funnel mold. Based on the realizable k–e model, Liu et al.[30]
described the behavior of liquid steel flow and heat transfer
in the compact strip production (CSP) and flexible thin slab
casting (FTSC) funnel molds under a static magnetic field,
respectively. However, the k–e model is quite inaccurate for
complex flows due to inaccuracies in the turbulent-viscosity
hypothesis. Another commonly used two-equation model
is the k–x model which has a distinct advantage in the
treatment of the viscous near-wall region.[26] In order to
predict the Reynolds stress, Menter[31] proposed the SST
k–x model on the basis of k–x model which combines the
merits of the k–e model and the k–x model. Asad et al.[32]
utilized the SST k–x model to simulate the transient-free
surface behavior in a continuous casting mold. Miao et al.[7]
performed numerical calculations on the fluid flow in the
continuous casting process under a DC magnetic field using
the SST k–x model, which displayed a good agreement
with the measurement results of turbulent flow in a facility
termed as Liquid Metal Model for Continuous Casting
(LIMMCAST).[33] The previous studies demonstrated that
the SST k–x model can successfully describe the liquid
metal flow exposed to a DC magnetic field.
In this study, the SST k–x model was utilized to
describe the transient flow in a continuous casting slab
mold, and the VOF model was applied for the treatment
of the two-phase surface flow. A grid independence test
was first performed to determine an appropriate grid
density to ensure computational efficiency and accuracy.
On this basis, the numerical simulations were carried out
to examine the braking effect of V-EMBr in comparison
with the Ruler-EMBr. The current study focuses on the
effect of a static magnetic field on the fluctuation of
steel/slag interface and the flow pattern in the mold,
without considering the impacts of solidification and
heat transfer on the liquid metal flow. In addition, the
influences of the magnetic flux density and the nozzle
port angle on the braking effect were analyzed.
II. DESCRIPTION OF HORIZONTAL AND
VERTICAL EMBR
In the continuous casting process, the electromagnetic
brake device is installed on the mold, which can affect
fluid flow and consequently temperature distribution in
the mold. Reasonable electromagnetic parameters and
the installation position of electromagnetic brake device
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
have an important influence on the effectiveness of
EMBr on the slab quality improvement in industrial
production. Schematics of two types of electromagnetic
brake (Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr) are illustrated in
Figure 1. The cross section of the mold is 1450
mm 9 230 mm, with a height of 800 mm. The
Ruler-EMBr device consists of two sets of electrified
coils, which covers the entire wide faces of the mold, as
shown in Figure 1(a). For Ruler-EMBr device, the
distance between the upper surface of the magnetic pole
and the free surface is 290 mm, and the height of the
magnetic pole is 200 mm. Different from the Ruler-
EMBr device, the V-EMBr device has two pairs of
magnetic poles with a height of 600 mm which are
arranged vertically near the mold narrow face, as shown
in Figure 1(b).[13,14] It could cover the impact region of
the metal jet out from the SEN and could control the
free surface of liquid steel flow.
III. MATHEMATICAL MODEL AND
NUMERICAL METHOD
A. Mathematical Formulation
In order to better describe liquid steel flow in the slab
continuous casting mold under the influence of EMBr,
and on the premise of making the simulation results
reasonable, the following assumptions were made.
The flow of liquid steel and mold flux in the mold was
assumed to be unsteady, and their physical properties
constant. The liquid steel and mold flux were considered
to be homogeneous, viscous, and Newtonian incom-
pressible fluids. The influence of oscillation and negative
taper of the mold was not taken into account. Heat
transfer in the mold and the presence of the solidified
shell were ignored. In the process of continuous casting,
mold flux was assumed to infiltrate into the mold flux
channel between the mold wall and solidified shell to
reduce withdrawal force. Therefore, for the calculation
of the electromagnetic field, the mold wall was assumed
to be electrically insulated. Finally, the electromagnetic
characteristics of liquid steel were homogeneous and
isotropic.
Under these assumptions the time-averaged governing
equations read as follows:
@ðq/Þ
þ r  ðqU/Þ ¼ r  ðC/  r/Þ þ S/ ; ½1
@t
where / stands for various time-averaged variables,
i.e., turbulence kinetic energy and turbulence dissipa-
tion rate; C/ and S/ represent the diffusion coefficient
of the variable / and the source term for various
transport equations, respectively. More details for the
time-averaged governing equations are given in
Appendix.
1. Turbulence model
In this paper, the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
(RANS) SST k–x model was utilized to simulate the
mean flow characteristics of liquid steel and the steel/
slag interface behavior in the mold. Different from the
other two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models,
the SST k–x model computes the anisotropic turbulent
flow field and considers the effect of Reynolds stress.
Moreover, in the near wall region, where the SST k–x
model is superior to the other two-equation models, an
automatic wall function is utilized.[31]
2. Electromagnetic force equations
The magnetic induction method[34] was utilized to
calculate the induced current and electromagnetic force,
which is derived from Ohm’s law and Maxwell’s
equations. The induced current density can be deduced
from the following equation:
1
J ¼ r  B; ½2
l 5. Computational domain
where the magnetic flux density B consists of the
applied DC magnetic field B0 and the secondary field b
induced by the mold flow. Hence, we have B = B0+
b. The induced field b can be calculated from the mag-
netic equation, i.e.
@b 1 2
þ ðU  rÞ  b ¼ r b þ ðB  rÞ  UðU  rÞ  B0
@t lr
½3
Finally, the Lorentz force is given by
Fmag ¼ J  B ½4
3. VOF model equation
The method of volume of fluid (VOF) was utilized to
build two-phase turbulent transient flow model, which
could track the shape of fluctuating steel/slag interface
in the slab continuous casting mold. A characteristic of
VOF model is that it utilizes a moving steel/slag
interface to define the fraction of fluid volume in a
space lattice. For an incompressible fluid, assuming that
the densities of liquid steel and mold flux are constant,
so the volume fraction of liquid steel should satisfy the
following equation.[35]
@ust
þ r  ðust Ust Þ ¼ 0; ½5
@t
where ust = 1 represents the liquid steel, ust = 0
stands for the mold flux, and 0 < ust < 1 represents
the steel/slag interface.
4. Boundary conditions
The inlet velocity was positioned at the exit of the side
aperture of the nozzle, which was calculated from the
specific casting speed to maintain flow equilibrium. The
top surface of the mold was set as a free surface, and its
boundary condition was the same as symmetry bound-
ary condition, where the velocity components perpen-
dicular to the free surface and normal gradients of other
variables were set to zero. For the mold wall, an
automatic near wall treatment was adopted by the SST
k–x model. Normal component of the induced current
and normal gradients of other variables were set to zero.
At the exit of computational domain, fully developed
flow was assumed, and normal gradients of all variables
were set to zero.
At the boundary, the induced magnetic field b can be
represented by[36]:
b ¼ fbn bt1 bt2 gT ; ½6
where bn represents normal component, bt1 and bt2 are
tangential components. In this paper, an electrically
insulating boundary condition was assumed (jn = 0).
Therefore, according to Ampere’s law, bt1 and bt2 at
the boundary should satisfy the following condition.
bt1 ¼ bt2 ¼ 0 ½7
In this study, we mainly discuss the influence of the
Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr on the behavior of the liquid
metal jet from the submerged entry nozzle (SEN) ports
and steel/slag interface fluctuation in the mold. In order
to better observe the flow distribution and expansion of
the liquid metal jet, we define a mid-plane at the nozzle
port as a-plane, whose angle relative to the horizontal
plane equals to the nozzle port angle a as shown in
Figure 2(a).The geometry of the computational domain
is shown in Figure 2(b).
Due to the fact that the model is symmetrical, in order
to reduce the calculation time and improve the compu-
tational efficiency, one half of the mold geometry was
considered. Hexahedral unstructured meshing was
adopted in which a local mesh refinement method was
used in the region near the mold wall and the steel/slag
interface. The operating parameters and physical prop-
erties of the mold are shown in Table I.
B. Numerical Method
For the first stage of the numerical calculation, the 3D
external magnetic field B0 in the mold was solved by the
commercial software ANSYS (version 16.2.0), which
was then imported into the FLUENT software as the
calculated load of 3D flow field. More specifically, the
magnetic field data was imported to the activated
magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) module in order to
couple the flow field. Afterwards, the FLUENT flow
modeling software package was utilized to simulate the
interfacial fluctuation behavior of steel/slag and fluid
flow patterns of the liquid metal jet from the SEN port
under a static direct current (DC) magnetic field. In
addition, the computation of the effect of the DC
magnetic field on the flow field was based on a 3D
finite-volume method. Finally, the governing equations
were discretized in the FLUENT software using the
pressure implicit with splitting of operators (PISO)
algorithm for pressure–velocity coupling. The compu-
tations were performed on an AMD OPTERON 6134
CPU with a frequency of 2.3 GHz.
A grid independence test was performed to minimize
the effect of grid density on the computational results.
The operating parameters are as follows: a casting speed
of 1.6 m/min, a SEN port angle of downward 15 deg,
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
Fig. 2—Schematic and mesh to be based on the geometry of the mold: (a) schematic of the mold and (b) geometry of the mold.
and a magnetic flux density of 0 T. Calculations were
carried out for three grid sizes as listed in Table II. The
relative errors dp and dt correspond to the calculated
results at the peak and trough of the steel/slag interface,
respectively. The results showed that even the node
number was increased to 1.5 times of the node number
in the mesh M1, the relative errors of the height were less
than 5 pct. Therefore, considering the balance between
computational cost and accuracy, M1 was selected for
the present computations.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Magnetic Field
Figure 3 shows distributions of magnetic flux density
of two types of EMBr in one half volume of the mold
under a magnetomotive force (MMF) of 31500 amper-
e-turns (At).[37] Irrespective of the EMBr type (Ruler-
EMBr or V-EMBr), the distribution of magnetic flux
density within the coverage area of the magnetic pole is
uniform. At the central cross section of the mold, the
maximum magnetic flux density (Bmax) is 0.2 T. The
static magnetic field generated by the Ruler-EMBr can
cover the entire wide faces of the mold. In contrast, for
V-EMBr, the magnetic field can not only cover the free
surface, but also the impact region of the liquid metal jet
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
from the SEN. In order to show the details about the
differences in the magnetic flux density between the
Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr, the distributions of magnetic
flux density along three lines (the lines AB, CD, and EF
in Figures 3(a) and (b)) were extracted at the mold
central cross section along the direction of width, height,
and thickness of the mold, respectively.
Figure 4 represents the magnetic flux density distri-
bution with two types of magnets along three typical
lines (the lines AB, CD and EF). With the Ruler-EMBr,
the curvature of the magnetic flux density forms a
plateau along the width direction, and it descends
slightly near the narrow face of the mold due to
magnetic flux leakage as shown in Figure 4(a1). On the
contrary, when the V-EMBr is applied, the magnetic
flux density along the width direction is considerably
stronger in the vicinity of mold narrow face while it is
distinctly smaller within the central zone, which forms a
saddle shape as shown in Figure 4(b1). Figures 4(a2) and
(b2) indicate that the magnetic flux density along the
mold height direction is higher within the magnet zone,
and gradually decreases along both sides of the mold for
the case of Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr. As shown in
Figures 4(a3) and (b3), the magnitude of magnetic flux
density along the mold thickness direction with the
Ruler-EMBr is almost the same as that with the
V-EMBr under the same magnetomotive force (MMF).
 Table I. Geometrical Parameters and Physical Properties Lorentz force acts to the direction of the nozzle port,
which produces a braking effect directly on the initial
Parameter Value segment of the jet.
Mold Size (mm) 1450 9 230 Figure 6(a) shows that the magnetic field with
Mold Length (mm) 800 V-EMBr is concentrated in the region which is close to
Computational Domain (mm) 1450 9 230 9 4000 the narrow face of the mold, and it decays significantly
Casting Speed (m min1) 1.6 moving toward the SEN. Figure 6(b) shows that the
The Height of Liquid Mold Flux (mm) 35 induced current flows clockwise from the region where
Angle of Nozzle Port (deg)  10,  15,  20 the front of the jet flow interacts with the higher
Depth of SEN (mm) 225 magnetic field. As a consequence, the Lorentz force
Total Height of SEN Outlet (mm) 80 produces a braking effect on the upward flow and
Magnetomotive Force (A t) 0, 15750, 31500
downward flow as shown in Figure 6(c).
Liquid Steel Density (kg m3) 7020
Mold Flux Density (kg m3) 3500
Steel Viscosity (kg m1 s1) 0.0062 C. The Effect of EMBr on the Flow Pattern and Mold
Mold Flux Viscosity (kg m1 s1) 0.2664 Level Fluctuation
Interface Tension Coefficient (N m1) 1.2
Steel Electric Conductivity (S m1) 7.14 9 105 Figure 7 presents the velocity distribution in the
Magnetic Permeability (H m1) 1.257 9 106 mid-plane at the mold wide face with two types of
magnets under different magnetic flux densities. In case
Ruler-EMBr V-EMBr when no EMBr is applied, a typical double-roll flow
Reynolds Number (Re ¼ qUd=l; 69500 69500
pattern is predicted as shown in Figure 7(a). Note that the
Based On Nozzle Diameter) liquid metal jet discharged from the SEN shows the
Reynolds Number (Re ¼ qUL=l; 702000 232000 tendency of tilting upward at the main body section. It
Based on Magnetic Pole Width) splits into an upward and a downward flow pattern after
Hartmann Number
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1550 515 impacting on the narrow face of the mold. The liquid steel
(Ha ¼ B0 L r=l; Based on Mag- flows upward along the mold narrow face, approaches to
netic Pole Width) the steel/slag interface and then flows back to the center of
Stuart Number (N ¼ B20 Lr=qU; 3.4 1.14 the mold to form an anticlockwise vortex. The downward
Based on Magnetic Pole Width) liquid steel flow penetrates deeply into the molten pool
Depth of SEN is the distance from the top of port to the mold level. and generates a big clockwise vortex.
The Hartmann number can be obtained by imposing the magnetic Figures 7(b) and (c) show that the jet impingement
flux density of 0.2 T. upon the narrow face of the mold is suppressed by
Ruler-EMBr. In the lower recirculation zone, the core of
Table II. Statistic Results of the Error with Different Grid
the vortex is shifted downward by the magnetic field
Node Numbers which is in agreement with the results of Reference 7. In
addition, extra small vortices are generated below the jet
Mesh M1 M2 M3 stream when the magnetic flux density reaches to 0.2 T.
However, in the upper recirculation zone, the braking
Total Node Number 291365 360062 437985 effect is not significant. Figures 7(d) and (e) show that
dp ¼ jHMi  HM1 j=HM1 0 0.642 pct 1.519 pct
the tendency of tilting of the jet flow is weakened by
dt ¼ jhMi  hM1 j=hM1 0 1.648 pct 3.942 pct
V-EMBr, which is beneficial for the stabilization of the
H: distance from the level of steel/slag interface (z =  0.035 m) to mold level. In addition, the lower recirculation zone is
the peak of the fluctuating interface. pushed away by the Lorentz force from the narrow face
h: distance from the level of static steel/slag interface (z =  0.035
m) to the trough of the fluctuating interface. of mold, which could promote the uniformity of the
initial solidified shell on the narrow side of the mold.
However, at a higher magnetic field, an extra vortex is
B. Electromagnetic Field formed below the jet flow which may have an adverse
effect on the flotation of bubbles and nonmetallic
Using the same operating parameters described ear- inclusions.
lier, Figures 5 and 6 show the contour of magnetic flux Figure 8 shows the streamlines and velocity distribu-
density, vectors of current density and Lorentz force at tion of jet stream in a-plane with different magnets. The
half thickness in the mold with Ruler-EMBr and jet stream from the SEN has an obvious expansion
V-EMBr, respectively. The black dashed lines in the characteristic. In case when the EMBr is absent, the jet
plots indicate the EMBr position. stream in a-plane is irregular and divergent. Figures 8(b)
Figure 5(a) shows that the distribution of magnetic through (c) illustrate that in the case of Ruler-EMBr, the
field with Ruler-EMBr is almost uniformly focused on extent of expansion of the jet stream increases with the
the mold wide face, which can cover the main part of the increase of magnetic flux density. The vortex in the
discharging jet flow. Figure 5(b) shows that the path of vicinity of the nozzle disappears when magnetic flux
the induced current is concentrated in the vicinity of the density is increased to 0.2 T. Figures 8(d) through (e)
nozzle exit. The vortices of induced current are formed show that in the case of V-EMBr, the discharging jet
at the region where the jet flow splits into an upward flow is stretched by the gradient of the magnetic field.
flow and a downward flow. Figure 5(c) shows that the This stretching effect is enhanced by the increase of

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

Fig. 3—Contour plot of magnetic flux density in the mold with (a) Ruler-EMBr and (b) V-EMBr.

Fig. 4—Distribution of magnetic flux density in different directions with (a) Ruler-EMBr and (b) V-EMBr.

magnetic flux density, in which the velocity of liquid a consequence, the impingement of the jet stream on the
steel close to the mold wall is further decreased. mold wall should be controlled by V-EMBr which
Moreover, the jet stream flows regularly towards the reduces the potential for breakout of liquid steel from
narrow face of the mold which presents a fan-shape. As the solidified shell.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

Fig. 5—Distribution of magnetic flux density, induced current density, and Lorentz force in the central plane with Ruler-EMBr: (a) B0 = 0.2 T,
(b) induced current density, and (c) Lorentz force.

Fig. 6—Distribution of magnetic flux density, induced current density, and Lorentz force in the central plane with V-EMBr: (a) B0 = 0.2 T, (b)
induced current density, and (c) Lorentz force.

Figure 9 illustrates the 3D steel/slag interface profiles
with different EMBrs. The results show that the defor-
mation of the steel/slag interface with V-EMBr is much
smaller than that with Ruler-EMBr. Furthermore, this
phenomenon is more apparent under a higher magnetic
field.
The quantitative analysis of the steel/slag interface
fluctuation is shown in Figure 10. On the condition of
no EMBr, the fluctuation height is up to 16.2 mm. In the
case of Ruler-EMBr, the fluctuation height is reduced to
15.0 and 11.9 mm with a magnetic flux density of 0.1
and 0.2 T, respectively. With the application of
V-EMBr, the fluctuation height is remarkably reduced
from 11.2 to 6.0 mm when the magnetic flux density is
increased from 0.1 to 0.2 T.
Figure 11 shows the velocity distribution along the
centerline in x-y cross section (z =  35 mm) with
different magnetic flux densities under Ruler-EMBr and
V-EMBr. With the absence of EMBr, the maximum
surface velocity is  0.24 m/s. When the Ruler-EMBr is
applied, the surface velocity is reduced to  0.23 and
 0.22 m/s with a magnetic flux density of 0.1 and 0.2 T,
respectively. In the case of V-EMBr, when the magnetic
flux density is increased from 0.1 to 0.2 T, the maximum

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

Fig. 7—Velocity distribution under two types of magnets in the central plane: (a) B = 0 T, no EMBr; (b) B = 0.1 T, and (c) B = 0.2 T, with
Ruler-EMBr; (d) B = 0.1 T, and (e) B = 0.2 T, with V-EMBr.

Fig. 8—Streamlines and velocity distribution under Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr in the a-plane: (a) B = 0 T, no EMBr; (b) B = 0.1 T, and (c) B
= 0.2 T, with Ruler-EMBr; (d) B = 0.1 T, and (e) B = 0.2 T, with V-EMBr.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

Fig. 9—Steel/slag interface profiles under two types of magnets with different magnetic flux densities: (a) B = 0 T, no EMBr; (b) B = 0.1 T,
and (c) B = 0.2 T, with Ruler-EMBr; (d) B = 0.1 T, and (e) B = 0.2 T, with V-EMBr.
Fig. 10—Profile of fluctuating steel/slag interface with various
magnetic flux densities.
surface velocity is significantly reduced from  0.20 to
 0.15 m/s. It can be summarized from above that to
reach the same level of braking effect on the surface flow
and steel/slag interface fluctuation, a magnetic flux
density of 0.1 T is sufficient for V-EMBr, while 0.2 T is
needed for Ruler-EMBr.
D. The Effect of Nozzle Port Angle on the Braking
Effect
Figure 12 describes the velocity distribution in the
mid-plane of the mold wide face with different nozzle
port angles. It can be seen from Figures 12(a) through
(c), when the Ruler-EMBr is applied, the penetration
depth in the lower part of the mold and the range of the
Fig. 11—Distribution of horizontal component of velocity on the
centerline in the mold width direction 35 mm deep from the free
surface.
upper recirculation zone are increased with increased
port angles. Furthermore, extra vortices below the jet
stream are restrained especially when the port angle is
increased to downward 20 deg. Obviously, the flow
pattern in the lower recirculation zone is more strongly
influenced by the nozzle port angle than that in the
upper recirculation zone with the fixed location of
Ruler-EMBr. With the application of V-EMBr,
Figure 12(d) shows that the front jet stream is rejected
by the magnetic field and extra small vortices are formed
below the jet stream. When the downward port angle
increases, the front jet stream is deflected rather than
rejected by the magnetic field as show in Figures 12(e)
and (f). Additionally, the vortex core in the upper
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
Fig. 12—Velocity vectors in the central plane under two types of magnets with different SEN port angles: (a)  10, (b)  15, and (c)  20 deg,
with Ruler-EMBr; (d)  10, (e)  15, and (f)  20 deg, with V-EMBr.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

recirculation zone is shifted downward with the increase is not obvious. The maximum velocity is reduced to
of SEN port angle, which results in a more stable steel/  0.22,  0.22 and  0.21 m/s in turn when the
slag interface. downward port angle is  10,  15 and  20 deg,
Figure 13 shows the streamlines and velocity distri- respectively. In comparison, the surface velocity is
bution of jet stream in the a-plane with various nozzle significantly reduced by V-EMBr. The maximum veloc-
port angles. From Figures 13(a) through (c), it can be ity is reduced to  0.19,  0.16 and  0.13 m/s, when
seen that when the Ruler-EMBr is applied, the expan- the corresponding to the downward port angle is  10,
sion of the jet stream is slightly restrained with the  15 and  20 deg.
increase of SEN port angles. However, the impingement From Figures 12 through 15, it can be seen that
velocity of the jet stream on the mold narrow face is Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr have their own characteris-
obviously weakened. In contrast, a fan-shaped jet tics in terms of the braking effect. Ruler-EMBr has a
stream is produced by V-EMBr, regardless of the better control of the flow pattern in the lower part of the
variations of the nozzle port angle as shown in mold, while V-EMBr has a better suppression on the
Figures 13(d) through (f). Note that both the expansion surface flow. Moreover, with V-EMBr the surface
and the impingement of the jet stream on the mold
narrow face are significantly restrained, which decreases
the impact strength against the mold faces.
Figure 14 shows the fluctuation of steel/slag interface
with various port angles under Ruler-EMBr and
V-EMBr. With Ruler-EMBr, the fluctuation height is
reduced to 12.6, 11.9 and 11.3 mm when the port angle
is  10,  15 and  20 deg, respectively. In addition,
with V-EMBr, the fluctuation height is remarkably
reduced to 8.7, 6.0 and 3.8 mm, when the corresponding
to the downward port angle is  10,  15 and  20 deg,
respectively.
The velocity distribution along the centerline in x-y
cross section (z =  35 mm) with different port angles
under Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr is illustrated in
Figure 15. The velocity of the backflow under the free
surface is decreased with the increase of port angle for
both Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr. When the Ruler-EMBr Fig. 14—Profile of fluctuating steel/slag interface with different port
is applied, the braking effect on the upper recirculation angles.

Fig. 13—Streamlines and velocity distribution contour under Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr in the a-plane with different SEN port angles: (a)  10,
(b)  15, and (c)  20 deg, with Ruler-EMBr; (d)  10, (e)  15, and (f)  20 deg, with V-EMBr.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B


Fig. 15—Distribution of horizontal component of velocity on the
centerline in the mold width direction 35 mm deep from the free
surface.
velocity and fluctuation can be suppressed to a desirable
extent even with a wide variation of nozzle port angles,
which can be influenced by inclusion buildup in the SEN
port during casting. Last but not least, it’s necessary to
mention that these findings are based on computations
that experimental data are needed to verify these
predictions.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
(RANS) SST k–x model was utilized to investigate the
influence of EMBr on the steel/slag interface fluctuation
and liquid metal jet flow. A horizontal EMBr (Ruler-
EMBr) and a vertical EMBr (V-EMBr) were considered
and compared in the present study. Two important
parameters including magnetic flux density and nozzle
port angle were taken into account to analyze the
braking effects of Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr, with the
following findings.
1. The characteristics of electromagnetic field inside a
1450 mm 9 230 mm mold with Ruler-EMBr and
V-EMBr have been compared. In the model simula-
tions with Ruler-EMBr configuration, the effective
area of influence can cover the mold wide face, which
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
produces a braking effect directly on the main part of
discharging jet flow. However, the effective area that
the V-EMBr influences can not only cover the front
jet stream, but also the free surface, which produces a
braking effect to maintain a favorable double-roll
flow pattern in the mold and stabilize the mold level
surface.
2. When the Ruler-EMBr is applied, the lower recircu-
lation flow can be effectively controlled with an in-
crease of magnetic flux density. However, the
influence of the Ruler-EMBr is insufficient to control
the upper recirculation flow due to the significant
magnetic field decay in the upper part of the mold.
When the magnetic field from a V-EMBr is imposed,
both the expansion and the velocity of jet flow are
significantly restrained, which suppresses the
impingement of the liquid steel on the mold narrow
face. In addition, the upward deflection of jet flow
near the mold narrow face is further suppressed as
the magnetic field is strengthened, and the braking
effect on the surface flow and steel/slag interface
fluctuation are more effective. To reach the same level
of braking effect on the upper recirculation flow, a
magnetic flux density of 0.1 T is sufficient for
V-EMBr, while 0.2 T is needed for Ruler-EMBr.
3. An increase of the nozzle port angle results in a
downward movement of the liquid metal jet stream.
When the nozzle port angle is increased to match the
installation position of the Ruler-EMBr, the large
vortices beneath the jet flow is almost completely
eliminated. On the condition with V-EMBr, the front
jet stream is deflected rather than rejected by the
magnetic field with the increasing port angles. How-
ever, the surface velocity and steel/slag interface
fluctuation can be suppressed to acceptable values
even with a wide variation of nozzle port angles.
In the current study, the focus is mainly on the
influence of Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr on the behavior
of steel/slag interface fluctuation and metal jet flow in
the continuous casting mold. The effects of the sec-
ond-generation V-EMBr device, which combines the
merits of the Ruler-EMBr and V-EMBr on the flow of
liquid steel, solidification. and heat transfer in the
continuous casting mold will be the subject of ongoing
studies.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
" pffiffiffi ! #
This study was financially supported by the Na- k 500l 4qk
tional Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant arg1 ¼ min max ; ; :
No. 51574083, Grant No. 51474065 and Grant No. 0:09xy qy2 x rx;2 CDkx y2
U1760206), the Program of Introducing Talents of
Discipline to Universities (The 111 Project of China, where CDkx: the positive portion of the cross-diffusion
Grant No. B07015), and the Fundamental Research term
Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No.  
1 1 @k @x 10
N160904004). Computer resources were provided by CDkx ¼ max 2q ; 10 ;
rx;2 x @xj @xj
the computing center at the Technische Universität
Ilmenau, Germany. The authors are also grateful to where leff: effective viscosity
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for the
financial support in the framework of Research Train- leff ¼ l þ lt
ing Group Lorentz Force Velocimetry and Lorentz
Force Eddy Current Testing (GRK 1567).
l ¼ lst ust þ lsl ð1  ust Þ;

APPENDIX: GOVERNING EQUATIONS where lt: turbulent viscosity

FOR FLUID FLOW qa1 k
lt ¼ ;
Continuity Equation: maxða1 x; SF2 Þ
r  ðqUÞ ¼ 0; ½A1 where S: strain rate magnitude
 
where pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 @Ui @Uj
S¼ 2Sij Sij ; Sij ¼ þ ;
q ¼ qst ust þ qsl ð1  ust Þ 2 @xj @xi

Momentum Equation: where F2: a blending function is similar to F1

 
@ ðqUÞ F2 ¼ tanh arg22
þ r  ½qðU  UÞ ¼ rp þ r
@t   
 leff rU þ rUT þ qg
pffiffiffi !
þ f þ Fmag k 500l
½A2 arg2 ¼ max 2 ; ;
0:09xy qy2 x
Turbulence Equations:
where a3: a linear combination of the corresponding
 

@ ðqkÞ @ ðqkÞ @ l @k coefficients

þ Uj ¼ lþ t þ Gk ; ½A3
@t @xj @xj rk @xj a3 ¼ a1 F1 þ a2 ð1  F1 Þ;
where Gk: generation of turbulence kinetic energy
 
( "      #
@ ðqxÞ @ ðqxÞ @ lt @x a3 q
þ Uj ¼ lþ þ Gk @u 2 @v 2 @w 2
@t @xj @xj rx @xj lt Gk ¼ lt 2 þ þ
1 @k @x @x @y @z
þ 2ð1  F1 Þq ;      )
xrx;2 @xj @xj @u @v 2 @u @w 2 @v @w 2
þ þ þ þ þ þ
½A4 @y @x @z @x @z @y
where rk, rx are the turbulent Prandtl numbers Turbulence model constants:
1 a1 = 0.56, a2 = 0.44, rk,1 = 1.176, rx,1 = 2, rk,2 = 1,
rk ¼   rx,2 = 1.168.
F1 rk;1þ ð1  F1 Þ rk;2

NOMENCLATURE
1
rx ¼   ; t Time (s)
F1 rx;1þ ð1  F1 Þ rx;2
d Nozzle diameter (m)
where F1: a function of the wall distance; p Pressure (Pa)
y: the distance to the nearest wall U Average mixture velocity vector (m/s)
  Ust Velocity vector of the steel (m/s)
F1 ¼ tanh arg41 Uin Normal velocity of inlet (m/s)

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

g Gravitational acceleration (m/s2) 10. A. Idogawa, M. Sugizawa, S. Takeuchi, K. Sorimachi, and T.
Fujii: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1993, vol. 173A, pp. 293–97.
f Interaction force (N/m3) 11. Y. Miki and S. Takeuchi: ISIJ Int., 2003, vol. 43, pp. 1548–55.
J Eddy current density (A/m2) 12. S.M. Cho, S.H. Kim, and B.G. Thomas: ISIJ Int., 2014, vol. 54,
B0 External magnetic field (T) pp. 845–54.
Fmag Lorentz force (N/m3) 13. E.G. Wang, J.C. He, L. Kang, Z.H. Chen, and A.Y. Deng: China
Patent, ZL 2008 10011104.7.
14. E.G. Wang, L. Kang, F. Li, and J.C. He: Proceedings of 6th
International Conference on Electromagnetic Processing of Mate-
rials, Forschungszentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, 2009,
pp. 583–86.
GREEK SYMBOLS 15. F. Li, E.G. Wang, M.J. Feng, and Z. Li: ISIJ Int., 2015, vol. 55,
pp. 814–20.
r Electrical conductivity of the fluid (S/m) 16. Z. Li, E.G. Wang, L.T. Zhang, Y. Xu, and A.Y. Deng: Metall.
q Average density of the fluid (kg/m3) Mater. Trans. B, 2017, vol. 48B, pp. 389–402.
leff Effective viscosity of the fluid (kg/(m s)) 17. F.M. Najjar, B.G. Thomas, and D.E. Hersey: Metall. Mater.
l Average dynamic viscosity of the fluid (kg/(m s)) Trans. B, 1995, vol. 26B, pp. 749–66.
18. Y.S. Hwang, P.R. Cha, H.S. Nam, K.H. Moon, and J.K. Yoon:
k Turbulent kinetic energy (m2/s2) ISIJ Int., 1997, vol. 37, pp. 659–67.
x Turbulent dissipation rate (1/s) 19. H. Harada, T. Toh, T. Ishii, K. Kaneko, and E. Takeuchi: ISIJ
u Volume fraction of the fluid Int., 2001, vol. 41, pp. 1236–44.
20. J. Anagnostopoulos and G. Bergeles: Metall. Mater. Trans. B,
1999, vol. 30B, pp. 1095–1105.
21. H.Q. Yu, M.Y. Zhu, and J. Wang: ISIJ Int., 2010, vol. 17, pp. 05–
11.
SUBSCRIPTS 22. C.W. Hirt and B.D. Nichols: J. Comput. Phys., 1981, vol. 39,
pp. 201–25.
in Inlet 23. T. Ménard, S. Tanguy, and A. Berlemont: Int. J. Multiph. Flow,
2007, vol. 33, pp. 510–24.
mag Magnetic 24. S. Galera, P.H. Maire, and J. Breil: J. Comput. Phys., 2010,
sl Slag vol. 229, pp. 5755–87.
st Steel 25. S.S. Rabha and V.V. Buwa: Chem. Eng. Sci., 2010, vol. 65,
p Peak pp. 527–37.
26. S.B. Pope: Turbulent Flows, 1st ed., Cambridge University Press,
t Trough United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UK,
2000, pp. 558–58.
27. Z.Q. Liu, L.M. Li, B.K. Li, and M.F. Jiang: JOM, 2014, vol. 66,
pp. 1184–96.
REFERENCES 28. P. Zhao, Q. Li, S.B. Kuang, and Z.S. Zou: Metall. Mater. Trans.
1. T. Honeyands and J. Herbertson: Steel Res., 1995, vol. 66, B, 2017, vol. 48B, pp. 456–70.
pp. 287–93. 29. X.Y. Tian, B.W. Li, and J.C. He: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2009,
2. L. Zhang, S. Yang, K. Cai, J. Li, X. Wan, and B.G. Thomas: vol. 40B, pp. 596–604.
Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2007, vol. 38B, pp. 63–83. 30. H.P. Liu, C.Z. Yang, H. Zhang, Q.J. Zhai, and Y. Gan: ISIJ Int.,
3. B. Li, T. Okane, and T. Umeda: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2000, 2011, vol. 51, pp. 392–401.
vol. 31B, pp. 1491–503. 31. F.R. Menter: AIAA J., 1994, vol. 32, pp. 1598–1605.
4. S. Kim, W.S. Kim, and K.H. Cho: ISIJ Int., 2000, vol. 40, 32. A. Asad, C. Kratzsch, and R. Schwarze: Steel Res., 2016, vol. 87,
pp. 670–76. pp. 181–90.
5. H. Yamamura, T. Toh, H. Harada, E. Takeuchi, and T. Ishii: ISIJ 33. K. Timmel, S. Eckert, G. Gerbeth, F. Stefani, and T. Wondrak:
Int., 2001, vol. 41, pp. 1229–35. ISIJ Int., 2010, vol. 50, pp. 1134–41.
6. R. Chaudhary, B.G. Thomas, and S.P. Vanka: Metall. Mater. 34. S. Garciahernandez, R.D. Morales, and E. Torresalonso: Ironmak.
Trans. B, 2012, vol. 43B, pp. 532–53. Steelmak., 2010, vol. 37, pp. 360–68.
7. X.C. Miao, K. Timmel, D. Lucas, Z.M. Ren, S. Eckert, and G. 35. H.Q. Yu and M.Y. Zhu: Acta Metall. Sin., 2008, vol. 44, pp. 1141–
Gerbeth: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2012, vol. 43B, pp. 954–72. 48.
8. R. Singh, B.G. Thomas, and S.P. Vanka: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 36. ANSYS FLUENT User’s Guide: ANSYS Inc., ver. 16.2.0 edition,
2013, vol. 44B, pp. 1201–21. 2016.
9. L.S. Zhang, X.F. Zhang, B. Wang, Q. Liu, and Z.G. Hu: Metall. 37. T. Mautner: The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, 1st ed., Pen-
Mater. Trans. B, 2014, vol. 45B, pp. 295–306. guin Books, New York, NY, 1996, pp. 28–28.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B