Hi Hirosaito,
if the error messages which you showed appear in this order, then there obviously is already a problem occuring for phase interaction 0/1 before phase 2 is nucleated:
try hard phases 0 1 trials: 2 zp= 1124
try hard phases 0 1 trials: 4 zp= 2831
CALFUN:Error4 1 0 1611
CALFUN:Error5 1611
Error 1611 in TQ routine!
time: 5.000000000000004E-002
Error in SolveCCalFunTQ 18
This could be due to a too high interface mobility or to an incorrect setting of the stoichiometric components (see below).
When nucleation of phase 2 is checked, there is a problem during initialisation of this phase interaction:
initialisation failed, error = 1 interface LIQUID F
CC_A1 Calculations: 300
This could be due to an already "ill" composition in the grid cell where nucleation is checked. You should see this in the outputs for the composition of phase 0 *.c*Pha0 or in the normal composition output .conc*. Another reason could be again the stoichiometric conditions.
I know that defining stoichiometric components in certain stainless steels can be quite difficult. But remember that it is not allowed to define the same components as stoichiometric in phase 1
and phase 2, like you did for component 2 and 3, if the interaction between phase 1 and phase 2 is activated - this will automatically lead to problems during initialisation of this phase interaction!
In such a system, where all elements have a broad solubillty range in all phases (LIQUID, FCC, BCC), the use of the stoichiometric condition for solute redistribution may be necessary to cope with the artefact of "demixing" in the individual binary intersections of the phase diagram. The condition for this "demixing" can be seen in the linearisation parameter in the .log output, which are written upon initialisation of the corresponding phase interactions
(How to determine the stoichiometric components).
But not in all cases where this condition is found, problems are occuring, and it is wise to try to use as little stoichiometric conditions as possible. On which basis did you select this set of stoichiometric components?
Another advice is to separate the problems: First try to get the primary phase (BCC) growing correctly with as few as possible stoichiometric conditions. Then, when FCC nucleation is included, deactivate the FCC/BCC interaction in a first step to get FCC/LIQUID running, again with as few as possible stoichiometric components (and without overlap with phase 1!). Then switch on the phase interaction FCC/BCC, but with mobility 0, and so on.
This way it should be possible at least to identify the source of the problem!
For a deeper insight it would be interesting to see the linearisation outputs from the initialisation of the interfaces which are written to the .log file.
If you feel that you do not get any further, please don't worry and send me the .GES5 file together with the other input files (.dri, mobility input files) in a PM, and I will try to run it myself! These multicomponent and high-alloyed stainless steels can be quite difficult...
Bernd