Fe_Cu
Fe_Cu
Dear Bernd,
Thank you for your reply. I will try my best to solve the transformation of bainite, but I still have some other questions to consult with you. Thank you very much.
In addition, I am doing the precipitation of copper-rich phase in Fe_Cu binary alloy, where phase 1 is BCC and phase 2 is FCC, but the simulation is very slow. I have adjusted relevant parameters, but the phase content is shown in the figure, so I really need your help.
I have attached the relevant driver files and their phase content results.
Best wishes,
lv
Thank you for your reply. I will try my best to solve the transformation of bainite, but I still have some other questions to consult with you. Thank you very much.
In addition, I am doing the precipitation of copper-rich phase in Fe_Cu binary alloy, where phase 1 is BCC and phase 2 is FCC, but the simulation is very slow. I have adjusted relevant parameters, but the phase content is shown in the figure, so I really need your help.
I have attached the relevant driver files and their phase content results.
Best wishes,
lv
- Attachments
-
- Fe_Cu.dri
- (23.89 KiB) Downloaded 159 times
-
- FE_cU.png (53.84 KiB) Viewed 10291 times
Re: Bainite model
Dear Bernd,
And I think I should add that if I raise the temperature up to about 1700 kelvin the phase transition is basically normal.
lv
And I think I should add that if I raise the temperature up to about 1700 kelvin the phase transition is basically normal.
lv
Re: Fe_Cu
Dear lv,
If you have concerns about simulation speed, you should have a look at the .TabP output in a first place. There, you can see which solver or part of the code is responsible for the high calculation times (see here).
Or did you mean that the phase transformation is very slow?
Bernd
If you have concerns about simulation speed, you should have a look at the .TabP output in a first place. There, you can see which solver or part of the code is responsible for the high calculation times (see here).
Or did you mean that the phase transformation is very slow?
Bernd
Re: Fe_Cu
Dear lv,
Why do you expect the transformation to be faster? The transformation can be expected as diffusion limited, and solid diffusion is slow at these temperatures. You cannot compare the kinetics to γ-α-transformations in steel, because carbon is diffusing orders of magnitude faster, and other substitutional elements do not need to diffuse in steel because of their high solubility in both phases. This is different in the Fe-Cu-system.
You should further check whether the fcc phase has the correct composition in your simulation, because there is a second fcc phase with lower Cu-content present in the phase-diagram, which could also form.
Bernd
Why do you expect the transformation to be faster? The transformation can be expected as diffusion limited, and solid diffusion is slow at these temperatures. You cannot compare the kinetics to γ-α-transformations in steel, because carbon is diffusing orders of magnitude faster, and other substitutional elements do not need to diffuse in steel because of their high solubility in both phases. This is different in the Fe-Cu-system.
You should further check whether the fcc phase has the correct composition in your simulation, because there is a second fcc phase with lower Cu-content present in the phase-diagram, which could also form.
Bernd
Re: Fe_Cu
Dear Bernd
I think this is not just because of the slow reaction speed. I tested the evolution of time to 3000s, but this is not a normal reaction, but I did not find the cause of the error.
lv
I think this is not just because of the slow reaction speed. I tested the evolution of time to 3000s, but this is not a normal reaction, but I did not find the cause of the error.
lv
- Attachments
-
- vate.png (34.08 KiB) Viewed 10254 times
-
- phase.png (54.13 KiB) Viewed 10254 times