论文部分内容阅读
在相似理论的基础上,通过水力学模拟对两流板坯连铸中间包3种不同挡墙挡坝组合形式下包内流场进行研究。试验结果表明:方案1(挡墙-挡坝-端挡坝方案)挡墙与挡坝间距不合理,端挡坝未起到控流作用致使中间包内流体平均停留时间、峰值时间短,死区比例较大(27.9%);方案2(挡坝-挡墙-端挡坝方案)显著改善了中间包内流场状况,全混流区及活塞流区比例增加,死区减小为21%;方案3(双墙双坝方案)由于增加一组挡墙延长了流体流动的路径,流体在中间包内的停留时间明显增加,死区比例最小(16.7%),同时微观电导率波动值也最小(0.025ms/cm),为3种方案之最优。
On the basis of similarity theory, the internal flow field under the combination of three different types of retaining walls is studied by hydraulic simulation. The test results show that the distance between retaining wall and retaining dam in Scheme 1 (retaining wall - retaining dam - end dam scheme) is unreasonable and the end dam does not play the role of flow control, resulting in the average residence time and peak time of the fluid in the tundish being short and dead (27.9%). Scheme 2 (Baffle-retaining wall-end dam scheme) significantly improved the flow field in the tundish. The proportion of all-flow zone and plug flow zone increased and the dead zone decreased to 21% ; The solution 3 (double-wall double-dam scheme) prolongs the fluid flow path by adding a group of retaining walls, the residence time of the fluid in the tundish obviously increases, the dead zone ratio is the smallest (16.7%), meanwhile the micro conductivity fluctuation value Minimum (0.025ms / cm), the best of the three programs.