1995
DOI: 10.1016/0022-0248(94)00830-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of theory with experiment in one-dimensional analytical modeling of directional solidification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This has been reported in other systems where simplified heatconduction theories fail at high velocities. [17] A longitudinal section from the beginning of growth of the 0.05 cm/s sample is shown in Figure 6. The sudden change in microstructure shown in Figure 6 is due to changing the growth velocity from 0 to 0.05 cm/s and not due to electrical current pulsing.…”
Section: A Mushy-zone Position and Velocity Transient Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has been reported in other systems where simplified heatconduction theories fail at high velocities. [17] A longitudinal section from the beginning of growth of the 0.05 cm/s sample is shown in Figure 6. The sudden change in microstructure shown in Figure 6 is due to changing the growth velocity from 0 to 0.05 cm/s and not due to electrical current pulsing.…”
Section: A Mushy-zone Position and Velocity Transient Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Properties for the remaining materials were based on data for the respective materials predefined in ProCAST, available in the literature, or derived from empirical assumptions and experimental evidence. [5,11,13,14,17,43,44,49,52,[58][59][60] While the parameters for heat transfer within or through each individual material and for radiation heat transfer, which are primarily dependent on material properties, were readily available, the heat-transfer coefficients for the interfaces between materials illustrated in Figure 3, which are primarily conduction or convection, are often not well characterized in the literature. As discussed in the following sections, each process model was particularly sensitive to different, but specific, heat-transfer steps in each process requiring numerous parametric revisions before agreement between experimental results and the model was achieved.…”
Section: Casting Process Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More accurate and fully three-dimensional analyses will be very important in accounting for casting geometry and nonaxial heat extraction, which have been shown experimentally to have a significant impact on dendrite arm spacing and crystallographic growth orientation. [20,[49][50][51] As mentioned, solidification modeling of directional solidification with liquid-metal cooling has received only limited attention. [5,11,14] Prior modeling of the LMC process has been restricted to one-dimensional axisymmetric rod simulations [11] or has simplified the heat flux conditions at the mold:coolant interface.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Too high withdrawal rate would cause extremely concave solid-liquid (S/L) interface, which leads to declining grains, transverse grains or other defects, whereas too low withdrawal rate would bring coarsened grain, crack in the shell, or other defects and thus low productivity. Both numerical methods [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and experimental methods [15][16][17][18] are used to learn more about the Bridgman process in the past few decades. Many kinds of numerical methods and models are proposed to simulate the process of Bridgman directional solidification process and microstructure of columnar grains in blade castings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%