Modeling Study of EMBr Effects on the Detrimental Dynamic Distortion Phenomenon in a Funnel Thin Slab Mold
, Carlos Humberto Gonzalez-Guzman 2, Rodolfo Morales Davila 3,4, Jose de Jesus Barreto 1, Enif Gutierrez 1 and Ismael Calderon-Ramos 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- For better understanding a water flow in the model Authors should add path lines of water streams to figures 3c-f.
- Please check a unit for electric conductivity for equation 17.
- Authors should explain that results from figures 6 and 7 are presented for time 530 seconds or other.
- Figures 9-12 presented a results for 60 seconds, but Authors should add explanation to paper when process monitoring was started, e.g. when V-EMBr was ran or other. Why monitoring process was realized only by 60 seconds?
- Authors wrote that for electromagnetic field higher than 0.2 T (H-EMBr) fluctuations are almost 0 mm, but in the figures 10a-c some higher fluctuations are showed. Maybe scale should be improve in the figures 9-10 (Y-axis).
- Why fluctuations in the figure 10c start from 0.5 mm?
- Some comments are required to mass flow rate behavior in the figures 10 a-b between 45 and 60 seconds.
- Finally the paper was submitted to special issue liquid steel alloying process therefore it is essential add to paper introduction relationship between steel alloying and paper topic, results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer’ comments
Manuscript Title “Modeling study of EMBr effects on the detrimental dynamic distortion phenomenon in a funnel thin slab mold”
Manuscript ID: crystals-970099
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. For better understanding a water flow in the model Authors should add path lines of water streams to figures 3c-f.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors add path lines of the water streams in Figures 3c-f.
"please see the attachment"
2. Please check a unit for electric conductivity for equation 17.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors checked and corrected units for electric conductivity for equation 17 as: “the electric conductivity in S/m. “
3. Authors should explain that results from figures 6 and 7 are presented for time 530 seconds or other.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors explained at section 4.3., second and third paragraphs, that figures 6 and 7 are presented for 540 seconds. The included text is:
Second paragraph: “. Figure 6a shows the flow patterns without EMBr, and it is employed as a reference point to contrast the effects of the different EMBr intensities on the fluid flow. Figures 6b to 6f show the results at the second 540 of the total simulation for each case. Figure 6b…”
Third paragraph: “Figure 7a shows the flow patterns without EMBr, which is the reference state. Figures 7b to 7f show the results at the second 540 of the total simulation for each case. Figures 7b to 7f,…”
4. Figures 9-12 presented a results for 60 seconds, but Authors should add explanation to paper when process monitoring was started, e.g. when V-EMBr was ran or other. Why monitoring process was realized only by 60 seconds?
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors explained at section 4.3. when process monitoring started:
page 12, second paragraphs,
“Following the idea of the two variables discussed above, the five different H-EMBr intensities, for 60 seconds, were analyzed, see Figures 9 and 10. This monitored period ran after the second 540 for all cases.….”
page 14, first paragraphs,
“Following the same idea again, the same two variables discussed above, analyzed for 60 seconds for the five different V-EMBr intensities, are in Figures 11 and 12. This monitored period ran after the second 540 for all cases.…”
In a previously published work [1], the authors found that the mass flow rate variations, delivered by the SEN ports, have a high frequency of occurrence, and during 60 seconds was time enough to observe this phenomenon many times with different intensities. Due to this, the same period, for the current research work, was selected.
- Arcos-Gutierrez, H.; Barrera-Cardiel, G.; Barreto, J. de J.; Garcia-Hernandez, S. Numerical Study of Internal SEN Design Effects on Jet Oscillations in a Funnel Thin Slab Caster. ISIJ Int., 2014, 54, 1304-1313. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.54.1304.
5. Authors wrote that for electromagnetic field higher than 0.2 T (H-EMBr) fluctuations are almost 0 mm, but in the figures 10a-c some higher fluctuations are showed. Maybe scale should be improve in the figures 9-10 (Y-axis).
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors improve the description, on page 12 – at the end of the second paragraph, as:
“As a result, the meniscus fluctuations decrease to 0.1 mm for 0.2T, and are smaller than 0.1 mm for higher field intensities….”
6. Why fluctuations in the figure 10c start from 0.5 mm?
As was mentioned, this variable monitoring started in the second 540, implying that there are previous fluctuations not seen in the shown period. For example, in Figure 10b, the fluctuation monitoring ends with a value close to -0.5mm; if a new monitoring period starts at this point, it will show -0.5mm as the first value.
7. Some comments are required to mass flow rate behavior in the figures 10 a-b between 45 and 60 seconds.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors improve the description, on page 12 – at the end of the second paragraph, as:
“When an electromagnetic field of 0.2 T is applied, Figure 9c, the mass flow rate difference between each SEN port reduced to 0.2 kg/s, and with higher field intensities, this breach decreased until 0.1 kg/s, see Figure 10. Figures 10a and 10b, at seconds 50 and 45, respectively, show that despite the braking effects of the induced magnetic field inside the nozzle, the periodic differences of mass flow rate remain but with much fewer intensities.…”
8. Finally the paper was submitted to special issue liquid steel alloying process therefore it is essential add to paper introduction relationship between steel alloying and paper topic, results.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors improve the introduction, on page 2 – at the end of the first paragraph, as:
”Solutes in liquid steel, like aluminum, react with oxygen when the bath is exposed to the atmosphere due to the flux opening, originated by the turbulence in the meniscus area. Therefore, the reaction of oxygen with aluminum and other solutes leads to metallic oxides' precipitation impairing the steel cleanliness. One of the available technologies to control the turbulence is the electromagnetic brake, which is outlined in the next lines.”
The authors thank to the reviewer for the comments made to improve this manuscript.
Please see the attachment to notice the changes in the red color.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article concerns mmodelling of EMBr effects on the detrimental dynamic distortion phenomenon in a funnel thin slab mold. The topic is as up-to-date and original research. The methodology used seems to be flawless. The description of the methodology and the research conducted is sufficient. Presented graphical results as velocity contours and velocity vectors are appropriately legible. In addition, they are properly analyzed and discussed. Minor errors found while reading:
p. 11 - line 288 - twice 4.4.
page 11 - fig. 11 appears after fig. 9 in the text, the drawings should be in chronological order as they appear
Author Response
Response to Reviewer’ comments
Manuscript Title “Modeling study of EMBr effects on the detrimental dynamic distortion phenomenon in a funnel thin slab mold”
Manuscript ID: crystals-970099
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article concerns mmodelling of EMBr effects on the detrimental dynamic distortion phenomenon in a funnel thin slab mold. The topic is as up-to-date and original research. The methodology used seems to be flawless. The description of the methodology and the research conducted is sufficient. Presented graphical results as velocity contours and velocity vectors are appropriately legible. In addition, they are properly analyzed and discussed. Minor errors found while reading:
- 11 - line 288 - twice 4.4.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors deleted the double 4.4.
- page 11 - fig. 11 appears after fig. 9 in the text, the drawings should be in chronological order as they appear
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors corrected this mistake through:
- Eliminate the text “Figure 11” from page 11 after the text “Figure 9”.
- The following text, in the first paragraph, was added on page 14 “Following the same idea again, the same two variables discussed above, analyzed for 60 seconds for the five different V-EMBr intensities, are in Figures 11 and 12. This monitored period ran after the second 540 for all cases. Figure 11a shows both variables when EMBr is not applied.…”
The authors thank to the reviewer for the comments made to improve this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
