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
.shaojie lv
pearlite
Re: pearlite
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 .
shaojie lv
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
.shaojie lv
Re: pearlite
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
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
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
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
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
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
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: pearlite
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
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