Measurement of interfacial energy from extraction replicas of particles on grain boundaries

Simulation of coarsening of inter-lath cementite in a Q&T steel during tempering

“…The Mn concentration profile in cementite and the ferrite matrix in the model is shown schematically in Figure 8. The interfacial energy for inter-lath cementite is estimated to be 0.5 J/m2 based on the measured interfacial energy for lenticular-shaped cementite at equilibrium with grain boundaries using the dihedral angle method [18]. The cementite molar volume is calculated as 0.6×10-5 m3/mol from Thermo-Calc, which is consistent with the reported values in Fe-0.6C steels [15,17].…”

Mixed diffusion-controlled growth of pearlite in binary steel

“…Independent, published measurements of s are presented in table 1. Some are estimated on the basis of studies of the coarsening of cementite in ferrite (Deb & Chaturvedi 1982;Das et al 1993), from dihedral angle measurements Deb & Chaturvedi (1982) 903-963 coarsening rate and data fitting 0.248-0.417 Kramer et al (1958) 1000 interfacial enthalpy measurement 0.7 ± 0.3 Martin & Sellars (1970) 973 dihedral angle 0.52 ± 0.13 Ruda et al (2009) atomistic simulation 0.615 Kirchner et al (1978) interfacial enthalpy measurement 0.5 ± 0.36 (Martin & Sellars 1970), calorimetry (Kirchner et al 1978;Kramer et al 1958) and simulation (Ruda et al 2009). Figure 7 compares the values of interfacial energy derived from pearlite growth-rate measurements with the independently measured values.…”

Pearlite in Multicomponent Steels: Phenomenological Steady-State Modeling

“…(2) Ferrite-cementite interfacial Gibbs energy r and interfacial entropy r S ¼ Àdr=dT are too high The magnitude of r>1 J m À2 is comparable to some surface energy [42] and is apparently too high for the ferrite-cementite interface, compared to the experimental measurements. [38,39] The interfacial entropy r S ¼ Àdr=dT is up to 0.008 J m À2 K À1 , also too high to accept for a solid-solid interface. Sundquist [15] adopted a value of r ¼ 0:7J m À2 but the calculated lamellar spacing which maximizes growth rate was smaller than experimental measured values by nearly one order of magnitude.…”

“…[16] and Sundquist. [15] Also shown are experimental measurements [38,39] of r: Experimental data used for back-calculation: (c) maximal growth rate and (d) minimal lamellar spacing taken from Refs. [28] , [36] , and [37] As expected, kD Bk d À Á C follows the Arrhenius equation.…”