pearlite

solid-solid phase transformations, influence of stresses and strains
shaojielv
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:16 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: pearlite

Post by shaojielv » Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:25 pm

Dear Bernd,

Yes, I see what you mean, I will follow your method to increase the resolution. Thank you very much for your patient answer. I wish you a happy life and a smooth work :D :D .

shaojie lv

ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:42 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: pearlite

Post by ralph » Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:41 am

Hi all,

in fact, it is possible to open results with a wrong geometry file. If so, your simulation times for the time steps should be wired.
Did you mix up results from Linux and Windows (base.geoF, base_geoF.mcr)?

Best,
Ralph

shaojielv
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:16 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: pearlite

Post by shaojielv » Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:13 pm

Dear Bernd and Ralph,

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to you. Under your guidance, I have understood and successfully simulated the formation of pearlite in Fe-C binary alloys. , I would like to ask you what is the difference between ternary alloy and binary alloy simulation? Or what should I pay attention to in this process?

best wishes,
shaojielv

shaojielv
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:16 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: pearlite

Post by shaojielv » Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:37 pm

Dear Bernd,

Based on the formation of pearlite in Fe - C binary alloy, I started a Fe - C - Mn ternary alloy simulation, but there was a problem, namely the ferrite quickly surrounded the cementite, I think that is a ferritic/cementite can interface is too low, as a result of a phenomenon, so I can interface with the size of the migration rate through the debug interface found that have not changed much, Through the driver file (sent to you through a private email, please understand), could you please help me to see what causes this phenomenon? Thank you very much.

shaojie lv
Attachments
FeCMn.png
FeCMn.png (22.98 KiB) Viewed 1774 times

Bernd
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: pearlite

Post by Bernd » Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:09 pm

Dear shaojielv,

Perhaps, the initial composition and temperature is not chosen such as to lie inside the region of coupled growth. As I explained above with respect to the initial driving force dG (which you find in the .log file), for both interfaces, 1/2 and 1/3, the values should be slightly negative and similar in order to signalize the correct growth of both phases.

Apart from that, you again specified a huge value of the interface energy of the 2/3-interface which is incorrect and also can be the reason for the problem. Further, I would advise you to apply diffusion limited growth for all 3 interfaces (by using "normal mob_corr" for C and "nple" for "Mn" and choosing a sufficiently high interface mobility (e.g. 1.0). The correct interface mobility for diffusion limited growth will then be calculated automatically. You can see the values with the graphical .mueS output.

Bernd

Post Reply