2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2013.03.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolution of elongated pores at the melt–solid interface during controlled directional solidification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the contrary, the average diameters of the pores are not significantly changed by these two parameters, which are in the range of 93.4–134.7 μm. The result agrees well with the reported theoretical model, which suggested that the solidification rate plays a dominate role in the diameter of pores (all specimens in this study are prepared at the same solidification rate).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…On the contrary, the average diameters of the pores are not significantly changed by these two parameters, which are in the range of 93.4–134.7 μm. The result agrees well with the reported theoretical model, which suggested that the solidification rate plays a dominate role in the diameter of pores (all specimens in this study are prepared at the same solidification rate).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The first term on the right-hand side of equation ( 22) together with equation ( 23) implies the positive curvature of the solidification front. Based on observations [20], a nucleated bubble occurs at the concave region with the positive curvature between the bubble and the solid or the liquid on the solidification front. The curvature outside the concave region between the liquid and the solid on the solidification front is negative, which is contradictory to the scaling of the first term on the right-hand side of equation (22).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Slight modification of the solute concentration in the solid by the segregation between the liquid and the solid, Liu et al [13] calculated the porosity with the appropriate fitting parameters leading to the minimum supercooling criterion, and the agreement with the experimental results. The analytical solute concentration fields due to the irrelevant boundary conditions were, however, questioned by Drenchev et al [19], whereas the minimum supercooling criterion due to the incorrect sign of the curvature in Gibbs-Thomson boundary condition was also questioned by Lee et al [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the analytical solute concentration in liquids and the minimum undercooling criterion provided by the Jackson–Hunt model during eutectic solidification, Liu et al [ 10 ] predicted and experimentally confirmed decreases in porosity, pore radius, and inter-pore spacing as solidification speed, total gas pressure, and partial pressure of hydrogen and argon increased during the gasarite solidification of copper. The Jackson–Hunt theory and analytical solutions of solute concentration were, however, criticized by Lee et al [ 11 ], Drenchev et al [ 12 ], and Wei et al [ 13 ]. Lu et al [ 14 ] also provided a simple thermodynamic model to describe the relationship between processing variables and the pore structure for the ordered porosity copper fabricated via directional solidification.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%