Texture Controlled Grain Growth in Thin Films Studied by 3D Potts Model

Zöllner, Dana

doi:10.1002/adts.201900064

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The grain size, R, of each grain is defined as √ S/π, with S as its surface (i.e., defined as the radius of the equivalent circular grain of the same surface). Anisotropic re-meshing is used following Equation (27), with a refinement close to the interface, the mesh size in the tangential direction (as well as far from the interface) is fixed at h t = 5 µm and at h n = 1 µm in the normal direction. The time step is fixed at ∆t = 10 s. This section is mainly devoted to studying the heterogeneity of both GB energy and mobility using the four introduced grain growth formulations.…”

Section: Effect Of the Texture And Heterogeneous Gb Properties During Gg Simulations For A Polycrystalline Microstructurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, the models have evolved in order to reproduce more complex microstructures or local heterogeneities, such as twin boundaries. Heterogeneous models were proposed, in which each boundary has its own energy and mobility [10,18,19,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. For instance, every grain could be related with an orientation, thus the mobility and energy can be computed in terms of the disorientation [7,19], but the mis-orientation axis and inclination dependence are frequently not taken into account.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Study and Limits of Different Level-Set Formulations for the Modeling of Anisotropic Grain Growth

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, four different finite element level-set (FE-LS) formulations are compared for the modeling of grain growth in the context of polycrystalline structures and, moreover, two of them are presented for the first time using anisotropic grain boundary (GB) energy and mobility. Mean values and distributions are compared using the four formulations. First, we present the strong and weak formulations for the different models and the crystallographic parameters used at the mesoscopic scale. Second, some Grim Reaper analytical cases are presented and compared with the simulation results, and the evolutions of individual multiple junctions are followed. Additionally, large-scale simulations are presented. Anisotropic GB energy and mobility are respectively defined as functions of the mis-orientation/inclination and disorientation. The evolution of the disorientation distribution function (DDF) is computed, and its evolution is in accordance with prior works. We found that the formulation called “Anisotropic” is the more physical one, but it could be replaced at the mesoscopic scale by an isotropic formulation for simple microstructures presenting an initial Mackenzie-type DDF.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of the Texture And Heterogeneous Gb Properties During Gg Simulations For A Polycrystalline Microstructurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study and Limits of Different Level-Set Formulations for the Modeling of Anisotropic Grain Growth

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The simplest models use constant values for the GB energy γ and a temperature dependent mobility, µ(T), referred to as isotropic models [26,11,27,19,8]. Heterogeneous models were also proposed, in which each boundary has its own energy and mobility [28,29,12,30,31,32,33,34,20,21,35] trying to reproduce more complex microstructures with local heterogeneity, such as twin boundaries. Each grain has its own crystal orientation, and GB energy and mobility depend on the disorientation angle between two grains [9,21], but the effect of the misorientation axis and GB inclination is frequently omitted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Level-Set modeling of grain growth in 316L stainless steel under different assumptions regarding grain boundary properties

Murgas,

Flipon,

Bozzolo

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two finite element level-set (FE-LS) formulations are compared for the modeling of grain growth of 316L stainless steel in terms of grain size, mean values and histograms. Two kinds of microstructures are considered, some are generated statistically from EBSD maps and the others are generated by immersion of EBSD data in the FE formulation. Grain boundary (GB) mobility is heterogeneously defined as a function of the GB disorientation. On the other hand, GB energy is considered as heterogeneous or anisotropic, respectively defined as a function of the disorientation and both the GB misorientation and the GB inclination. In terms of mean grain size value and grain size distribution (GSD), both formulations provide similar responses. However, the anisotropic formulation better respects the experimental disorientation distribution function (DDF) and predicts more realistic grain morphologies. It was also found that the heterogeneous GB mobility described with a sigmoidal function only affects the DDF and the morphology of grains. Thus, a slower evolution of twin boundaries (TBs) is perceived.

show abstract

“…Hence, the models have evolved in order to reproduce more complex microstructures or local heterogeneities, such as twin boundaries. Heterogeneous models were proposed, in which each boundary has its own energy and mobility [23,24,10,25,26,27,28,29,17,18,30]. For instance, every grain could be related with an orientation, thus the mobility and energy can be computed in terms of the disorientation [7,18] but the misorientation axis and inclination dependence are frequently not taken into account.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study and limits of different level-set formulations for the modeling of anisotropic grain growth

Murgas,

Florez,

Bozzolo

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four different finite element level-set (FE-LS) formulations are compared for the modeling of grain growth in the context of polycrystalline structures and, moreover, two of them are presented for the first time using anisotropic grain boundary (GB) energy and mobility. Mean values and distributions are compared using the four formulations. First, we present the strong and weak formulations for the different models and the crystallographic parameters used at the mesoscopic scale. Second, some Grim Reaper analytical cases are presented and compared with the simulation results, here the evolutions of individual multiple junctions are followed. Additionally, large scale simulations are presented. Anisotropic GB energy and mobility are respectively defined as functions of the misorientation/inclination and disorientation. The evolution of the disorientation distribution function (DDF) is computed and its evolution is in accordance with prior works. We found that the formulation called "Anisotropic" is the more physical one but it could be replaced at the mesoscopic scale by an Isotropic formulation for simple microstructures presenting an initial Mackenzie-type DDF.

show abstract

Texture Controlled Grain Growth in Thin Films Studied by 3D Potts Model

Cited by 19 publications

References 56 publications

Comparative Study and Limits of Different Level-Set Formulations for the Modeling of Anisotropic Grain Growth

Comparative Study and Limits of Different Level-Set Formulations for the Modeling of Anisotropic Grain Growth

Level-Set modeling of grain growth in 316L stainless steel under different assumptions regarding grain boundary properties

Comparative study and limits of different level-set formulations for the modeling of anisotropic grain growth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About