English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Numerical modeling is the approach used most often for studying and optimizing the molten steel flow in a continuous casting mold. The selection of the physical model might very much influence such studies. Hence, it is paramount to choose a proper model. In this work, the numerical results of four turbulence models are compared to the experimental results of the water model of continuous casting of steel billets using a single SEN port in a downward vertical orientation. Experimental results were obtained with a 2D PIV (Particle Image Velocimetry) system with measurements taken at various cut planes. Only hydrodynamic effects without solidification are considered. The turbulence is modeled using the RANS (Realizable k-ε, SST k-ω), hybrid RANS/Scale Resolved (SAS), and Scale Resolved approach (LES). The models are numerically solved by the finite volume method, with volume of fluid treatment at the free interface. The geometry, boundary conditions, and material properties were entirely consistent with those of the water model experimental study. Thus, the study allowed a detailed comparison and validation of the turbulence models used. The numerical predictions are compared to experimental data using contours of velocity and velocity plots. The agreement is assessed by comparing the lateral dispersion of the liquid jet in a streamwise direction for the core flow and the secondary flow behavior where recirculation zones form. The comparison of the simulations shows that while all four models capture general flow features (e.g., mean velocities in the temporal and spatial domain), only the LES model predicts finer turbulent structures and captures temporal flow fluctuations to the extent observed in the experiment, while SAS bridges the gap between RANS and LES.

RANS versus Scale Resolved Approach for Modeling Turbulent Flow in Continuous Casting of Steel