Data for further nucleation

dendritic solidification, eutectics, peritectics,....
Bernd
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by Bernd » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:23 pm

Hi Chamara,

The classical method (which you should know from the Basic MICRESS Training ;) ) is to use different seed types for bulk, interfaces and triple junctions, and then assign different critical undercooling (using the "seed_undercooling" model).

The only alternative I can imagine would be to spatially resolve the critical nucleus (e.g. seed particle). Then, while nucleating at the interface of the seed particle, a grain boundary would help the seed to overcome the critical curvature. However, I don't know how this could work in solid state, where nucleation probably occurs on defects or dislocations...

Bernd

CharMIC
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:01 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by CharMIC » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:40 pm

Hi Bernd,

Actually I thought about the classical method you have mentioned. But was not sure if its the right path to take. I thought may be there might be other special models in MICRESS for this.

BR
chamara

CharMIC
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:01 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by CharMIC » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:01 am

Hi Bernd,

Consider the following case.

I want to set nucleation r distance to each other. The nucleation will be checked at dt intervals. Initial nucleation will be checked at t0. When the nucleation is checked at t0, the average distance of the seeds will be around r. However when the nucleation checked at t0+dt, the new seeds will nucleate at an average distance of r to each other. However they will also nucleate close (< r) to the seeds that were precipitated at t0.

If I want the seeds that nucleate at t0+dt to nucleate at an average distance r to the previously nucleated seeds at t0, how should I do it.

BR
Chamara

Bernd
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by Bernd » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:30 am

Hi Chamara,

For this purpose you would use a shield distance equal to r, and a shield time > dt. The optional parameter "nucleation distance", if set to a value < r would increase the number of checked points, but never override the shield distance, even at t0.

Bernd

CharMIC
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:01 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by CharMIC » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:41 am

Hi Bernd,

Thanks for your input. I did as you told. I put shield time 5000s and nucleation checking for 20s. And I set shield distance for 50nm and nucleation distance for 10nm. However, when the nucleation happens, distance between particles become around 10nm. see the image. It seems like it override the shield distance?
Attachments
nucleation distance.PNG
nucleation distance.PNG (60.76 KiB) Viewed 472 times

Bernd
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by Bernd » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:23 pm

Hi Chamara,

Yes, you are right! I looked it up in the code, and nucleation in the same time step only recognizes the nucleation distance and not the shield distance. This is reasonable in the sense that the shield is some physical (thermal or solutal) effect which would not exist if nuclei really would form simultaneously.
Thus, as in reality exactly simultaneous nucleation is rare anyway, one should in most cases use the nucleation distance equal (=default) or bigger than the shield distance. A reasonable strategy is to increase the nucleation distance but at the same time decrease the checking interval dt such that a sufficiently high "checking density" is reached without increasing the calculation time too much.

Bernd

CharMIC
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:01 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by CharMIC » Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:51 am

Hi,

Can you change the minimum nucleation temperature when you use the restart option for an interrupted simulation. Restart option has been used without any other options.

BR
Chamara

Bernd
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by Bernd » Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:50 pm

Hi,

Yes, there should be no problem!

Bernd

CharMIC
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:01 pm
anti_bot: 333

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by CharMIC » Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:31 am

Hi Bernd,

when you switch the remaining liquid in a simulation to a solid phase (using nucleation at interface of the solid phase) is there a way to set the orientation of the newly created solid phase to take the same orientation as the parent solid phase orientation? I do not want to create and interface between the newly precipitated solid grain and the parent solid grain.

Bernd
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Data for further nucleation

Post by Bernd » Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:32 pm

Hi Chamara,

The principle of switching rest liquids to solid is to nucleate grain 0 again (which normally is the liquid) using the option "add_to_grain". By this procedure, you have the possibility of redefining all properties of grain 0, not only the phase identity. Of course, you always can do that by "hand", i.e. specify directly the fix orientation value which you prefer. You can do that also automatically by using "parent_relation". Then you should nucleate on the interface between the rest liquid and your dendrite. The dendrite grain then should be the parent, therefore you chose liquid as reference phase. Of course, in this case, you cannot automatically identify the liquid grain as parent any more, and you thus need to directly specify it as grain 0:

#Phase of new grains (integer) ...
1 add_to_grain
#Which grain number the new grains shall be added to?
# ...
grain_number 0
#...

However, you always will keep the grain number 0 existing, you just redefine the properties. Thus. the interface of grain 0 with the dendrite grain will remain - it is just converted to a solid-solid interface between the same phase with misorientation 0!

Bernd

Post Reply