Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
G. Palmer, T. Howes
Fig. 7 Overlay of anchor base and shell hot zones showing increased temperature area 3 3D thermal analysis
A 3D thermal analysis was carried out using
ATENA [3] under perfect thermal conduction
conditions to show the temperature profile
around the anchor. The 3D model is of a
two-layer system (insulation and hot-face)
with a hot-face thickness of 146 mm and in-
sulation of 80 mm with a two-part type an-
chor (Fig. 8). The temperature boundary con-
ditions were a shell boundary convection of
100 W/m2 ⋅ K and 1110 °C surface tempera-
ture at the hot-face.
The temperature profile is shown in
Figs. 9 – 13. The 3D analysis shows that re-
fractory anchors facilitate in conducting heat
to the shell and the temperature in the re-
fractory surrounding the anchor can also be
lowered. The extent of cooling around an an-
chor is very dependent on the quality of re-
fractory (honeycombing) and the cross-sec-
tional area of the anchor.
Fig. 8 3D model of a two layer refractory system with cut-out showing anchor profile However, it is very important to be aware
that the quality of the welding of the anchor
to the shell and shadowing (poorly consoli-
dated concrete) around the anchor at the in-
terface will significantly affect the tempera-
ture profile and consequently the creep rup-
ture stress.
This analysis shows that the temperature
around the anchor and refractory can vary
depending on materials, anchor type and
boundary conditions. Under perfect condi-
tions the anchor interface temperature can
be lower by approximately 100 °C.
Fig. 10 shows the temperature along a steel
anchor embedded in a two-layer refractory
concrete system. This shows the temperature
around the anchor is decreased when em-
bedded in the hot-face and increases at the
shell.
The analysis shows that the temperature de-
Fig. 9 3D temperature profile for a two layer system with high convection the shell crease is confined to the volume around the
(100W/m2 ⋅ K) anchor.
The analysis also shows that anchors with
conductor and can increase the temperature Field results show the temperature increase large cross-sectional areas that penetrate
at the shell at that location by up to 10 °C. is approximately 10 °C above the surround- into the hot-face will conduct heat at a
4 Conclusions
It is concluded that the current design pro-
cedure of using a 1D heat transfer model is
insufficient to predict temperature profiles in
refractory systems comprising refractory an-
chors.
In the field it is regularly observed that two-
layer refractory systems have air gaps be-
tween refractory concrete composite layers.
The thermal analysis in Part 1 of this paper
shows that a gap in the order 1–2 mm at
the interface between the concrete layers
can be significant and should be taken
into consideration. However, if the manu-
facturer’s datasheet value for thermal Fig. 10 Elevation view showing the temperature profile near the centre of the anchor
conductivity is used with air gaps then the
shell temperature will be underestimated
(i.e. the shell temperature will be lower than
actual). The thermal analysis should be car-
ried out using an air gap and the thermal
conductivity calculated from the hot-wire
method.
The 2D analysis shows that the temperature
between the vee can increase by approxi-
mately 10 °C under ideal conditions. Howev-
er, the 3D analysis shows that the anchor
vee does not have sufficient mass around Fig. 11 Section (X-Z) at 0,13 m from the Fig. 12 Section (X-Z) at 0,83 m from the
the anchor vee for temperature bridging to anchor base anchor base
occur. However, if sufficient anchors are in
place and in close proximity to each other closely packed then temperature “bridging”
then temperature bridging is likely to occur. may occur which will result in higher tem-
A 3D thermal analysis shows the tempera- peratures in the anchor around the interface
ture around the refractory anchor will be zone. It is recommended that 3D thermal
higher at the shell due to the anchor’s ther- analysis be carried out when designing re-
mal conductivity. This analysis has found that fractory structures. This is particularly impor-
under perfect conduction then the tempera- tant as the shape of the anchor can affect
ture around the refractory anchor does not the temperature, which in turn can signifi-
follow the temperature profile predicted us- cantly decrease the creep rupture stress. If
ing 1D heat transfer models. 1D analysis is used that the limitations of the
Our analysis shows that 1D or 3D thermal results must be clearly explained.
analysis, which includes air gaps between
layers, should be used when designing re- References
Fig. 13 Section (X-Z) at 0,21 m from the
fractory structures. It has also been shown [1] Akiyoshi, M.M.; da Silva, A.P.; da Silva, M.G.;
anchor base
that 1D analysis will only predict the tem- Pandolfelli, V.C.: Impact of thermal conductivity
perature profile through the refractory away on refractories. Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 81 (2002)
from the anchors. [3] [3] ATENA Program Documentation, Part 1. V. , Pra-
A 3D thermal analysis shows temperature [2] Akiyoshi, M.M.; Pereira, R.; da Silva, A.P.; Pan- gue, September 13, 2006
“bridging” does not occur between an an- dolfelli, V.C.: Effect of alumina content, porosity [4] Palmer, G.; Smilie, M.: Selecting steel anchors for
chor vee as predicted by 2D analysis. How- and temperature on the thermal conductivity of monolithic refractory linings. Refr. Appl. & News
ever, it does indicate that if anchors are very refractories. Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 82 (2003) [6] 12 (2007) [5]
Remark from the editor: Part 1 has been published in refractories WORLDFORUM 2 (2010) [2] 94