Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 328–336 | Cite as

Dynamic Model for Metal Cleanness Evaluation by Melting in a Cold Crucible



Melting of metallic samples in a cold crucible causes inclusions to concentrate on the surface owing to the action of the electromagnetic force in the skin layer. This process is dynamic, involving the melting stage, then quasi-stationary particle separation, and finally the solidification in the cold crucible. The proposed modeling technique is based on the pseudospectral solution method for coupled turbulent fluid flow, thermal and electromagnetic fields within the time varying fluid volume contained by the free surface, and partially the solid crucible wall. The model uses two methods for particle tracking: (1) a direct Lagrangian particle path computation and (2) a drifting concentration model. Lagrangian tracking is implemented for arbitrary unsteady flow. A specific numerical time integration scheme is implemented using implicit advancement that permits relatively large time-steps in the Lagrangian model. The drifting concentration model is based on a local equilibrium drift velocity assumption. Both methods are compared and demonstrated to give qualitatively similar results for stationary flow situations. The particular results presented are obtained for iron alloys. Small size particles of the order of 1 μm are shown to be less prone to separation by electromagnetic field action. In contrast, larger particles, 10 to 100 μm, are easily “trapped” by the electromagnetic field and stay on the sample surface at predetermined locations depending on their size and properties. The model allows optimization for melting power, geometry, and solidification rate.


  1. 1.
    L. Barnard, R.F. Brooks, P.N. Quested, and K.C. Mills: Ironmaking and Steelmaking, 1993, vol. 20 (5), pp. 344–49.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Tanaka, N. Yoshida, Y. Ikenaga, and M. Horie: Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Electromagnetic Processing Materials, ISIJ, Nagoya, 2000, pp. 271–76.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Taniguchi and A. Kikuchi: Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Electromagnetic Processing Materials, ISIJ, Nagoya, 2000, pp. 315–20.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Toh, H. Yamamura, M. Wakoh, and E. Takeuchi: Proc. 4th Int. Symp. Electromagnetic Processing Materials, MADYLAM, Lyon, 2003, pp. 226–31.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Toh, H. Yamamura, H. Kondo, M. Wakoh, S. Shimasaki, and S. Taniguchi: ISIJ Int., 2007, vol. 47 (11), pp. 1625–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Leenov and A. Kolin: J. Chem. Phys., 1954, vol. 22 (4), pp. 683–88.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Bojarevics, J. Freibergs, E. Shilova, and E. Shcherbinin: Electrically Induced Vortical Flows, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1989, p. 248.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. Bojarevics, R.A. Harding, K. Pericleous, and M. Wickins: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2004, vol. 35B, pp. 785–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Clift, J.R. Grace, and M.E. Weber: Bubbles, Drops, and Particles, Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2005, p. 381.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P.G. Tucker: J. Fluids Eng., 2001, vol. 123, pp. 372–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K.A. Pericleous and S.N. Drake: Numerical Simulation Fluid Flow Heat/Mass Transfer Processes, Lecture Notes Engineering, Springer, Berlin, 1986, vol. 18, pp. 375–85.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Tadano, K. Kainuma, T. Take, T. Shinokura, and S. Hayashi: Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Electromagnetic Processing Materials, ISIJ, Nagoya, 2000, pp. 277–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information


Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Numerical Modelling and Process AnalysisUniversity of GreenwichLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.National Physical LaboratoryTeddingtonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations