Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

solid-solid phase transformations, influence of stresses and strains
Post Reply
WTMuser
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:33 am
anti_bot: 333

Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by WTMuser » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:16 am

Dear all,

I am currently trying to model the incipient melting of niobium carbide particles in a nickel-matrix. I am using simply a cubical particle for test purposes. In principle, liquid phase is formed at the interface between both phases – as expected. But I am getting numerical instabilities, which seem to be related to the thermodynamics.

Such as:
trying hard phases 2 0 level: 4 zp= 2349 error= 1
trying harder! Error = 1
trying hard phases 2 0 level: 4 zp= 2342 error= 1

Additionally it can be observed that at the interface slightly negative concentrations are occurring. I have already tried around with changing the interface energies and mobilities as well as averaging the driving force at the interface, however this had nearly no influence on the simulation results.

I am wondering on how to tackle this issue – especially how the general strategy in such cases is.

Images:
NbC_Ni_1_vtk.png
Initial configuration of the simulation domain
NbC_Ni_1_vtk.png (30.42 KiB) Viewed 5557 times
NbC_Ni_2_vtk.png
Situation after some melt has formed at the interface
NbC_Ni_2_vtk.png (47.57 KiB) Viewed 5557 times
Some important settings of the driving file, our used databases are TTNi8 and MobNi1:

(…)
# Flags and settings
# ==================
#
# Geometry
# --------
# Grid size?
# (for 2D calculations: CellsY=1, for 1D calculations: CellsX=1, CellsY=1)
# Cells in X-direction (CellsX):
70
# Cells in Y-direction (CellsY):
1
# Cells in Z-direction (CellsZ):
70
# Cell dimension (grid spacing in micrometers):
# (optionally followed by rescaling factor for the output in the form of '3/4')
5

(…)
# Time input data
# ===============
# Finish input of output times (in seconds) with 'end_of_simulation'
# 'regularly-spaced' outputs can be set with 'linear_step'
# or 'logarithmic_step' and then specifying the increment
# and end value
# ('automatic_outputs' optionally followed by the number
# of outputs can be used in conjuction with 'linear_from_file')
# 'first' : additional output for first time-step
# 'end_at_temperature' : additional output and end of simulation
# at given temperature
linear_step 0.1 100
end_of_simulation
# Time-step?
# Options: fix ...[s] automatic automatic_limited
automatic_limited
# Options: constant from_file
constant
# Limits: (real) min./s, [max./s], [phase-field factor], [segregation factor]
1e-5 0.1 0.5 0.5
# Number of steps to adjust profiles of initially sharp interfaces [exclude_inactive]?
10

# Phase data
# ==========
# Number of distinct solid phases?
2
#
# Data for phase 1:
# -----------------
# Simulation of recrystallisation in phase 1?
# Options: recrystall no_recrystall [verbose|no_verbose]
no_recrystall
# Is phase 1 anisotrop?
# Options: isotropic anisotropic faceted antifaceted
anisotropic
# Crystal symmetry of the phase?
# Options: none cubic hexagonal tetragonal orthorhombic
cubic
# Should grains of phase 1 be reduced to categories?
# Options: categorize no_categorize
categorize
#
# Data for phase 2:
# -----------------
# [identical phase number]
# Simulation of recrystallisation in phase 2?
# Options: recrystall no_recrystall [verbose|no_verbose]
no_recrystall
# Is phase 2 anisotrop?
# Options: isotropic anisotropic faceted antifaceted
isotropic
# Should grains of phase 2 be reduced to categories?
# Options: categorize no_categorize
Categorize

(…)
# Data for phase interaction 1 / 2:
# ---------------------------------
# Simulation of interaction between phase 1 and 2?
# Options: phase_interaction no_phase_interaction identical phases nb
# [standard|particle_pinning[_temperature]|solute_drag]
# | [redistribution_control] or [no_junction_force|junction_force]
1 2 phase_interaction
# 'DeltaG' options: default
# avg ... [] max ... [J/cm**3] smooth ... [degrees] noise ... [J/cm**3]
avg 0.50 max 1000 smooth 45.0
# I.e.: avg +0.50 smooth +45.0 max +1.00000E+03
# Type of surface energy definition between phases 1 and 2?
# Options: constant temp_dependent
constant
# Surface energy between phases 1 and 2? [J/cm**2]
# [max. value for num. interface stabilisation [J/cm**2]]
6.7e-07
# Type of mobility definition between phases 1 and 2?
# Options: constant temp_dependent dg_dependent thin_interface_correction [fixed_minimum]
constant
# File for kinetic coefficient between phases 1 and 2? [ min. value ] [cm**4/(Js)]
1.000000e-05
# Is interaction isotropic?
# Optionen: isotropic anisotropic [harmonic_expansion]
isotropic
end_phase_interactions

(…)
# Phase diagram - input data
# ==========================
#
# List of phases and components which are stoichiometric:
# phase and component(s) numbers
# List of concentration limits (at%):
# <Limits>, phase number and component number
# List for ternary extrapolation (2 elements + main comp.):
# <interaction>, component 1, component 2
# Switches: <stoich_enhanced_{on|off}> <solubility_{on|off}>
# End with 'no_more_stoichio' or 'no_stoichio'
interaction
no_stoichio
#
#
#
#
# Is a thermodynamic database to be used?
# Options: database database_verbose no_database
database
#
# Name of Thermo-Calc *.GES5 file without extension?
NbC_Ni
# TQ's 'workspace' size? (in kilo-bytes), default:800
workspace_size 40000
# Which global relinearisation mode shall be used?
# Options: manual from_file none
manual
# Relinearisation interval [s]
1.000000000000
# Input of the phase diagram of phase 0 and phase 1:
# --------------------------------------------------
# Which phase diagram is to be used?
# Options: database [local|global|globalF][start_value_{1|2}] linear linearT
database local
# Relinearisation mode for interface 0 / 1
# Options: automatic manual from_file none
none

Bernd
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by Bernd » Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:11 pm

Dear WTMuser,

my first impression is that you combine a very coarse resolution (5µm), a very small interface energy (6.7E-7 J/cm2) and a very high interface mobiliy (1.E-5cm**4/(Js)). So, I am not astonished that the simulation is unstable. Typical values for solid-solid reactions of this kind would be 0.1 µm, 1.E-5 J/cm2 and 1.E-8 cm**4/(Js). Keep in mind that diffusion in fcc is very slow, even close to the melting temperature (I assume that you use diffusion data from MOBNI1).

Of course, the applied spatial resolution depends also on the type of simulation, and once a stable situation is found, the mobility should be calibrated or adjusted to a reasonable value which is in accordance with a diffusion limited reaction.

The interface parameters given above correspond to the fcc-MC reaction. Mobility values for the solid-liquid interfaces can be considerably higher.

Other sources of problems could be a possibly missing stoichiometric definition of the MC carbide, a too high interface mobility of liquid-MC, or an inconsistent inital composition of the MC-Carbide. Switching of the phase compositions between FCC_A1 and FCC_A1_#2 (MC) can be avoided by defining user limits for the phase composition in the Phase-Diagram - input data:

Limits 2 1
35
100

would limit the allowed composition of element 1 in phase 2 between 35 and 100 at%.

What looks strange is the sharp concentration profile of the element at t=0 although the pase fractions are already diffuse - do you read the composition fields from file? Then you should not use initialisation of the interface to keep concentration fields and phase fractions consistent.

Bernd

WTMuser
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:33 am
anti_bot: 333

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by WTMuser » Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:25 pm

Dear Bernd,

thank you for your suggestions. In fact, your values significantly improved the stability of the simulation. Also excluding the jumping of MICRESS into the FCC_A1#1 composition set was important. In principle, now even simulations in the system Ni-Al-C-Co-Cr-Fe-Mo-Nb-Ti run. I am now using a circular carbide particle - but it is still not symmetrically dissolved (see attached snapshots).
NbC_Ni_1_vtk.png
Initial state
NbC_Ni_1_vtk.png (38.5 KiB) Viewed 5548 times
NbC_Ni_2_vtk.png
State during melt formation
NbC_Ni_2_vtk.png (85.12 KiB) Viewed 5548 times
Occasionally still some errors occur:

trying hard phases 1 0 level: 4 zp= 1627 error=10207
trying hard phases 1 2 level: 3 zp= 1627 error=10207
trying hard phases 1 0 level: 4 zp= 2065 error= 3
trying hard phases 1 2 level: 5 zp= 2065 error= 3

I am wondering how to systematically determine which elements need to be determined as "stoichimetric". Carbon seems to be obvious in case of carbides.

Do you think that the irregular dissolution of the liquid / carbide interface is still related to interface energies / mobilities?

Best regards,
Ralf

Bernd
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by Bernd » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:32 pm

Dear WTMuser,

When coupled to TQ, most numerical issues in MICRESS make the TQ subroutines complain first. This is because unphysical or extreme concentrations occur which cause problems with Thermo-Calc. Thus, getting Thermo-Calc related errors does not mean that the problem necessarily comes from there.

If numerical problems are solely based on numerical parameters like interface mobility or interface energy, changing these parameters typically has a very strong effect on the results. With persistent problems, my general strategy is to first rule out specific thermodynamic problems, design problems (like length scale issues) or other obvious issues.

For possible thermodynamic problems, it is very helpful to check out the initial linearisation parameters which are written in the .log file. There you can spot problems with missing stoichiometric conditions or multi-binary demixing. Maybe, you could paste them in your next post.

For MC, I always use the stoichiometric condition for all elements. The reason is that the matrix component (Ni) typically has a very low solubility there. This means that a redistribution of the other elements against Ni is very difficult in MC and probably will cause problems. A missing stoichiometric condition here can easily explain your problems.

If there are problems of multi-binary demixing for the interface liquid/fcc, then you should switch to "diagonal" redistribution using the "interaction" keyword without further parameters in the section where stoichiometric conditions are defined. It also makes sense to control thermodynamic linearisations during runtime with help of the .TabLin output. By the way, the error code "10207" means violation of a user-defined composition limit for phase 2, component 7.

For your application, I would use the global linearisation scheme "database global" or "database globalF" which makes the simulation faster, often reduces numerical problems (also by giving the possibility of a more frequent relinearisation), and makes problems more easy to follow up (because in case of "database global" all linearisation data can be followed up in the .TabLin output file).

Bernd

WTMuser
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:33 am
anti_bot: 333

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by WTMuser » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:21 pm

Dear Bernd,

using "database global" and leaving away the broken constraint for component 7 in MC is now leading to quite stable calculations. Still some slight instabilities are present at the liquid / MC interface (which is probably not so critical for our application). They are connected to spots with signficantly different interface driving forces - at least at early times. By the way "globalF" leads to serious instabilities.
NbC_Ni_1_vtk.png
Situation after some time.
NbC_Ni_1_vtk.png (82.89 KiB) Viewed 5543 times
The beginning of the phase diagram section currently is:

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Limits 2 2
35
100
interaction
no_more_stoichio


The initial output of the log-file is as follows. I assume that mostly the slope "m" is interesting for detecting "stoichiometric" elements? How to detect multi-binary demixing?

Start Composition for iteration of quasi-equilibrium
****************************************************
NI in LIQUID: 13.47670
AL in LIQUID: 7.956989
C in LIQUID: 8.745520
CO in LIQUID: 9.534050
CR in LIQUID: 10.32258
FE in LIQUID: 11.11111
MO in LIQUID: 11.89964
NB in LIQUID: 12.68817
TI in LIQUID: 14.26523
NI in FCC_A1: 33.28802
AL in FCC_A1: 0.3173879
C in FCC_A1: 0.9812748
CO in FCC_A1: 31.73250
CR in FCC_A1: 0.3236728
FE in FCC_A1: 32.35471
MO in FCC_A1: 0.3299577
NB in FCC_A1: 0.3331001
TI in FCC_A1: 0.3393850
NI in FCC_A1#2: 0.1274443
AL in FCC_A1#2: 0.1202979
C in FCC_A1#2: 49.74645
CO in FCC_A1#2: 0.1214890
CR in FCC_A1#2: 12.14532
FE in FCC_A1#2: 0.1238711
MO in FCC_A1#2: 12.38115
NB in FCC_A1#2: 12.49907
TI in FCC_A1#2: 12.73490

# The linearisation parameters of the phases LIQUID/FCC_A1 are:
# -------------------------------------------------------------
1623.0000 ! T0 [K]
436.25142 ! dG [J/cm**3]
1.2019516 ! dSf+ [J/cm**3K]
0.85658876 ! dSf- [J/cm**3K]
3356.9215 ! dH [J/cm3]
7.9369481 ! c0(AL)/LIQUID
20.911054 ! c0(AL)/FCC_A1
8.7453542 ! c0(C)/LIQUID
0.22531041 ! c0(C)/FCC_A1
9.5269731 ! c0(CO)/LIQUID
8.0900244 ! c0(CO)/FCC_A1
10.343746 ! c0(CR)/LIQUID
4.2560902 ! c0(CR)/FCC_A1
11.110488 ! c0(FE)/LIQUID
5.9224515 ! c0(FE)/FCC_A1
11.900252 ! c0(MO)/LIQUID
5.1903158 ! c0(MO)/FCC_A1
12.682647 ! c0(NB)/LIQUID
7.6199215 ! c0(NB)/FCC_A1
14.253530 ! c0(TI)/LIQUID
12.160796 ! c0(TI)/FCC_A1
-6.6599351 ! m(AL)/LIQUID
-7.5447441 ! m(AL)/FCC_A1
3.6481407 ! m(C)/LIQUID
-220.33838 ! m(C)/FCC_A1
-10.579928 ! m(CO)/LIQUID
-2.1332380 ! m(CO)/FCC_A1
-10.598733 ! m(CR)/LIQUID
-15.918432 ! m(CR)/FCC_A1
-10.060772 ! m(FE)/LIQUID
-9.3132556 ! m(FE)/FCC_A1
-10.526799 ! m(MO)/LIQUID
-7.4118184 ! m(MO)/FCC_A1
-15.545078 ! m(NB)/LIQUID
-17.934556 ! m(NB)/FCC_A1
-15.125322 ! m(TI)/LIQUID
-15.231186 ! m(TI)/FCC_A1
2.55932648E-02 ! dcdT(AL)/LIQUID
-7.58194174E-03 ! dcdT(AL)/FCC_A1
-1.49407180E-02 ! dcdT(C)/LIQUID
7.41245344E-04 ! dcdT(C)/FCC_A1
-6.98930186E-03 ! dcdT(CO)/LIQUID
8.38867502E-03 ! dcdT(CO)/FCC_A1
-8.84434089E-03 ! dcdT(CR)/LIQUID
4.64225316E-03 ! dcdT(CR)/FCC_A1
-1.12444348E-02 ! dcdT(FE)/LIQUID
9.22846198E-03 ! dcdT(FE)/FCC_A1
-1.46762150E-02 ! dcdT(MO)/LIQUID
7.58421080E-03 ! dcdT(MO)/FCC_A1
-3.00341591E-03 ! dcdT(NB)/LIQUID
-4.83060548E-05 ! dcdT(NB)/FCC_A1
-3.30922356E-03 ! dcdT(TI)/LIQUID
-5.32234618E-03 ! dcdT(TI)/FCC_A1

Reduced interaction matrix dc(k,ph1)/dc(l,ph2)*c(l,ph2)/c(k,ph1):
AL C CO CR FE MO NB TI
AL 4.34 -1.38 0.314 -0.502 8.887E-02 -0.156 -0.133 -0.736
C -0.849 0.840 -0.153 0.224 -7.555E-02 2.870E-02 -6.658E-03 0.210
CO -0.225 0.162 0.825 2.193E-02 -6.024E-02 1.459E-03 -6.351E-02 0.155
CR -0.473 0.399 -0.138 0.823 -0.110 -8.051E-03 0.145 0.212
FE -0.200 0.273 -9.079E-02 5.311E-02 0.708 -2.156E-02 6.529E-02 0.356
MO -0.714 0.424 -0.142 8.942E-02 -0.132 0.641 -6.680E-02 7.496E-02
NB -0.311 0.187 -7.506E-02 7.213E-02 -4.281E-02 -1.760E-02 0.713 -0.119
TI -0.189 0.139 2.429E-02 3.075E-03 7.113E-02 3.881E-03 -6.571E-02 1.13


Reduced interaction matrix dc(k,ph2)/dc(l,ph1)*c(l,ph1)/c(k,ph2):
AL C CO CR FE MO NB TI
AL 0.463 0.461 -7.471E-02 6.531E-02 6.677E-03 4.120E-02 3.545E-02 8.023E-02
C 0.126 0.383 0.687 4.205E-03 0.381 0.353 0.385 0.431
CO 0.128 -1.725E-03 1.55 0.294 0.412 0.415 0.421 0.277
CR 7.869E-02 -0.443 0.405 1.12 0.388 0.363 1.129E-02 0.117
FE -3.647E-03 -0.348 0.393 0.177 1.46 0.312 0.116 -0.193
MO 0.214 -0.545 0.477 0.359 0.490 1.50 0.429 0.473
NB -2.472E-03 -0.349 3.274E-02 2.933E-02 5.276E-02 3.337E-02 1.18 0.296
TI -2.879E-02 -0.124 -7.596E-02 7.043E-02 -0.145 4.731E-02 0.149 0.860

# Minimum undercooling for stable growth, seed type 1: 2.334843 K [r=0.1000000 mic.]

# The linearisation parameters of the phases LIQUID/FCC_A1#2 are:
# ---------------------------------------------------------------
1623.0000 ! T0 [K]
-3414.9810 ! dG [J/cm**3]
3.1605780 ! dSf+ [J/cm**3K]
3.1605780 ! dSf- [J/cm**3K]
10114.479 ! dH [J/cm3]
7.9370686 ! c0(AL)/LIQUID
6.67529151E-07 ! c0(AL)/FCC_A1#2
8.7470433 ! c0(C)/LIQUID
48.059059 ! c0(C)/FCC_A1#2
9.5270946 ! c0(CO)/LIQUID
8.81801122E-05 ! c0(CO)/FCC_A1#2
10.355891 ! c0(CR)/LIQUID
1.18199986E-02 ! c0(CR)/FCC_A1#2
11.110612 ! c0(FE)/LIQUID
1.04412366E-04 ! c0(FE)/FCC_A1#2
11.912595 ! c0(MO)/LIQUID
4.98755046E-02 ! c0(MO)/FCC_A1#2
12.678515 ! c0(NB)/LIQUID
16.626250 ! c0(NB)/FCC_A1#2
14.230990 ! c0(TI)/LIQUID
35.252761 ! c0(TI)/FCC_A1#2
18.466715 ! m(AL)/LIQUID
-999.99898 ! m(AL)/FCC_A1#2
41.451177 ! m(C)/LIQUID
-999.99898 ! m(C)/FCC_A1#2
-2.6112577 ! m(CO)/LIQUID
-999.99898 ! m(CO)/FCC_A1#2
-9.1149170 ! m(CR)/LIQUID
-999.99898 ! m(CR)/FCC_A1#2
-9.4182896 ! m(FE)/LIQUID
-999.99898 ! m(FE)/FCC_A1#2
-11.382365 ! m(MO)/LIQUID
-999.99898 ! m(MO)/FCC_A1#2
-4.7110762 ! m(NB)/LIQUID
-999.99898 ! m(NB)/FCC_A1#2
3.5366756 ! m(TI)/LIQUID
-999.99898 ! m(TI)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(AL)/LIQUID
0.0000000 ! dcdT(AL)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(C)/LIQUID
0.0000000 ! dcdT(C)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(CO)/LIQUID
0.0000000 ! dcdT(CO)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(CR)/LIQUID
0.0000000 ! dcdT(CR)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(FE)/LIQUID
0.0000000 ! dcdT(FE)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(MO)/LIQUID
0.0000000 ! dcdT(MO)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(NB)/LIQUID
0.0000000 ! dcdT(NB)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(TI)/LIQUID
0.0000000 ! dcdT(TI)/FCC_A1#2

Reduced interaction matrix dc(k,ph1)/dc(l,ph2)*c(l,ph2)/c(k,ph1):
AL C CO CR FE MO NB TI
AL 8.410E-08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C 0.00 5.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO 0.00 0.00 9.256E-06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.141E-03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.398E-06 0.00 0.00 0.00
MO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.187E-03 0.00 0.00
NB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00
TI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.48


Reduced interaction matrix dc(k,ph2)/dc(l,ph1)*c(l,ph1)/c(k,ph2):
AL C CO CR FE MO NB TI
AL 1.189E+07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C 0.00 0.182 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO 0.00 0.00 1.080E+05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 876. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.064E+05 0.00 0.00 0.00
MO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 239. 0.00 0.00
NB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.763 0.00
TI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.404
The composition of AL cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of C cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of CO cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of CR cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of FE cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of MO cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of NB cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of TI cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!

# The linearisation parameters of the phases FCC_A1/FCC_A1#2 are:
# ---------------------------------------------------------------
1623.0000 ! T0 [K]
989.65762 ! dG [J/cm**3]
4.9548796 ! dSf+ [J/cm**3K]
4.9548796 ! dSf- [J/cm**3K]
9626.4580 ! dH [J/cm3]
0.89000000 ! c0(AL)/FCC_A1
3.74746399E-07 ! c0(AL)/FCC_A1#2
6.29271353E-02 ! c0(C)/FCC_A1
45.134850 ! c0(C)/FCC_A1#2
1.0199974 ! c0(CO)/FCC_A1
2.73115675E-03 ! c0(CO)/FCC_A1#2
25.399586 ! c0(CR)/FCC_A1
0.42513902 ! c0(CR)/FCC_A1#2
5.2999894 ! c0(FE)/FCC_A1
1.06920597E-02 ! c0(FE)/FCC_A1#2
5.7974050 ! c0(MO)/FCC_A1
2.6422325 ! c0(MO)/FCC_A1#2
2.0693022 ! c0(NB)/FCC_A1
47.293346 ! c0(NB)/FCC_A1#2
0.50085616 ! c0(TI)/FCC_A1
4.4274534 ! c0(TI)/FCC_A1#2
30.617574 ! m(AL)/FCC_A1
-999.99898 ! m(AL)/FCC_A1#2
2508.5603 ! m(C)/FCC_A1
-999.99898 ! m(C)/FCC_A1#2
8.8942373 ! m(CO)/FCC_A1
-999.99898 ! m(CO)/FCC_A1#2
11.003695 ! m(CR)/FCC_A1
-999.99898 ! m(CR)/FCC_A1#2
11.213047 ! m(FE)/FCC_A1
-999.99898 ! m(FE)/FCC_A1#2
-1.2104618 ! m(MO)/FCC_A1
-999.99898 ! m(MO)/FCC_A1#2
87.314388 ! m(NB)/FCC_A1
-999.99898 ! m(NB)/FCC_A1#2
43.050720 ! m(TI)/FCC_A1
-999.99898 ! m(TI)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(AL)/FCC_A1
0.0000000 ! dcdT(AL)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(C)/FCC_A1
0.0000000 ! dcdT(C)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(CO)/FCC_A1
0.0000000 ! dcdT(CO)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(CR)/FCC_A1
0.0000000 ! dcdT(CR)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(FE)/FCC_A1
0.0000000 ! dcdT(FE)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(MO)/FCC_A1
0.0000000 ! dcdT(MO)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(NB)/FCC_A1
0.0000000 ! dcdT(NB)/FCC_A1#2
0.0000000 ! dcdT(TI)/FCC_A1
0.0000000 ! dcdT(TI)/FCC_A1#2

Reduced interaction matrix dc(k,ph1)/dc(l,ph2)*c(l,ph2)/c(k,ph1):
AL C CO CR FE MO NB TI
AL 4.211E-07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C 0.00 717. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO 0.00 0.00 2.678E-03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.674E-02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.017E-03 0.00 0.00 0.00
MO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.456 0.00 0.00
NB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.9 0.00
TI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.84


Reduced interaction matrix dc(k,ph2)/dc(l,ph1)*c(l,ph1)/c(k,ph2):
AL C CO CR FE MO NB TI
AL 2.375E+06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C 0.00 1.394E-03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO 0.00 0.00 373. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 496. 0.00 0.00 0.00
MO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.19 0.00 0.00
NB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.375E-02 0.00
TI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.113
The composition of AL cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of C cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of CO cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of CR cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of FE cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of MO cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of NB cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!
The composition of TI cannot be used for FCC_A1#2 as a thermodynamic condition!

Bernd
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by Bernd » Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:02 pm

Dear WTMuser,

yes, it is true that stoichiometric conditions (at least those which are not automatically found) are characterized by steep slopes for one of the phases. More precisely, it is wise to apply a stoichiometric condition when there is a huge factor between the slopes of the two phases for the same element.
As you already applied the stoichiometric conditions to the FCC_A1#2 phase, their slopes is replaced with -999.99 in the .log file and therefore cannot be seen any more.
A condition for multi-binary demixing exists if the slopes of the two phases have different sign (more precisely, opposite sign of the product of m and the corresponding deltaS). As you already defined "interaction", the slopes are no longer used for redistribution but only for calculation of the driving force. Otherwise, the element C would demix in the interface liquid-fcc.

Bernd

WTMuser
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:33 am
anti_bot: 333

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by WTMuser » Tue May 24, 2016 4:35 pm

Hello,

coming back to this topic I am wondering about the following effect:

I am simulating a MC-carbide (FCC_A1#2) in some Ni-based matrix. Initially I assume spherical particles. When I start the simulation, at the interfaces at 0°, 90°, ... of the sphere, actually a driving force for dissolution is acting, while at 45°, ... the particle is growing. I am wondering how this can happen for the given conditions (my interface energy should be isotropic).
simulation_MC.jpg
Simulation result
simulation_MC.jpg (54.28 KiB) Viewed 5444 times
The defined phases are:
# Phase data
# ==========
# Number of distinct solid phases?
2
#
# Data for phase 1:
# -----------------
# [identical phase number]
# Simulation of recrystallisation in phase 1?
# Options: recrystall no_recrystall [verbose|no_verbose]
no_recrystall
# Is phase 1 anisotrop?
# Options: isotropic anisotropic faceted antifaceted
anisotropic
# Crystal symmetry of the phase?
# Options: none cubic hexagonal tetragonal orthorhombic
cubic
# Should grains of phase 1 be reduced to categories?
# Options: categorize no_categorize
categorize
#
# Data for phase 2:
# -----------------
# [identical phase number]
# Simulation of recrystallisation in phase 2?
# Options: recrystall no_recrystall [verbose|no_verbose]
no_recrystall
# Is phase 2 anisotrop?
# Options: isotropic anisotropic faceted antifaceted
isotropic
# Should grains of phase 2 be reduced to categories?
# Options: categorize no_categorize
categorize


This interaction is:

# Data for phase interaction 1 / 2:
# ---------------------------------
# Simulation of interaction between phase 1 and 2?
# Options: phase_interaction no_phase_interaction identical phases nb
# [standard|particle_pinning[_temperature]|solute_drag]
# | [redistribution_control] or [no_junction_force|junction_force]
1 2 phase_interaction
# 'DeltaG' options: default
# avg ... [] max ... [J/cm**3] smooth ... [degrees] noise ... [J/cm**3]
avg 0.50 max 1000 smooth 45.0
# I.e.: avg +0.50 smooth +45.0 max +5.00000E+02
# Type of surface energy definition between phases 1 and 2?
# Options: constant temp_dependent
constant
# Surface energy between phases 1 and 2? [J/cm**2]
# [max. value for num. interface stabilisation [J/cm**2]]
5e-05
# Type of mobility definition between phases 1 and 2?
# Options: constant temp_dependent dg_dependent thin_interface_correction
constant
# Kinetic coefficient mu between phases 1 and 2 [ min. value ] [cm**4/(Js)] ?
1.000000e-10
# Is interaction isotropic?
# Optionen: isotropic anisotropic [harmonic_expansion]
isotropic

Best regards,
Ralf

Bernd
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by Bernd » Tue May 24, 2016 5:58 pm

Dear WTMuser,

from the input data you provided there is no obvious reason why your simulation should not run correctly (I assume you used the same stoichiometric definitions as before). The differences in driving force between different directions on the left side can be easily explained by the fact that this is an output for t>0, so there is already a diffusion interaction between the neighboring particles. This at least would be my favorite explanation. But, of course, the observed spreading of the interfaces on the right hand side should not occur.
My guess is that the scaling of the simulation (length and time scales) is not correct. For the given growth velocity (given by the driving force multiplied with the interface mobility) the diffusion length of the elements should be bigger than or at least comparable to the interface thickness. You should check that e.g. by looking at the concentration and phase concentration profiles.
If this is not the case, the interface will not be stable. To some extent, it can be stabilized by a high interface energy (or additional interface stabilisation energy) and averaging of the driving force (max. 1.0 for averaging length in dG options).

Bernd

WTMuser
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:33 am
anti_bot: 333

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by WTMuser » Wed May 25, 2016 9:11 am

Dear Bernd,

from a first fast test, I can see that using

Code: Select all

avg 1.0 max 100 smooth 45.0
is infact stabilizing the interface. I have to check your suggested dimension / time issues. However, also with these options there is a negative driving force at 45°, ... and a positive driving force at 90°, ... being at the upper limit (100) soon after starting the simulation. As this is a spherical particle I do not understand how this can happen. It should be in either growth or dissolution direction around the whole particle?

Best regards,
Ralf

Bernd
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Incipient melting of NbC in a nickel-matrix

Post by Bernd » Wed May 25, 2016 12:07 pm

Dear WTMuser,

I could not see how big these differences in driving force are for the different directions. My argument was that there has been already a (weak) interaction between the neighbouring particles at the time when the first .driv output was written. You could check this by placing only one MC particle at the beginning.

If the differences are small, they could also be due to a discretisation effect, because the driving force is calculated at different points for different phase fractions, and then averaged afterwards. As different cells are averaged in different directions, this could lead to kind of an "interference" phenomenon, especially if you use local relinearisation (no "global" or "globalF"), i.e. slightly different linearisation parameter would be calculated in each grid point. To get more insight in such effects, you could set the averaging length to 0 (just for this test) and request an extra output at the first time step (using the keyword "first" in the time input). Then you could see the initial driving force for each interface cell and find out whether there is a systematic dependency on direction.

Bernd

Post Reply