Effects of Alternating Currents in the Hearth of Submerged Arc Furnaces

M. Fromreide, S. A. Halvorsen, M. Sparta, V. Risinggård, P. Salgado, D. Gómez, E. Herland
{"title":"Effects of Alternating Currents in the Hearth of Submerged Arc Furnaces","authors":"M. Fromreide, S. A. Halvorsen, M. Sparta, V. Risinggård, P. Salgado, D. Gómez, E. Herland","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3926716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is well known that alternating currents (AC) differ significantly from direct currents (DC) in large electrodes for Submerged Arc Furnaces (SAFs). The skin effect concentrates AC to the periphery of each electrode, while the proximity effect causes higher current concentration towards the leading electrode. In a presentation at INFACON XV it was further shown that there is also a significant proximity effect between electrode currents and induced currents in the furnace steel shell. Here, we will focus on differences and similarities between AC and DC below the electrodes. In many processes the current runs primarily vertically in a coke bed from each electrode to a metal bath, where it distributes to the other electrodes. In such coke beds we find no significant difference between AC and DC. In the highly conductive metal, there will be horizontal currents and a significant AC skin effect. Horizontal currents will also be present in the materials above the metal, depending on the electrical conductivity in this region. A simple model shows that there is a strong proximity effect between such adjacent currents, “pushing” the currents upwards within the slag/coke bed region. A simple estimate, based on furnace dimensions and assumed conductivities, will show whether this effect is significant, in which case DC computations are inadequate to estimate the current paths. The same proximity effect will significantly enhance induced currents in an electrically conductive lining. Finally, since the underlying Maxwell’s equations are linear, the fundamental current paths in 3-phase AC SAFs can be studied by computing two independent single-phase cases for a given geometry and distribution of electrical conductivities. Any other current distribution will be a linear combination of these two solutions.","PeriodicalId":203738,"journal":{"name":"INFACON XVI 2021: Furnace Modelling","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INFACON XVI 2021: Furnace Modelling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3926716","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It is well known that alternating currents (AC) differ significantly from direct currents (DC) in large electrodes for Submerged Arc Furnaces (SAFs). The skin effect concentrates AC to the periphery of each electrode, while the proximity effect causes higher current concentration towards the leading electrode. In a presentation at INFACON XV it was further shown that there is also a significant proximity effect between electrode currents and induced currents in the furnace steel shell. Here, we will focus on differences and similarities between AC and DC below the electrodes. In many processes the current runs primarily vertically in a coke bed from each electrode to a metal bath, where it distributes to the other electrodes. In such coke beds we find no significant difference between AC and DC. In the highly conductive metal, there will be horizontal currents and a significant AC skin effect. Horizontal currents will also be present in the materials above the metal, depending on the electrical conductivity in this region. A simple model shows that there is a strong proximity effect between such adjacent currents, “pushing” the currents upwards within the slag/coke bed region. A simple estimate, based on furnace dimensions and assumed conductivities, will show whether this effect is significant, in which case DC computations are inadequate to estimate the current paths. The same proximity effect will significantly enhance induced currents in an electrically conductive lining. Finally, since the underlying Maxwell’s equations are linear, the fundamental current paths in 3-phase AC SAFs can be studied by computing two independent single-phase cases for a given geometry and distribution of electrical conductivities. Any other current distribution will be a linear combination of these two solutions.
交流电对埋弧炉炉底的影响
众所周知,在埋弧炉(SAFs)的大电极中,交流电(AC)与直流电(DC)有很大的不同。趋肤效应将交流电集中到每个电极的外围,而接近效应则导致电流向前导电极集中。在INFACON XV的一次演示中,进一步表明在炉钢外壳中电极电流和感应电流之间也存在显着的接近效应。在这里,我们将重点讨论电极下交流和直流之间的异同。在许多工艺中,电流主要在焦炭床中垂直地从每个电极流向金属槽,在金属槽中电流分布到其他电极。在这种焦炭层中,我们发现交流和直流之间没有显著差异。在高导电性的金属中,会有水平电流和显著的交流趋肤效应。水平电流也会出现在金属上方的材料中,这取决于该区域的导电性。一个简单的模型表明,这些相邻电流之间存在很强的邻近效应,在渣/焦床区域内“推动”电流向上。一个简单的估计,基于炉的尺寸和假设的电导率,将显示这种影响是否显著,在这种情况下,直流计算不足以估计电流路径。同样的接近效应将显著增强导电衬里的感应电流。最后,由于基本的麦克斯韦方程组是线性的,因此可以通过计算给定几何形状和电导率分布的两个独立的单相情况来研究三相交流SAFs中的基本电流路径。任何其他的电流分布都是这两个解的线性组合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信