Page 2 of 2

Re: pearlite

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:25 pm
by shaojielv
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

Re: pearlite

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:41 am
by ralph
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

Re: pearlite

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:13 pm
by shaojielv
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

Re: pearlite

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:37 pm
by shaojielv
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

Re: pearlite

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:09 pm
by Bernd
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