Dynamic Current and Power Distributions in a Submerged Arc Furnace

Tesfahunegn, Yonatan A.; Magnusson, Thordur; Tangstad, Merete; Sævarsdóttir, Guðrún

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05728-2_1

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, we have considered the same industrial furnace as reported in [11,12,15] that is operating with an AC frequency of 50 Hz and its schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 1, which is adapted from [11].…”

Section: Furnace Geometry and Materials Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The FE model of the furnace partitioned into different zones with different electrical conductivities. Tesfahunegn et al [11,12] developed a 3D numerical furnace model that contains electrodes, main arcs, side arcs, crater-wall, crater, and other parts using ANSYS Fluent electric potential solver (DC). The authors reported results for current distribution for a range of arcing configurations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That model only includes the electrodes and predicts skin and proximity effects. The same authors [15] extend their work on the model that has been developed in [11,12] to study the alternating current and power distributions using eddy current solver (AC). Other researchers have developed different numerical models for SAF based on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Finite Element Method (FEM).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Study of AC and DC Solvers Based on Current and Power Distributions in a Submerged Arc Furnace

Tesfahunegn

Magnusson²,

Tangstad

et al. 2020

Metall Mater Trans B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work discusses 3D models of current distribution in a three-phase Submerged Arc Furnace that contains several components, such as electrodes, central arcs, craters, crater walls, and side arcs that connect electrodes and crater walls. A complete modeling approach requires time-dependent modeling of the AC electromagnetic fields and current distribution, while an approximation using a static DC approach enables a significant reduction in computational time. By comparing results for current and power distributions inside an industrial submerged arc furnace from the AC and DC solvers of the ANSYS Maxwell module, the merits and limitations of using the simpler and faster DC approach are estimated. The conclusion is that although effects such as skin effect and proximity are lost with the DC approach, the difference in the location of energy dissipation is within 6% margin. The given inaccuracies introduced with an assumption about furnace configuration and physical properties are significantly more important for the overall result. Unless inductive effects are of particular interest, DC may often be sufficient.

show abstract