Thermal Analysis of the Hot Dip-

Hui Zhang Coating Process

M. Karim Moallemi
Sunil Kumar
Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering,
Polytechnic University,
Brooklyn, NY 11201
In this study a thermal analysis is performed on the hot dip-coating process where
solidification of metal occurs on a bar moving through a finite molten bath. A
continuum model is considered that accounts for important transport mechanisms
such as axial heat diffusion, buoyancy, -and shear-induced melt motion in the bath.
A numerical solution procedure is developed, and its predictions are compared with
those of an analytical approximate solution, as well as available experimental data.
The predictions of the numerical scheme are in good agreement with the experimental
data. The results of the approximate solution, however, exhibit significant dis-
agreement with the data, which is attributed to the simplifying assumptions used in
its development. Parametric effects of the bath geometry, and initial and boundary
temperatures and solid velocity, as characterized by the Reynolds number, Grashof
number, and Stefan numbers, are presented.

Introduction
The hot-dip coating process has been utilized extensively
during the last few decades in the manufacturing and cladding
of wire, and galvanizing and coating of metal strips, sheets,
and wires (for example, see Prior and Tonini, 1984; Cook et
al,, 1986). Applications of closed-loop computer controls have
made this process more attractive by improving product con-
sistency and reducing excessive use of coating material (Town-
send and Bilski, 1988). Recently, fabrication of tapers, lenslike
waveguides, and mono- and multilayer antireflection coatings
has renewed interest in the dip-coating technology, where mi-
cro-controlled processes are envisioned that would permit pre-
cise control of the complex spatial variations of coating
thickness (Herrmann and Wildmann, 1983; Tiefenthaler et al.,
1983). In spite of the broad range of applications, a funda-
mental understanding of the process heat and mass transfer
mechanisms involved during the solidification over a moving
surface in a finite bath is not available.
The dip-coating process has its roots in dip-forming, which
is a continuous casting process (Carreker, 1963). The objective
of the parent process (dip-forming) is to produce moldless
castings, which is achieved by pulling a cold wire, rod, or strip
through a molten bath of similar metal. Optimal process uti-
lization is achieved when the overall solidification is maxi-
mized, and sophisticated modeling of the heat transfer
mechanisms has therefore not been necessary. Horvay (1965)
modeled this process by using simple thermal resistance net-
work analysis in a laterally unbounded bath and obtained
comparisons with experimental results to within 10 percent.
In the dip-coating process the objective is to coat wires,
rods, or plates with layers of different materials of controlled
thickness. Thus it is essential to have an in-depth understanding
of the heat transfer mechanisms involved in the process to
predict and control the coating thickness. However, there are
no published works in the area of hot dip-coating that address
these issues, and a few relevant studies are based on oversim-
plified models. Seeniraj and Bose (1981) performed an analysis
of freeze-coating of polymeric materials over a moving metallic
substrate by assuming the temperature of the metallic object
to remain constant and uniform, and the molten bath to be
at its melting temperature. The first assumption is physically
incorrect while the second limits the analysis to the one con-
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division and presented at the National Heat
Transfer Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 28-31 1991. Manuscript
received by the Heat Transfer Division, June 1992; revision received September
1992. Keywords: Materials Processing and Manufacturing Processes, Moving
Boundaries, Phase-Change Phenomena. Associate Technical Editor: Y. Baya-
zitoglu.
sidered. Cheung (1985) analyzed freeze coating on a flat plate
where constant plate temperature and saturated liquid tem-
perature conditions were relaxed. Whereas Seeniraj and Bose
(1981) predicted a monotonic increase of coating thickness over
the plate, Cheung (1985) was able to predict initial deposition
followed by remelting. However, both of these studies cannot
be rigorously used for analyzing dip-coating since they assume
the existence of leading edges for the solidification front as
well as for the melt flow. In doing so the effects of bath
geometry are ignored.
The modern applications of dip-coating require sophisti-
cated modeling of heat and mass transfer in a finite molten
bath where important effects such as axial diffusion, buoyancy,
and shear-induced melt flow must be included. The present
paper describes a model developed to predict the transient
solidification process over a circular rod being pulled through
a melt pool at a constant speed. The temperature distributions
in the solid and melt, as well as the flow field in the melt, are
calculated for different initial temperatures of the rod and its
Reynolds number. The influence of the natural convection in
the melt pool, subcooling of the solid entering the bath, and
the superheating of the melt entering the bath on the rod radius
profile are also investigated and reported. The role of the
geometric parameters, namely, the radius and depth of the
melt pool scaled by the rod radius, are also investigated. An
approximate solution is also developed based on the energy
integral method and presented in the appendix. The predictions
of the numerical scheme are found to be in good agreement
with the experimental data. The results of the approximate
solution, however, exhibit significant disagreement with the
data, particularly at greater axial positions in the bath, which
is attributed to the simplifying assumptions used in its devel-
opment.
Analysis
The dip-coating system is schematically depicted in Fig. 1.
A metal rod of inlet temperature 7^, and radius rsi is pulled at
speed Us through the bath of a molten metal. As the cold rod
enters the bath, a rapid solidification of metal on the rod
occurs, which may be followed by melt-out if the bath is of a
great height or if the velocity of the rod is small. A semi-
analytical seminumerical approximate solution for the problem
is included in the appendix, and here; after a short review of
possible numerical approaches, the mathematical model used
and solution procedure adopted are explained.
The dip-coating process, like other solidification processes,
can be modeled via two different approaches. The first and

Journal of Heat Transfer MAY 1993, Vol. 115/453

Copyright © 1993 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jhtrao/27549/ on 02/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the hot dip-coating system
more traditional approach uses conservation equations for each
phase that are coupled through the energy balance at the in-
terface. The location of the solid-liquid interface, however, is
not known a priori and has to be obtained as a part of the
solution. The numerical implementation of this approach re-
quires a quasi-steady approximation for the interface motion,
along with either coordinate remapping schemes or adaptive
grid transformations (Moallemi and Viskanta, 1986). In the
second approach, the continuum formulation, one set of con-
servation equations are developed for the entire region. This
is achieved by introducing volume averaging of the conser-
vation equations for the two phases and by writing the energy
equation in terms of enthalpy, which eliminates temperature
as a dependent variable of the problem (Shamsundar and Spar-
row, 1975; Prandtl and Dawson, 1983; Bennon and Incropera,
1987). The single region formulation eliminates the need for
tracking the interface via an auxiliary equation, i.e., energy
balance at the interface, there by facilitating numerical im-
plementation.
For solidifications of mixtures, where no distinct interface
between the two phases is present, the value of h is related to
the mass fraction fs of material solidified in the two-phase
(mushy) zone. The solid mass fraction varies continuously
between 0 and 1 in this zone. In solidification of a pure sub-
stance, however, the presence of a multiphase (mushy) zone
is precluded. The mass fraction of the solidified matter is thus
a discontinuous function in space and takes the discrete values
of zero and unity. When the governing equations are converted
to finite difference equations, the mass fraction indicates the
fraction of material solidified in the individual control volumes
or elements. The mass fraction is either zero or unity except
in the control volume containing the interface. This approach
has been successfully employed in the modeling of different
solidification processes such as solidification of binary mixture
over vertical surfaces (Christenson et al., 1989) and solidifi-
cation of pure substance in absence of convective effects
(Prandtl and Dawson, 1983). The continuum formulation can
introduce "smearing" of the interface due to the presence of
control volumes' with nondiscrete mass fractions. This is
avoided in the continuum approach adopted in the present
study by introducing fine mesh sizes in the interface region
and by other numerical steps discussed in the following sec-
tions.
To formulate the problem, it is assumed that the melt be-
haves like a Newtonian fluid; and its flow is two dimensional,
axisymmetric (r, z), and laminar. Local thermodynamic equi-
librium is assumed, and the thermophysical properties are taken
to be invariant to temperature with the exception of density
in the buoyancy term (Boussinesq approximation). Changes
in thermal conductivity and heat capacity with change of phase
are accounted for, but mass densities of the melt and its solid
are assumed to be the same (i.e., no volumetric change upon
phase change). The phase change of a pure substance with a
precise fusion and freezing temperature is modeled. In simu-
lations that include the melting of the moving substrate, the
bath and substrate materials are assumed to be the same, so
that no species transport equation has to be solved. These
assumptions do not exclude situations that the solid substrate
and bath (coating) materials are not the same, and only the
solidified coat goes through remelting.
With these assumptions, the problem is governed by con-
tinuum conservation equations for mass, momentum, and en-
ergy, which are written as follows (Bennon and Incropera,
1987):
V-(pV) = 0, (1)
d(pu) dP
+ V-(pV«) = V-(juVw) -T-+fiPg P(T- Tf), (2)
dt dx
^ ) + v . ( p V «)=V.0iV«)-f. (3)
at or
o(ph)
+ v-(/>v/o= V' •Vh + V ' V(hs-h)
dt " ' \cs I \cs
-v-u*{h,-h,)(y-y&. (4)
Here w and v are the components of the mass averaged velocity
vector V defined as
v=/,v;+./;v, (5)

thermal diffusivity of solid

c = heat capacity R bath radius ks/pcs
f = mass fraction Re Reynolds number = UsH/vt e = dimensionless temperature =
g = gravitational acceleration Ste, liquid Stefan number = (T-Tf)/(TW-Tf)
Gr = Grashof number = Ci(Tw-Tf)/hf thermal conductivity ratio =
gm\Tw-Tf)/vf Stev solid Stefan number = VA+M)/k,
h =enthalpy cs(Tf-Tsi)/hf, V kinematic viscosity
hf =latent heat of fusion / time p mass density
H =melt height in the bath T temperature
L =height of the melt inlet port u, v velocity components in axial Subscripts
P =pressure (isotropic stress com- and radial directions / = fusion
ponent) Us velocity of the solid rod / = inlet
Pr = Prandtl number = c/a/ V velocity vector / = liquid
r,x = radial and axial coordinates, V, melt inlet velocity o = outlet
Fig. 1 a. thermal diffusivity of s = solid
rs = rod radius melt = /c//pc, Vf = wall

4 5 4 / V o l . 115, MAY 1993 Transactions of the AS ME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jhtrao/27549/ on 02/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-

 with /; and fs being the mass fractions of liquid and solid,
respectively. It should be noted that as the densities of the two
phases are assumed to be equal, mass fractions of the phases
are identical to their corresponding volume fractions. The con-
tinuum viscosity n is expressed as the harmonic mean of the
phase viscosities as follows:
(ft . fs\ w ,~
H=[- + —\ = - (6)
\W / V Ji
The last equality is obtained by substituting ^ = 0 0 . This equa-
tion yields appropriate limits in the pure liquid (/* = /*/) and
pure solid (JX = IIS—00) regions. The equation for conservation
of energy, Eq. (4), is expressed in terms of the continuum
enthalpy h, defined as
h = hs+f,(h,-hs), (7)
where, in general, the phase enthalpies are related to temper-
ature by
hs = csT, h,= c,T+ Tf{cs-c,) + hf. (8)
The mass averaging defines the continuum thermal con-
ductivity as
k=f,k,+f,kh (9)
The liquid mass fraction is defined as
(0 h<csTf
f,= \(h-csTf)/hf csTf<h<csTf+ hf. (10)
[1 h>csTf+hf
It should be noted that even though the phase mass fractions
should either be zero or unity for solidification of a pure
substance, a nondiscrete distribution of phase mass fraction
has to be defined for the control volumes containing the in-
terface in the finite difference formulation. In the same con-
text, the last term in the energy equation, Eq. (4), which
represents the energy flux associated with the relative phase
motion, has been retained in the numerical formulation of the
problem. This term, which is identically zero in the solid or
liquid regions, provides an accurate account of energy ex-
changes in the control volumes that contain the interface.
A two-dimensional axisymmetric dip-coating process under
continuous operation is considered. The problem is a steady-
state (with respect to a coordinate system fixed to the bath),
but is cast in time-dependent form for convenience in the
numerical implementation. The initial conditions are arbitrary
and are taken to be such that the melt bath and the rod are
at rest and at the fusion temperature of the phase-change
material. At the initiation of the numerical simulation the
temperature of the bath walls is changed to a prescribed value
T„, and a fresh rod is introduced into the bath with a constant
vertical velocity Us and a uniform temperature Tsi. The height
of the melt bath H is kept constant during a simulation by
compensating for the melt removed from the bath via solidi-
fication on the rod. Liquid phase-change material, at T„, is
introduced into the bath from a port on its wall with a velocity
Vi=mrl-rl)/(2RL), (11)
where rso is the radius of the solid rod as it exits from the
bath. The height of the port L is adjusted in different simu-
lations such that the velocity of melt entering the bath is not
greater than 10 percent of the solid velocity. Other boundary
conditions of the problem, as shown in Fig. 1, are no-slip
impermeable solid surfaces, and constant temperature on the
bath walls. An adiabatic boundary condition at the bottom of
the bath is also examined for comparison. The free surface of
the bath is planar and adiabatic.
The governing equations are nondimensionalized using the
following dimensionless variables:
Journal of Heat Transfer
Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jhtrao/27549/ on 02/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-
(x*,r*) = (x,r)/H, t* = tUs/H, P*=P/(pU2s),
Y*=Y/US, (u*,v*) = (u,v)/Us, V*=i/V,
e = (T-Tf)/(TK-Tf), h'=(h-csTf)/hf.
The transformed dimensionless equations are:
V*-V* = 0, (12)
-J7+f'Be' (13)
— +v • (V y ) = V • — - V v \ -—r> (14)
dt \//Re / dr
^at + v * . ( v V ) = v * Y\RePr
F V ^ [ v V + v* (hl-h*)])
c J
s
- V * •(/,(*,*-A,*)(V*-V;». (15)
These equations reveal that the problem is characterized by
dimensionless numbers Re, Gr, and Pr, which are all based
on liquid properties, the ratio of specific heats of the two phases
Ci/cs, and the ratio of the thermal conductivity of the contin-
uum to that of the liquid K. The dimensionless boundary con-
ditions introduce the dependence on the solid and liquid Stefan
numbers, i.e., the solid rod enters the bath at
ft* =-Stes, (16)
and the bath walls are at
/!* = 1+Ste,. (17)
The dimensionless boundary conditions also add two geometric
parameters, namely, r*i = rsi/H and R*=R/H, to the list of
governing parameters of the problem.
Method of Solution
The continuum formulation, Eqs. (12)-(15), is valid
throughout the entire solution domain; therefore, explicit con-
sideration need not be given to internal boundaries between
the solid and liquid phases. An elliptic control volume based
finite difference scheme (Patankar, 1980) has been used to
solve the continuum equations. The sequence of numerical
operations is identical to that used to solve conventional single
phase problems (Patankar, 1980). Coupling that exists between
the energy and momentum equations is accommodated through
iteration and underrelaxation.
A series of grid sensitivity runs were peformed on nonuni-
form grid ranging from 22 X 22 to 52 X 52, which suggested
that grid independent results could be obtained using 42 X 42
grid. Very fine grid mesh was used near the top and bottom
surfaces of the bath to resolve the large velocity and temper-
ature gradients. The grid lines were also clustered near the
solidification interface to reduce the smearing effect caused
by the continuous variation of the solid mass fraction.
The numerical experiments indicated that improper choice
of the grid aspect ratio could increase the smearing effect at
the interface, particularly if the Ax's were very large or the
Ar's were very small to make the interface straddle more than
one control volume at each vertical location x. Therefore, the
grid was chosen such that the interface was always contained
in only one control volume at vertical location. In other words,
the mass fraction fs in only one horizontal control volume,
adjacent to the one with/ s = 1, is allowed numerically to be
nondiscrete at each vertical location. The mass fraction was
examined throughout any numerical simulation, and if this
condition was violated, the simulation would be terminated,
and then restarted with a new grid system with smaller Ax.
MAY 1993, Vol. 1 1 5 / 4 5 5
 Table 1 Experimental data
Experiment Data
Thermophysical Properties Operating Conditions Continuum Model
Integral Method. -
p, = p , kg/m3 8.0X103 H m 0.0508
c,=cs Jlkg-K 420.0 r
si m 0.0039
tgaSi
ks WIm K 390.0 Us mis 0.15
kt WIm K 120.0 Tsi °c 25.0
v, m2/s 6.27xl0~7 Tw °C 1140.0
Tf °C 1085.0
hf Jlkg 2.1x10s
p K~x 1.8xl0-4
Pr 0.015

1.00
xl H
As mentioned earlier, although a steady-state solution was
Fig. 2 Comparison of experimental data with the predictions of the
sought, the problem was cast in time-dependent form for nu- numerical scheme (solid line) and the approximate solution (dashed line)
merical convenience. The initial conditions are arbitrary and
were typically taken to be fully developed flow with the melt
and the moving solid at the fusion temperature, and the sim- grid, the radial position of interface is evaluated by interpo-
ulation of the process started by imposing the thermal bound- lation on the radial side of the grid using the calculated value
ary conditions. The fully implicit form of discretized equations of the solid volume fraction, fs.
were solved iteratively. The time marching calculations were Figure 2 indicates that the numerical predictions compare
conducted over time steps which were initially small (At* = 0.1) well with the experimental data, thus establishing confidence
and were increased gradually (A/Jiax = 5.0) as the solution de- in the model. The approximate solution results are in agreement
veloped. At any time step the solution is considered converged with the numerical predictions and the experimental data at
if the early stages of the solid's travel in the bath (i.e., for small
+1 x*'s). The deviation of the approximate results from the nu-
\r v.j)-ra,j)\ < 10" (18) merical and experimental results increases with x*, which may
Maxl^"+1(/,y')l be explained in terms of the simplifying assumptions employed
where n is the iteration loop counter and 0 is u*, v*, or h*. in the development of the approximate solution. As stated in
The number of iterations required during the early stages of the appendix, the major assumptions of the approximate model
any simulation was about 80, which decreased as the solution are: (a) The axial heat conduction in the solid is negligible,
developed. When the criteria of Eq. (18) were satisfied, the and (b) the melt flow is induced solely by the moving solid
residual source of mass, momentum, and energy was less than (i.e., the effects of bath geometry, free surface, and thermal
10~7 for all the cases examined. The solution was considered buoyancy on the melt flow over the solid are neglected). From
the steady-state one when the change at any point on the solid- these two, the first assumption appears to be the source of the
melt interface was less than 0.1 percent over a time step. discrepancy observed in Fig. 2, since the extent of the dis-
agreement increases with x*. It must be noted, however, that
the degree of agreement or disagreement between the numerical
Results and Discussion results and the approximate solution was found to depend on
Before proceeding with a parametric study, the validity of the governing parameters of the problem, particularly, Re,
the numerical model is verified by comparing its predictions Stes, and Ste/. For example, for the conditions that resulted in
with the experimental data of Carreker (1963) who examined extensive remelting of the solidified layer (e.g., large Ste/), the
coating of pure copper on a copper rod. The limitation of an approximate model predicted smaller solid diameters when
approximate solution, which is presented as an appendix for compared to the numerical predictions. Also, the approximate
the sake of continuity in the text, is also examined by comparing solution is generally in better agreement with the numerical
its results with the experimental data. The representative ther- solutions for smaller Re's, indicating that the boundary layer
mophysical properties of the material used in the experiments approximation and the assumption regarding the existence of
and the operating conditions are presented in Table 1. a leading edge in the melt flow are valid for smaller Re's.
The variation of the rod radius in the bath calculated by the For the parametric study, one set of baseline calculations is
numerical simulation of the experiments is shown in Fig. 2 and first performed and then compared with parametric variations
is compared with those of the original experiment. The pre- of the operating conditions, and bath geometry. The baseline
diction of the approximate solution procedure is also presented case considered corresponds to the following parameters: Re
in the figure for comparison. It should be noted that the ex- = 4xl0 4 , Gr=10 8 , Ste.^2.11, Ste, = 0.40, K = 1 , C,/CS=\,
periments by Carreker were conducted on baths of different rsi/H= 1/20, and R/H= 1. These are in the range of operating
melt depth for different solid (pull) speeds. The results were conditions as indicated by the experiments of Carreker (1963),
presented in terms of casting ratio (cast weight after emerging Table 1, with the exception of Ste., that the experimental con-
over input weight) versus immersion time (calculated from the ditions suggested 21.1. The high value of Ste^ used in the
bath depth and the pull speed). The experimental data pre- experiments is representative of the dip-forming process,
sented in Fig. 2 are all for the same solid velocity, but different whereas in the parametric study, smaller values of Ste^ typical
bath depths, and are plotted against the dimensionless position of the dip-coating process are used. The baseline case serves
in the bath, as presentation versus the immersion time would as a reference for comparison with the results of variations of
have confused the steady-state feature of the data and cal- the various dimensionless parameters.
culations. For the numerical results, at each of the 42 axial Figures 3(a) and 3(b) present the flow fields in the bath for
positions corresponding to the center of the computational Re = 4 x 104 (baseline case) and Re = 2 x 104, respectively, where

4 5 6 / V o l . 115, MAY 1993 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jhtrao/27549/ on 02/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-

 F 0.0033
E 0.0030 1
D 0.0026
>
C 0.0023
B 0.0020 2
A 0.0017
9 0.0014
8 0.0011
7 0.0007
6 0.0004
5 0.0001
4 -0.0002
3 -0.0005
2 -0.0008 1
1 -0.0011
XI H
Fig. 4 Effect of Reynolds number on solidification thickness

. . i | i . i
. ' ' ' ' I '
, | . . -
3.0 - -

Level S Ste. = 2.31____- _ • — •

F 0.0030 2.5 -
E 0.0018
2.11
D 0.0005
C -0.0007 > -
B -0.0020
A -0.0032 2.0 1.70 -
9 -0.0045
8 -0.0057
7 -0.0070
6 -0.0082 •

5 -0.0095 1.5
4 -0.0108 0.90 "
3 -0.0120
2 -0.0133
1 -0.0145 , . , , I . . . . i . . . i
-
xl H
(b)
Fig. 5 Effect of solid Stefan number on solidification thickness
Fig. 3 Stream function distribution in the bath: (a) Re = 4 x 1 0 4 , (b)
Re = 2 x 1 0 4
ciable increase in solidification after a certain limit. This limit
is a function of the solid and liquid Stefan numbers. Addi-
all other parameters remain at their baseline values. The left tionally, if the residence time were to increase indefinitely, the
boundary of the graphs is the centerline of the moving solid rod would start to remelt even at small levels of Ste/.
rod and the fresh melt is introduced from the upper right The effects of the two Stefan numbers Stes and Ste/ are
corner. It is seen that the flow field established is due to an presented in Figs. 5 and 6. Different values of Stes chosen are
interaction between the buoyancy in the melt and the shear 0.90, 1.70, 2.11, and 2.31 for Fig. 5, and those of Ste, are 0.0,
induced by the solid motion. By reducing the contribution of 0.10, 0.40, 1.00, and 1.60 for Fig. 6. The other parameters are
shear, i.e., decreasing the Reynolds number, a larger natural at their baseline values. The Stefan number of the solid is a
convection cell is generated, Fig. 3(6). The temperature dis- measure of its level of subcooling, and its influence on the
tributions in the bath represented typical characteristics (almost solidification thickness is shown in Fig. 5. The thickness de-
parallel temperature contours) of liquid metal flow, and thus creases with decreasing Stes as expected. The growth is defined
are not presented here. The shear-induced boundary layer over by the energy balance at the interface, and remelting of the
the rod is always present and isolates the rod from the buoy- solidified layer occurs if the subcooling is not sufficient to
ancy-induced motion in the bath. The corresponding variation compensate for the heat transferred to the solid from the mol-
of the solidification thickness is presented in Fig. 4. The Reyn- ten liquid. The liquid Stefan number indicates the level of
olds number is assigned the values 2 x 104, 4 x 104, 2 X 105, and superheating of the molten metal, and its increase reduces the
4x 105 while the other parameters are held to their baseline solidification rate. For large enough values of Ste/ the rod
values. Reducing the Reynolds number leads to increased res- radius may be reduced, even to values smaller than that at the
idence time of the rod in the bath, which results in more inlet.
solidification and larger exit thickness. The variation of the A change of Ste, is accompanied by a change of Gr if the
coating growth with Re is quite nonlinear, and indicates the geometric parameters and phase-change material are kept the
significance of the convection effects. This may be observed same. The variations observed in Fig. 6 are essentially due to
by examining Fig. 4 and comparing the rod thicknesses for change in Ste/. This point is illustrated in Fig. 7, which shows
two values of Re at any given residence time. However, since the results for different values of Grashof number, Gr= 108
the sensible heat of the solid rod is limited by its inlet tem- and 1.6 x 109, the other parameters remaining at their baseline
perature, an increase of residence time will not lead to appre- values. The effect of Grashof number is seen to be minimal

Journal of Heat Transfer MAY 1993, Vol. 115/457

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jhtrao/27549/ on 02/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-

 ' ' -
3.0 - -

*
•
2.S
« R / H = 2.0 ___- •
_:— —
^ ^ 1.0
^ ^ 0.5
2.0 ~

1.5 -/ -

-
1.0 . . , , i , . , . i . .
0.00 0.25 0.50 , .. 0.75 1.0<
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 00
xl H
Fig. 6 Effect of liquid Stefan number on solidification thickness x/ H
Fig. 8 Effect of bath radius on solidification thickness

1.00
xl H
xl H
Fig. 7 Effect of Grashof number on solidification thickness
Fig. 9 Effect of solid inlet radius on solidification thickness

and the solidification profiles are nearly the same. This is due
to the fact that the solidification is primarily influenced by the
shear-driven boundary layer on the solid rod, which tends to
isolate it from the buoyancy effects in the bath. The insignif-
icant effect of the thermal buoyancy on the solidification rate
justifies the use of forced convection correlation in the de-
velopment of the approximate solution.
Figures 8 and 9 explore the effect of geometric parameters
on the solidification process. The results indicate that the lat-
eral dimension R of the bath, as represented by R/H, is not
an important variable for the set of parameters considered.
Increasing R results in more solidification because the hot walls
are at a greater distance from the interface. The effect of the
inlet solid radius rsi is indicated in Fig. 9. The smaller radius
rod reaches thermal saturation faster due to its smaller thermal
mass, and the ratio of local to inlet areas thus reaches an
asymptotic value.
Figure 10 presents the effect of two different types of bound-
ary condition at the bottom boundary of the bath. The bottom
wall is assumed either to be adiabatic, or to be at the same
temperature as the side walls. The constant parameters for
these two cases are those corresponding to the baseline case.
The solidification thickness for the adiabatic condition is larger
because the overall liquid temperatures are smaller in mag-
nitude than those for the constant wall temperature case. For
the adiabatic case, the entering solid rod encounters liquid at
lower temperatures and thus rapid solidification occurs. All
the previous results (Figs. 3-9) are for the case where the
bottom wall is held constant at the same temperature Tw as
that specified for the side walls of the molten bath.
Conclusions
Although laminar, mixed convection flow in a finite cavity
has been extensively studied in the literature, the related prob-
lem of flow with solidification of a pure medium over a moving
surface in a finite bath has received comparatively little atten-
tion. Such an analysis, required for the modeling of the dip-
coating process, is presented in the present study. A continuum
model, which includes axial diffusion, thermal buoyancy, and
shear-induced flow, has been used to investigate the solidifi-
cation of metal during dip-coating. In general, in the range of
normal operating parameters, the solidification thickness was
found to depend strongly on the Reynolds and Stefan numbers
and the ratio of inlet radius to height, and weakly on the
Grashof number and the ratio of bath radius to height unless
the bath radius is much smaller than the height.
An approximate solution for the problem was developed
using the energy integral method, which is presented in the
appendix. Its predictions of the variation of the solid radius
in the bath did not compare well with the numerical predictions
or the experimental data. This was attributed to the simplifying

4 5 8 / V o l . 115, MAY 1993 Transactions of the AS ME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jhtrao/27549/ on 02/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-

 - , , , , | 1 , , , 1 ,
3.0
adiabatic
/^^
2.5
/ const, temp.
is
^» / ^^-——~~~
2.0 - / / Weight on a Hot Dip Galvanizing Line," Iron and Steel Engineer, Vol. 65, No.
1.5 - I
1 The purpose of this section is to develop an approximate
1.0 » 1 1 — — 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 -J
0.00 0.25 0.50
X / H
Fig. 10 Effect of boundary conditions on solidification thickness
assumptions employed in the development of the approximate
solution.
Future studies of the dip-coating process are required to
evaluate the non-steady-state operation of the process where
the solid velocity is continually varied in a controlled manner
to obtain thicknesses of complex, albeit prescribed, variations.
The dip-coating technology is moving toward such applica-
tions, which would be computer controlled with appropriate
feedback mechanisms. In order to prescribe velocity changes
to induce exit thickness variations of the solidified metal, the
time lag between the cause and effect has to be modeled and
accurately predicted via thermal analysis of the type presented
in this study. In addition to the effects included in the present
analysis, secondary effects such as surface tension will also
have to be included.
References
Bennon, W. D., and Incropera, F. P., 1987, " A Continuum Model for Mo-
mentum, Heat, and Species Transport in Binary Solid-Liquid Phase Change
Systems. I. Model Formulation," International Journal of Heat and Mass Trans-
fer, Vol. 30, pp. 2161-2170.
Carreker, R. P., 1963, "Dip-Forming—A Continuous Casting Process," Jour-
nal of Metals, Vol. 15, pp. 774-780.
Cheung, F. B,, 1985, "Analysis of Freeze Coating on a Nonisothermal Moving
Plate by a Perturbation Method," ASME JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER, Vol.
107, pp. 549-556.
Christenson, M. S., Bennon, W. D., and Incropera, F. P., 1989, "Solidifi-
cation of an Aqueous Ammonium Chloride Solution in a Rectangular Cavity—
II. Comparison of Predicted and Measured Results," International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 32, pp. 69-79.
Cook, T. H., Mergen, D. E., and Clark, D. L., 1986, "Increasing Profits in
Hot Dip Galvanizing," Metal Finishing, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp. 23-27.
Eckert, E. R. G., and Drake, R. M., Jr., 1972, Analysis of Heat and Mass
Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 439-445.
Epstein, M., 1976, "The Growth and Decay of a Frozen Layer in Forced
Flow," Int. J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 19, pp. 1281-1288.
Herrmann, P. P., and Wildmann, D., 1983, "Fabrication of Planar Dielectric
Waveguide With High Optical Damage Threshold," IEEE Journal of Quantum
Electronics, Vol. QE-19, No. 12, pp. 1735-1738.
Horvay, G., 1965, "The Dip-Forming Process," ASME JOURNAL OF HEAT
TRANSFER, Vol. 87, pp. 1-16.
Moallemi, M. K., and Viskanta, R., 1986, "Analysis of Melting Around a
Moving Heat Source," International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol.
29, pp. 1271-1282.
Patankar, S. V., 1980, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Prandtl, V. C , and Dawson, P. R., 1983, "Application of Mixture Theory
to Continuous Casting," in: Transport Phenomenon in Materials Processing,
M. M. Chen, J. Mazumder, and C. L. Tucker, eds., ASME HTD-Vol. 29, pp.
47-54.
Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A., and Vetterling, W. T., 1989,
Numerical Recipes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom,
p. 554.
Prior, D. C , and Tonini, D. E., 1984, "Hot Dip Galvanizing of High Strength
Low Alloy Steel," Metal Finishing, Vol. 82, No. 5, pp. 15-19.
Journal of Heat Transfer
Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jhtrao/27549/ on 02/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-
, , , , , , , ,—. Seeniraj, R. V., and Bose, T. K., 1981, "Freeze-Coating on a Continuous
Moving Sheet and on an Axially Moving Cylinder," Wctrme- und Stoffiiber-
tragung, Vol. 15, pp. 239-243.
^___ _ Shamsundar, N., and Sparrow, E. M., 1975, "Analysis of Multidimensional
Conduction Phase Change via the Enthalpy Model," ASME JOURNAL OF HEAT
TRANSFER, Vol. 97, pp. 333-340.
Tiefenthaler, K., Briguet, V., Buser, E., Horisberger, M., and Lukosz, M.,
1983, "Preparation of Planar Optical Si0 2 -Ti0 2 and LiNb0 3 Waveguides With
a Dip Coating Method and a Embossing Technique for Fabricating Grating
Couplers and Channel Waveguides,'' Proceedings of the Society of Photo-optical
Instrumentation Engineers, Vol. 401, pp. 165-173.
Tovrasend, C. S., and Bilski, W. C , 1988, "Closed Loop Control of Coating
7, pp. 44-47.
APPENDIX
analysis of solidification on a moving substrate. As mentioned
1 1 1 1 ' • • |
in the introduction, the available analyses of the problem are
, ., 0.75 1.00
based on oversimplified models (Seeniraj and Bose, 1981;
Cheung, 1985). In this study, the isothermal conditions for the
solidified layer (Seeniraj and Bose, 1981) and the moving sub-
strate (Cheung, 1985) are relaxed. The saturated-melt tem-
perature condition (Seeniraj and Bose, 1981) is also removed.
In other words, the freeze coating of a superheated liquid on
a nonisothermal moving substrate with a limited cooling ca-
pacity is investigated.
In addition to the basic assumption made in the general
model, Eqs. (l)-(4), the following simplifications are made in
developing the approximate solution:
1 A steady-state freeze-coating process is considered. This
implies that the solid velocity, the bath height, and the
far-field (inlet) liquid temperature remain constant in
time. The transient growth of the solidified layer is then
expressed as
(A.I)
dt dx
2 The axial heat conduction in the solid is neglected. This
may be justified because the solid radius (including the
solidified layer) is small compared to the height of the
bath.
3 The melt flow is assumed to be solely induced by the
moving solid. The effects of bath walls and free surface,
as well as the effect of thermal buoyancy on the melt
flow, are neglected to enable the development of the
approximate solution.
In view of the last assumption, only the equation for the
conservation of energy in the solid is solved, and the local
convective heat flux from the warm liquid to the moving solid
is treated as an input parameter, which may be directly obtained
from the conventional solution of forced convection over a
moving surface without phase change such as those given by
Eckert and Drake (1972). In this practice, negligible interaction
between the melt flow and the shape of the solid-liquid in-
terface is implied, which is understood to be only valid for the
growth of thin crusts. Similar arguments have been successfully
employed by previous investigators, e.g., Epstein (1976) and
Cheung (1985).
With the above assumptions, the equations governing the
conservation of energy in the solid in terms of its temperature
Ts (r, x), and the solid profile rs(x) can be written as follows:
pUsh/ =k r r hx (T T)/ (A-26)
% '^£' = *~ "~
where Ta is the melt temperature far from the interface, equal
to Tw of the general model. The local coefficient hx of con-
MAY 1993, Vol. 115/459
 vective heat transfer from the liquid to the interface is an input
parameter that for laminar boundary layer flow of a fluid with
Pr « 1 over a flat plate is given as (Eckert and Drake, 1972).

Nu v = C, Rel /2 Pr (A.3)
" */"
where Rex = Usx/v is the local Reynolds number, and Cx is a
constant order of 0.5. The boundary conditions of the problem
are as follows:
r = rs: Ts=Tf, (A. 4a) h,(T„-T()

dTs
= 0: = 0, (AAb)
dr

x = 0: Ts = Tsh and rs = rsi (A.4c)

To find the spatial variation of the crust thickness, the energy
equation, Eq. (A.2a), is integrated over the cross section of
the solid, after first nondimensionalizing it using the dimen-
sionless variables defined in the text, to yield

d p 9,r* dr* =
39,
(A.5)
dx* J0 RePr a/ dr*

The dimensionless solid temperature 9., is defined as ( 7 ^ - 7})/

Fig. A1 Idealized dip-coating system
(T„—Tf) and the Reynolds number is based on the bath height
H. In reducing Eq. (A.5), boundary conditions Eqs. (A.4a)
and (A4.&) have been invoked. The interface energy balance
equation, Eq. (A.2), is nondimensionalized after substituting near the starting point, x* = 0. Applying the conditions of Eq.
hx from Eq. (A.3) to yield (A. 10) to Eqs. (A.8) and (A.9), the thermal penetration thick-
ness and solid radius for small x*'s are calculated as
dr* «Ste, 9 9 , | C,Ste,
dx* RePr dr* = (A.6) i2x*y/2
V RePrx A=
RePr/
and

To simplify the solution of Eq. (A.6), different solid tem- r* = r*i - 2Ste,(/<9j; + C, V I (A. 11)
perature profiles are assumed to characterize the thermal de- 3RePr
velopment of the solid as it travels through the bath. The (Note that Bsi < 0 due to the choice of nondimensionahzation.)
temperature profiles are required to satisfy the integral energy The thermal penetration thickness and solid radius are cal-
equation Eq. (A.5) and the boundary conditions Eqs. (A.4a) culated from Eqs. (A.8) and (A.9) up to x* = x* where A(x*)
and (A.4b). As shown in Fig. A. 1, the first profile is consistent = r* (x*), and beyond that a quadratic temperature profile is
with the notion of a thermal penetration thickness A(x*), be- assumed,
yond which the effects of the interface conditions are negli-
gible, i.e., 95=9C 1 for 0 < r <rs (A. 12)
„*2

(U, for ()</•*</•;-A where Qc(x*) is the centerline temperature of the solid, which
2 2 is calculated along with the solid radius by substituting the
( A , [!-(/•*-/•,+A) /A ] for/v -A<r*<rs
above profile into Eqs. (A.5) and (A.6),

where 0 < A(x*) -<r*(x*). Substituting this temperature profile -4[>-;29j=^ (A. 13)
into Eqs. (A.5) and (A.6) results in dx RePr
-24r* drs /cSte, / - 2 9 , CiSte;
4Ars + A 1 = (A.8) (A. 14)
dP ^ " RePrA dx* ~ RePr
•\f~RePTX*
drs /cSte/ -29, CiSte ;
(A.9)
dx* RePr The system of Eqs. (A. 13) and (A. 14) is solved using a fourth-
VRePr? order Runge-Kutta scheme with the starting condition pro-
Equations (A.8) and (A.9) form a system of first-order non- vided from the endpoint solution of system of Eqs. (A.8) and
linear differential equations, which is solved for the unknown (A.9). This marching integration is carried on up to a point
functions r*(p) and A(x*) with Eq. (A.4c) and A(0) = 0 as x*2 where 9 C and thus the entire solid reached the uniform fusion
boundary conditions. The system is integrated using fourth- temperature. Beyond x*, therefore, the first term on the right-
order Runge-Kutta scheme with adaptive step-size control hand side of Eq. (A.7) vanishes, and the rest is integrated to
(Press et al., 1989). The first step of the marching integration yield
required special consideration to ensure the correct starting
behavior since both r* and A have infinitely large gradient at * 2C,Ste,
rs (x )=rs(x2) (A. 15)
x* = 0. The system of Eqs. (A.8) and (A.9), however, may be RePr
simplified using the following facts: The marching integration routines and Eq. (A. 15) are used
* with the bounding conditions
A « r*s and 4 « — (A. 10)
dx* /\>0andx*<1.0

460 /Vol. 115, MAY 1993 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jhtrao/27549/ on 02/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-