Outline

Optimum Spray Cooling in Continuous Slab • Problems and overview of continuous slab casting
Casting Process under Productivity • Solidification Model
Improvement • Cost function specification
• Optimum spray cooling
• Conclusion
Kiatkajohn Worapradya
Program of Integrated Product Design and Manufacturing

Purit Thanakijkasem, Ph.D.

Division of Materials Technology,
School of Energy, Environment and Materials
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi

1 2

www.ieem.org 1 www.ieem.org 2

1 2

Introduction: Problems and Challenging issues Introduction: Overview of Process

– In the steel slab industry, since the current production is on
the mass customization focus, the quality and productivity
improvement is important.

– In the continuous slab casting, inadequate control of

temperature at the strand surface and center directly
affects the product quality (e.g., cracking).

– Therefore, the optimization of the secondary cooling with a

consistent casting speed in the continuous slab caster is
necessary.
3 4
www.ssab.com/en/About-SSAB1/Steel-making-process/
www.ieem.org 3 www.ieem.org 4

•Iron and steel industrial is one of the most important
industries due to being the upstream of industrial
chain.Recently, the steel slab production, especially in Asia,
turns toward a mass customization. This production, quality
and productivity improvement is the keys to success.
•For the quality improvement in slab casting, we can reduce
or avoid the slab cracking by optimally control of the
temperature at the strand surface and center.
•Normally, the temperature of slab can be control by the
cooling system. So, an effective cooling rate calculation is
important.
•In addition, the most factories improve the productivity by
increasing the casting speed, which directly affects to the
spray cooling.
•Therefore, the optimization of the cooling with a consistent
casting speed is necessary.
•For overview of the casting process, it can be shown in the
figure.
•It start from pouring the molten steel in the buffer. The steel
will be solidified in the mold, firstly around the shell. In the
mold the slab center is still liquid.
•The solid shell is pulled to the secondary cooling zone, the
cooling system will spray the water on the slab surface. At
this process that we focus, the optimal spray cooling rate will
be calculated by our approach.
•After that the solid slab will be cut into pieces.

3 4
 Introduction: Simulation-based optimization Solidification Model: Model formulation
• Governing equation of heat conduction
in an unsteady state is shown as follows:

∂T  ∂ 2T 
ρc = k  + q&
∂t  2
 ∂x 

• Then, The Equation is approximated by

finite difference terms as follows:
n +1 (Tin+1 − 2Tin + Tin−1 )
T − Tin
ρc i =k + q&
∆t ∆x

 ∆t  n  ∆t ∆t  n  ∆t  n
Tin +1 =  T + 1− − T + T
  i −1  Ct Ri,i −1 Ct Ri,i +1  i  Ct Ri,i +1  i +1
 Ct Ri,i −1     

5 where ρ is the material density, c is the specific heat, t is time 6

www.ieem.org 5 www.ieem.org 6

•Our system can be shown in this figure. This system, a
solidification model is applied.
•It start from receiving the plan from the scheduler and send
the important parameters from plan to set up the model.
•Then, cooling rate is calculated based on the solidification
model, which predicts the slab temperature in each position.
•The optimal spray cooling rate will be sent to set up the
machine in the lower level.
•To create the solidification model, the slab will be divided
into the small pieces.
•The heat conduction equation, as shown in the 1st equation,
is used to derive the output temperature.
•Then, the finite difference is apply for this equation. By the
representation via the heat resistance as the figure and
internal heat source q, finally we can get the output
temperature, which is depended on time and the near
element temperature as the final equation in this page.

5 6

Solidification Model: Boundary condition Solidification Model: Model validation

• At t=0, the temperature profile • The developed model is
of a slice at meniscus is set compared with Ishiguro
equal to the pouring and Itaoka ’s model
temperature. (1974) and factory data.

• Heat flux between the elements

at the center line of the slab is
neglected.

• Heat flux at the outer surface of

slab in the different regions
defined as

− k (∂T / ∂x) x =0 = qout 7 8

www.ieem.org 7 www.ieem.org 8

•This model, we give the initial condition as shown on the
side view figure of slab.
•At starting point, the temperature profile of each slice at
meniscus is set equal to the pouring temperature.
•And neglect the heat flux at the center line of slab.
•The heat flux at outer surface is defined by the table.
•The result model will be validated by comparing with the
work of Ishiguro and Itaoka, which is validated by the factory
data.
•Clearly, it is admitted by visual check.

7 8
 Objective Specification Objective Specification
Quality criteria Quality criteria

• Shell thickness at mold exit: For • Surface temperature at

avoiding breakout, shell thickness has
to be greater than 10% of half slab
thickness (Santos et al., 2003) .
J1 = max[0, T10% − TS ]
• Metallurgical length: To avoid internal
and transversal cracking, steel have
to be completely solidified before the
unbending point.
J 2 = max[0, Tcenter − TS ]
unbending point: To avoid
transverse surface cracking due
to bending, strand surface
temperature at bending point
should be kept out of the lower
ductility zone (700-900 C by
Santos et al., 2003).
[
 max 0, Tsurface − Tupper
J3 = 
] Tsurface ≥ Tupper
 max[ 0, Tlower − Tsurface ] Tsurface ≤ Tlower
9 10

www.ieem.org 9 www.ieem.org 10

•Besides the solidification model, the objective definition is •To avoid the transverse surface cracking due to bending
also important for the optimization. under the lower ductility, the strand surface temperature at
•The objective function is created based on the quality and the bending point is suggested to be kept out of the lower
resource suggestion. ductility zone (700-900 C).
•By quality, the exact size of shell thickness at mold exit is
suggest to avoid the breakout. The suggestion is developed
to J1.
•Then, to avoid internal and transversal cracking, the steel
have to be completely solidified before the unbending point.
In the other hand, temperature at center should be lower the
solidus temp. before bending point. So, J2 is established.

9 10

Objective Specification Objective Specification

Quality criteria Resource Criteria

• Reheating temperature: To avoid • Water flow rate

midway surface cracking, reheating n
temperature (which leads to the
development of the tensile stress at
J5 = ∑Wi
the solidification front) must be i =1
limited at 100 C (Spuy et al., 1999). Total objective function
• The summation of the normalized value in each sub-objective
function.
n
∑ max[0, ∆Tzone i − ∆Tmax ]
k
J −J
J4 =
i =1
J total = ∑ Ji max
i i min
− J i min
pi
i =1
11 12

www.ieem.org 11 www.ieem.org 12

•When water is prayed in each zone, the surface
temperature is reduced and then it will be increased when
the slab is moved out of spray zone. The difference of max
and min temperature is Reheating Temperature. It is
suggested by 100 C.
•So, we can define the subfunction as J4.
•The resource criteria that is the water consumption has to
be also reduced. So, J5 is defined as the total consumption
rate.
•Finally, total objective function is the compromise by penalty
weight of the summation of the normalize sub-functions.

11 12
 Optimal Spray Cooling Optimal Spray Cooling: Definition of parameters
Experiment Model parameters
GA parameters
• Off-line optimization based Parameters Value

on the solidification model. Representation Binary

• Construct model based on Population size 60
schedule data. Max. iteration 40
Two points
• Quality improvement Crossover
(rate 0.8)
• Productivity improvement
Stochastic
Selection
uniform
Random
Mutation
(rate 0.01)

13 14

www.ieem.org 13 www.ieem.org 14

•For the experiment, 2 cases, which is the quality and

productivity improvements, will be off-line optimized.

13 14

Optimal Spray Cooling Optimal Spray Cooling

Quality improvement Quality improvement (Cont.)
• Quality will be improved by tuning
penalty weights under the constant
casting speed (0.65 m/min).

• The weight is trialed by starting

from p= {1,1,1,1,1} until all of the
quality constrains are satisfied
(J1-J4). 15 Reduced 16

www.ieem.org 15 www.ieem.org 16

•For quality improvement, the slab quality will be improved
by tuning the penalty weights under the normal situation,
which cast with constant speed at 0.65 m/min.
•The weight trial starts from the set of {1,1,1,1,1} until all of
the quality constrains are satisfied.
•The results shown on The figure. The reheating weight was
increased, while the water resource weight was relaxed.
•The pattern of the spray rate of 8 zones is shown on
Figure.
•The table shows that the reheating temperature in each
zone and water rate can be reduced.
•The final value after optimization of the control variables are
used to be criteria for the productivity improvement.

15 16
 Optimal Spray Cooling Optimal Spray Cooling
Productivity Improvement Productivity Improvement (Cont.)
• Productivity will be improved by increasing the casting speed (from
0.65 m/min with 0.5 per step).
• Under the constant penalty weight defined in Case I until the quality
constraints are infringed.

17 18

www.ieem.org 17 www.ieem.org 18

•Productivity will be improved by increasing the casting •The table show that after 0.75 m/min, the center
speed from 0.65 m/min with 0.5 per step under the constant temperature and the reheating temperature are infringed.
penalty weight defined in the previous case until the quality
constraints are infringed.
•The results show that the casting speed can be increased
until 0.75 m/min.

17 18

Conclusions
• This work, the optimization of the secondary cooling of the slab caster
was performed based on the solidification model.

• The experiments on the quality and productivity improvement were

raised as a case study and were solved by GA.

• The quality improvement was achieved by increasing the penalty

weight of the reheating zone and decreasing the weight of the flow
rate.

• In the productivity improvement, the casting speed could be

increased to 0.75 m/min while it still satisfied the quality constraints.

• Although the adjustment of those weights leads to the increment of

the water resource consumption, it could be admitted (less than the
original case).
19

www.ieem.org 19

19