See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227098994

A study of the influence of air-knife tilting on coating thickness in hot-dip

galvanizing

Article  in  Journal of Thermal Science · September 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s11630-009-0262-7

CITATIONS READS

8 1,290

3 authors, including:

Young-Doo Kwon
Kyungpook National University
76 PUBLICATIONS   308 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hysco Pipe Joint Analysis. Expecting 2nd Year Project. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Young-Doo Kwon on 04 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Thermal Science Vol.18, No.3 (2009) 262−267

DOI: 10.1007/s11630-009-0262-7 Article ID: 1003-2169(2009)03-0262-06

A Study of the Influence of Air-knife Tilting on Coating Thickness in Hot-dip

Galvanizing

Tae-Seok CHO, Young-Doo KWON, Soon-Bum KWON

School of Mechanical Engineering, Kyungpook National University, 1370, Sankyuk-dong, Daegu 702-701, Korea
E-mail: sbkwon@knu.ac.kr, Tel.+82-53-950-5578, Fax.+82-53-950-6588

Gas wiping is a decisive operation in hot-dip galvanizing process. In special, it has a crucial influence on the
thickness and uniformity in coating film, but may be subsequently responsible for the problem of splashing. The
progress of industry demands continuously the reduction of production costs which may relate directly with the
increase of coating speed, and the speed up of coating results in the increase of stagnation pressure in gas wiping
system in final. It is known that the increase of stagnation pressure may accompany a harmful problem of splash-
ing in general. Together with these, also, from the view point of energy consumption, it is necessary to design a
nozzle optimally. And there is known that the downward tilting of nozzle using in air knife system is effective to
prevent in somewhat the harmful problem of splashing. In these connections, first, we design a nozzle with con-
stant expansion rate. Next, for the case of actual coating conditions in field, the effects of tilting of the constant
expansion rate nozzle are investigated by numerical analysis. Under the present numerical conditions, it was
o
turned out that the nozzle of constant expansion rate of p = having a downward jet angle of 5 is the most effec-
tive to diminish the onset of splashing, while the influence of small tilting of the nozzle on impinging wall pres-
sure itself is not so large.

Keywords: Air-knife, Constant expansion rate nozzle, Impinging pressure, Wall shear stress, Hot-dip galvanizing,
Coating thickness, Splashing

Introduction
It is known that the merits of gas wiping in hot-dip
galvanizing are easy to control the film coating thickness
and to enhance the productivity of steel strip with the
coating weight specified by a customer at the highest
possible line speed[1-2]. Nowadays, a typical furnace
allows a production of about 65tons of steel per meter
width, which implies 200m/min. in a maximum line
speed for a 0.7mm thick strip[3]. To cope with the de-
mand of speed-up of galvanizing line obtaining the same
film thickness with a conventional system, it is inevitable
that the stagnation settling chamber pressure of nozzle is
increased or the distance from the nozzle lip to the strip
surface is shortened. However, the increase of nozzle
stagnation pressure and the shortening of impinging dis-
tance may cause a problem of splashing for a certain line
speed typically above 150m/min.[4]. Though a splashing
phenomenon works as a physical limitation in jet wiping
process, it can't be thoroughly suppressed. But it has been
shown that it can be diminished in some extent by an
optimal design of nozzle[5]. And, the flow through a
variable expansion rate nozzle may lead to undulations in
static pressure of the flow field[6], and such a parasitic
undulation of the flow can stir up the onset of splashing
and deteriorate the uniformity of coating thickness[7].

Received: December 2008

S.B.KWON : Professor
www.springerlink.com
Tae-Seok CHO et al. A Study of the Influence of Air-knife Tilting on Coating Thickness in Hot-dip Galvanizing
So, from these view points, first we proposed a nozzle of
constant expansion rate which is free from undulation in
static pressure distribution for air knife system, then con-
firming of the superiority of the new proposed nozzle to
the case of conventional one, which is possible to judge
from the results of jet structure and coating thickness,
and the effects of tilting of the nozzle on the jet structure
and coating thickness are discussed. On the other hand, it
is known that the tilting of nozzle is very effective to
prevent in some what the harmful problem of splash-
ing[8]. In these connections, first, we designed three
kinds of nozzle with constant expansion rate, whose ex-
pansion rates are 60,000, 88,000 and 100,000s-1, respec-
tively. Next, by using of these new designed and conven-
tional air knife nozzle systems, the effects of nozzle tilt-
ing angle on the distributions of impinging wall jet pres-
sure and coating thickness with/without moving strip are
investigated by numerical analyses. In numerical analysis,
5 kinds of tilting angle are tested, in which the working
fluids of gas and coating liquid are dehumidified com-
pressed air and zinc liquid, respectively. And the settling
chamber pressure and temperature of the nozzle, that is,
the stagnation pressure and temperature are 66kpa and
333K, respectively. In Table 1, specifications of the
air-knife system and some properties of the working fluid
used in the present study are tabulated.
Table 1 Specifications of air-knife system and properties of
working fluid
Nozzle slot height H 1.0 mm
Distance between nozzle lip and strip S 10.0 mm
Strip speed Vs 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 m/s
Wiping gas stagnation temperature T0 Air (60℃)
Stagnation settling chamber pressure P0 66 kPa
Zinc density ρl 6634 kg/m3
P． 60,000,88,000,
Expansion rate
100,000s−1
Zinc dynamic viscosity μl 3.04×10-3Pa.s
Tilting angles θ 0o, 5o, 10o, 15o, 20o,
Numerical procedure
In the gas wiping process of continuous hot-dip galva-
nizing, it is known that the performance of the wiping
system mainly depends upon the impact pressure gradi-
ent and shear stress distribution of the impinging jet at
the liquid surface, and both depends principally upon the
stagnation settling chamber pressure (Po), the distance
between the nozzle lip and vertical strip(S), the nozzle
slot size(H), jet tilting angel(θ) and so on[9]. In the pre-
sent study, to clarify the effects of tilting angle of the
nozzle and speed of the strip on the distributions of im-
pinging wall jet pressure and zinc coating thickness, the
values of S, H and po are constants as 10mm, 1mm and
263
66kpa, respectively. And the working fluid for gas wiping
is dehumidified compressed air.
Fig.1 shows an analytical model of gas wiping[10].
And the details of conventional and new designed noz-
zles are shown in figure. As can be expected, in the case
of calculation of coating thickness, it is necessary to cal-
culate(or measure) exactly the shear stress acting at the
interface between liquid film surface and jet stream. So
far, because it is nearly impossible to measure/ calculate
the actual shear stress, in general, the shear stress acting
between the molten zinc liquid surface and gas stream in
the majority of the previous studies on the calculation of
coating thickness is obtained by using of the assumed jet
characteristics issuing from the air knife system[11-12].
Furthermore, there is no appropriate alternative in this
stage to obtain the exact solution on shear stress, and the
coating thickness is extremely thin, we used the wall
shear stress calculated from the numerical analysis in the
case without coating liquid as the shear stress acting at
the boundary of the liquid film, and whose validation will
be confirmed from the next article.
(a) Conventional type (b) New designed type
+x
Impinging wall jet
Vs
Gas jet
P0
Strip
θ
Wiping nozzle
+y 0
δ(x) x
Impinging
pressure U(x,y)
Pi (x)
Shear stress y
τw (x) Liquid film
-x
Fig 1 Analytical model for gas wiping and details of noz-
zle[8]
Calculation procedure for impinging wall jet
In the present computational works, we used the
commercial code of Fluent 6.0, in which the equations of
continuity, two-dimensional time dependent Na-
vier-Stokes, energy, state equations and so on are used as
governing equations. In calculation of dynamic viscosity
of working fluids, we used the equation suggested by
Surtherland, also, used the standard k-ε turbulence model
264 J. Therm. Sci., Vol.18, No.3, 2009

to solve the turbulent stress[13]. tween molten liquid surface and gas stream, strip speed
The schematic computational domains and each and impinging pressure acting at molten liquid surface,
boundary condition are shown in Fig.2. The grid in the respectively.
regions having the large possibility of changing in pres- Finally, the velocity distribution across the coating
sure, velocity and so on likes an exit of air-knife makes thickness can be obtained as
densely. The numbers of mesh and mesh type are about τ ( x)
u ( x, y ) = Vs + w
11 thousands and quadrilateral, respectively. μl
Working fluid for gas wiping is air, and assumed to be (4)
1 ⎧ dPw ( x) ⎫⎧ y⎫
thermally and calorically perfect. The downstream pres- − ⎨ + ρl g ⎬ ⎨δ ( x ) − ⎬ y
sure and temperature of the pressure regulator that is, the μl ⎩ dx ⎭⎩ 2⎭
plenum chamber pressure and temperature are constants So, the flow rate per unit coating width is given as
to be 66kpa and 333K, respectively. δ ( x)
q=∫ u ( x, y )dy = Vsδ ( x)
0
τ w ( x) 2 (5)
1 ⎧ dPw ( x) ⎫
+ δ ( x) − ⎨ + ρl g ⎬ δ 3 ( x )
2 μl 3μl ⎩ dx ⎭
The mean coating thickness is written as
q τ ( x) 2 1 ⎧ dPw ( x) ⎫
δm = = δ ( x) + w δ ( x) − ⎨ + ρ l g ⎬δ 3 ( x)
Vs 2μlVs 3μlVs ⎩ dx ⎭ (6)
⎡ τ ( x) 1 ⎧ dPw ( x) ⎫ ⎤
= δ ( x) ⎢1 + w δ ( x) − ⎨ + ρ l g ⎬δ 2 ( x)⎥
⎣ 2 μ V
l s 3μ V
l s ⎩ dx ⎭ ⎦
Introducing the non-dimensional parameters as shown
in equation (7)[10]
δm ⎫
δ m∗ = ⎪
μlVs ⎪
Fig 2 Computational domains and boundary conditions ρl g ⎪
⎪
∗ δ (η ) ⎪
Calculation procedure for coating thickness δ (η ) =
μlVs ⎪
⎪
The numerical analysis to calculate the zinc coating ⎬ (7)
ρl g
thickness at the center plane of the strip is based on the ⎪
following basic assumptions: (1) it can be assumed that 1 dPw (η ) ⎪
Pw∗ (η ) = 1 + ⎪
the fluid flow in the liquid coating layer is steady state, ρl gb p dη ⎪
two-dimensional equations of incompressible, constant τ w (η ) ⎪
viscosity, creep flow, and (2) the surface tension effect of τ w∗ (η ) = ⎪
the liquid zinc can be neglected. Using the coordinate ρl μl gVs ⎪⎭
system shown in Fig.1, the governing equations can be x
summarized as follows. Here, if the non-dimensional coordinate η = , in
b
∂u 1 ∂Ρ μ ⎛ ∂ 2u ∂ 2u ⎞ which b denotes the half width of pressure distribution,
u =− − g + l ⎜⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟⎟ (1)
∂x ρl ∂x ρl ⎝ ∂x ∂y ⎠ the equation (6) can be written as
⎧ 1 1 ⎫
∂u δ m∗ = δ ∗ (η ) ⎨1 + τ w∗ (η )δ ∗ (η ) − Pw∗ (η )δ ∗2 (η ) ⎬
=0 (2) ⎩ 2 3 ⎭ (8)
∂x
To solve the above equation, we used the boundary {
= h δ ∗ (η ) }
conditions shown in equation (3) In equation (8), to calculate the coating thickness with
⎫ non-dimensional distance, we have to decide the
⎪ non-dimensional coating thickness δ m∗ , and the procedure
u ( x, y ) y =0 = Vs ⎪
⎪ to calculate δ m∗ is summarized simply as follows. Here,
P( x) y =δ ( x ) = Pw ( x) ⎬ (3)
⎪ δ m∗ is independent of η, and is a constant. So, considering
∂u ( x, y ) ⎪
μl = τ w ( x) ⎪ the position of the maximum flow rate per unit coating
∂y y =δ ( x )
⎭ thickness as boundary condition to find δ m∗ , at first
Here, g, μ l , τw, Vs and pw denote gravity acceleration, ∗
δ ∗ can be calculated from the condition of ∂δ m = 0 for
dynamic viscosity of molten zinc, shear stress acting be- ∗
∂δ
Tae-Seok CHO et al. A Study of the Influence of Air-knife Tilting on Coating Thickness in Hot-dip Galvanizing 265

80
each η, next δ m∗ is calculated by substitution of δ m∗ into the

Pi(kPa)
Impinging Pressure
( 66kPa )
∗
equation (8). The minimum value in δ m for all η is de-
Stationary
60 Moving(150mpm)

cided as the actual δ m∗ in final. As a consequence, the

non-dimensional coating thickness can be calculated by 40

solving the equation (8) for the given τ ∗w and Pw∗

20

Results and discussions

0

For the simplicity of numerical analysis, we used the -10 -5 0 5

X(mm)
10

stationary strip condition in calculation of the impinging

wall pressure in spite of the moving of the strip, whose Fig 3 Comparison of result of stationary strip with the result
validation is possible to confirm from the comparisons of of 150mpm in impinging wall jet pressure and shear
=60,000s-1, P0=66kPa)
stress (P．
equalities in impinging wall jet pressure and shear stress
between the results for both cases of stationary and 80

Pi(kPa)
Impinging Pressure
150mpm(meter per minute) strips. The results for both ( 66kPa )
New-type
cases of 150mpm and stationary strips for θ=0o are shown 60 Old-type

in Fig.3. From this, we can find that the speed of the

moving strip is so small compared with the value of noz- 40

zle jet exiting speed that the impinging wall pressure for
stationary strip nearly coincides with the result of moving 20
strip. In which, the nozzle exiting Mach number and ve-
locity for T0=333K and p0 =66kpa are 0.88 and 299m/s, 0
respectively. So, in calculation of numerical analysis for
-10 -5 0 5 10
actual moving strip, the stationary wall condition is used X(mm)
as boundary condition. The distributions of impinging (a) Impinging wall jet pressure
wall jet pressure, wall shear stress and impinging pres- 600
τ (Ν/m 2)

sure gradient for both of conventional and new designed 400

nozzles with the constant expansion rate of 60,000s-1 for
θ=0o by numerical analysis are shown in Fig.4. Since, for 200

the same nozzle stagnation condition, the energy loss 0

during expansion through the constant expansion rate
nozzle is smaller than that of the conventional nozzle -200
Shear Stress
system, the maximum velocity for new designed nozzle -400 ( 66kPa)
New-type
system with constant expansion rate at the nozzle exit Old-type

which relates directly with the impinging wall jet pres- -600
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
sure is larger than that of the conventional system one, X(mm)
also, it may result in the increase of the shear stress act- (b) Wall shear stress
60
ing at the interface between jet flume and zinc liquid
dP/dx(kPa/mm)

Pressure gradient
( 66kPa)
surface in future. From this, we can find the superiority 40 New-type
Old-type
of nozzle with constant expansion rate to the case of
20
conventional one. Fig.5 shows the distributions of im-
pinging wall jet pressure and coating thickness with the 0

variations of θ. As is shown in figure, because of the in-

-20
crease in distance from the nozzle exit to the stagnation
point and the decrease of velocity normal to the strip -40
surface with the increase of θ, the position of maximum
-60
impinging pressure moves to the downward of the origin -10 -5 0 5 10
X(mm)
of coordinate and the value of impinging wall jet pres-
(c) Gradient of impinging wall jet pressure
sure decreases with the increase of θ. Under the present
numerical conditions, the reduction of maximum im- Fig 4 Comparisons of results between conventional and con-
pinging wall jet pressure which may relate directly with stant expansion rate nozzle systems (P． =60,000s-1,
the problem of splashing against to that of θ=0o is about P0=66kPa )
266 J. Therm. Sci., Vol.18, No.3, 2009

80
pressure and shear stress at the downstream of the jet
Pi(kPa)
Impinging Pressure
( 66kPa )
θ=00Ο rather than the impinging wall jet pressure itself.
60 θ=05Ο

θ=10Ο 60

dP/dx(kPa/mm)
θ=15Ο Pressure gradient
( 66kPa)
θ=20Ο

40 θ=00 Ο

40
θ=05 Ο

θ=10 Ο

20
θ=15 Ο

20 θ=20 Ο

0 -20

-10 -5 0 5 10
X(mm) -40

(a) Impinging wall jet pressure

-60
-10 -5 0 5 10
X(mm)
(a) Gradient of impinging wall jet pressure
600

τ (Ν/m2)
400

200

0
Shear Stress
( 66kPa)
-200 θ=00 Ο

θ=05 Ο

θ=10 Ο

-400
θ=15 Ο

θ=20 Ο

(b) Coating thickness -600

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
X(mm)
Fig.5 Distributions of impinging wall jet pressure and coating
thickness with θ (P． =60,000s−1, P0=66kPa and Vs= (b) Wall shear stress

150mpm)

18%, but on the other hand, the increase of coating

thickness for the same conditions at most is 11%. Fur-
thermore, we can find a remarkable thing that the coating
o o
thickness for θ=5 is smaller than that of θ=0 despite of
its largeness in impinging maximum wall jet pressure.
Which may be caused by the fact that the shear stress
acting between the liquid film surface and jet stream for
o o
θ=5 at the region of η<0 is larger than that of θ=0 . And,
it is known that the problem of splashing is caused by an
(c) Coating thickness
entrainment from the secondary flow generated between
the strip surface and air-knife bottom wall and its turbu- Fig 6 =60,000s−1,
Impinging wall jet characteristics with θ (P．
lence [14]. So, considering the view points of vector of P0=66kPa and Vs=150mpm)
momentum influx to the strip surface, which is related
directly with the problems of splashing and coating thick- Fig.7 shows the distribution of coating thickness with
o
ness, it can be concluded that the slight tilting of air knife =60,000s−1, P0=66kPa). As can be
strip speed for θ=5 (P．
system is effective in somewhat to suppress the harmful expected, the larger the speed of strip is, the smaller the
problem of splashing. And, Fig.6 shows the distributions momentum influx per unit strip surface becomes, so, the
of gradient of impinging wall jet pressure, wall shear coating thickness for the same coating conditions ex-
stress and coating thickness with θ for (P． =60,000s−1, cepting strip speed thickens with the increase of strip
P0=66kPa and Vs=180 mpm). Comparing of the coating speed.
o o
thickness for θ=0 with that for θ=5 , we can find also And for the case of constant nozzle stagnation condi-
o
that the coating thickness for θ=5 is smaller than that of tion, the influence of expansion rate of the nozzle on the
θ=0o despite of smallness in maximum impinging wall jet impinging wall jet pressure and coating thickness for the
pressure. As mentioned above, it means that the final same nozzle tilting angle(θ=5o) is shown in Fig.8. As is
solidified coating thickness is closely related to the shown in figure, under the present numerical conditions,
maximum gradient of impinging wall jet pressure and it is turned out that the effect of expansion rate of the
 Tae-Seok CHO et al. A Study of the Influence of Air-knife Tilting on Coating Thickness in Hot-dip Galvanizing 267

nozzle on the distributions of impinging wall jet pressure
is negligible, which results in the same coating thickness
regardless of nozzle expansion rate.
(1) A new air knife system with the constant expansion
rate of nozzle is recommendable from the view point of
energy saving and to cope properly with the problem of
splashing.
(2) For the same nozzle stagnation condition, slight
tilting of air-knife system(around 5°) is the most effective
to suppress the harmful problem of splashing.
(3) The effect of expansion rate of air-knife nozzle on
coating thickness is negligible.

References

[1] Butler, J. J., Beam, D. J. and Hawkins, J. C., The Devel-

opment of Air Coating Control for Continuous Strip Gal-
vanizing, Iron and Steel Eng., pp.77−86, (1970)
Fig 7 Distributions of coating thickness with Vs for θ=5o [2] Thornton, J. A. and Craff, H. F., An Analytical Descrip-
=60,000s−1, P0=66kPa)
(P． tion of the Jet Finishing Process for Hot-dip Metallic
Coating on Strip, Metallurgical Trans. B, vol.7B,
80 pp.607−618, (1976)
Pi(kPa)

Impinging Pressure
( 66kPa )
.
[3] Dubois, M., Buchlin, J. M. ,Goesset, A. and Perrot, V.,
P=100,000s-1
60 .
P= 88,000s-1
Effect of Nozzle Tilting on Splashing in Jet Wiping, Gal-
.
P= 60,000s-1 vatech '04,Conf. Proceedings(Chicago,USA), pp. 197-
(2006)
40
[4] Hara, T. et al., UDC(Hitachi Review), 621, 793, 52−06,
669, 586, 5, pp.85-101(in Japanese)(1981)
20
[5] Lee, D. W., Hwang, J. G., Kwon, Y. D., Kwon, S. B., Kim,
G. Y., and Lee, D. E., A Study on the Air-knife Flow with
0 Coanda Effect, J. of Mech. Sci. and Tech. 21, pp.
-3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
2214−2220, (2007)
X(mm) [6] Moore, M. J., and Sieverding, C. H., Two-phase Steam
(a) Impinging wall jet pressure Flow in Turbines and Separators, Hemisphere Pub.
Corp.(Washington)., pp.127−140, (1976)
[7] Lee,D.W., Kang,N.C., Kim,K.Y., Kwon,Y.D. and
Kwon,S.B., A Study on the Flow Characteristics of Air-
knife Using a Constant Expansion Rate Nozzle, Korean
Society of Computational Fluids Eng.(in Korean), No.13,
Vol.4, pp.1−7, (2008)
[8] Takeishi, Y. and Yabuki, K., Mechanism of Splashing
from Liquid Bath Surface in Gas Wiping Process for
Continuous Hot-dip Coating, Japanese J. Multi-phase
Flow, Vol.14. 2, pp.185−193, (2000)
[9] Tu, C. V. and Wood, D. H., Wall Pressure and Shear
Stress Measurements Beneath an Impinging Jet, Experi-
(b) Coating thickness mental Thermal and Fluid Sci.13, pp.364-373, (1996)
Fig 8 Relationship between coating thickness with P．(θ=5o, [10] Takeishi, Y., Yamauchi, A. and Miyauchi, S., Gas Wiping
Mechanism in Hot-dip Coating Process, Iron and Steel,
Vs=150mpm and P0=66kPa )
Vol.81.5, pp.37−42, (1995)
[11] Beltaos, S., Oblique Impingement of Plane Turbulent Jets,
Conclusions J. of the Hydraulic Division, Sept, pp. 1177-1192, (1976)
[12] Ellen, C. H. and Tu, C. V., An Analysis of Jet Striping of
To cope with the harmful problem of splashing in a Liquid Coating, J. of Fluid Eng., Vol.106, Dec., pp.
continuous hot-dip galvanizing process, we proposed a 399−404, (1984)
new air-knife system with the constant expansion rate of [13] Senter J. and Solliec C., Flow Field Analysis of a Turbu-
nozzle. By using the newly proposed system, the influ- lent Slot Air Jet Impinging on a Moving Flat Surface, Int.
J. Heat and Fluid Flow 28, pp. 708-719, (2007)
ences of tilting angle of the air knife, expansion rate of
[14] Hara,T., Adaniya,T., Yamashita,M., Tajiri,Y. and Ogawa,
the nozzle and strip speed on the coating thickness and M., Development of a New Gas Wiping Process for
jet structure are investigated through a numerical analysis. High-speed Chemical Treatment, Iron and Steel(in
The obtained results are summarized as follows. Japανεσε), Νο.105, ππ.90−97(1984)

View publication stats