Scheil or Lever Rule?

modelling of kinetics during solidification

Markus Rettenmayr
Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena
Institute of Materials Science and Technology
Metallic Materials

Prof. A. Roosz, Prof. H.E. Exner, Dr. T. Kraft, Dr. B. Dutta

Aachen, June 5, 2008
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 research fields

structure formation implant alloys

(non-equilibrium) thermodynamics
G L

Gm
L
Gt

X1 Xe X2 XL XLe XB
Xm Xt
alloy development
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 outline

Reminder: Scheil and lever rule

Microsegregation model SolKin

- coarsening
- growth undercoolings

Limits of Scheil and lever rule, binary and multicomponent alloys

- solidification path
- concentration distribution

Example: Al-Fe-Si

FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe

 Lever rule and Scheil conditions

cs cs Scheil
10
10
8
8
6
6

4
lever rule 4

2 lever rule
cs,min
2
Scheil
0
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 fs
fs
Scheil:
starts at cs,min = keq c0 Scheil: c*(t) and c(x)
ends at cs,max = ( divergent) lever rule: c*(t)
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 microsegregation model SolKin

Mg Ds(T), Dl (T) diffusion

12.5 , Sf coarsening
T
10.0 , Sf growth undercoolings
7.5 i TE
5.0
... ...
2.5

0.0
0 5 10 15
Al t
phase diagram cooling curve
(tie lines)

Mg c
12.5
T
lever rule
10.0

7.5
Scheil
5.0

2.5 2
0.0
0 5 10 15
Al
concentration profile solid fraction
solidification path
phase fractions solidification temperature
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 coarsening

radial melting axial melting melting at root coalescence

FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe

 growth undercoolings

cB

XB

c0

cs,min

FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe

 cooling rate and microstructure

FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe

 real profiles between idealized ones?

cs Scheil
10

8
with back diffusion
6

4 lever rule
2

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
fs
binary alloys:
realistic interface concentrations between Scheil and lever rule
realistic concentration profiles not necessarily between Scheil and lever rule
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 coupling with phase diagram

binary alloys: interpolate phase boundary lines

ternary or higher alloys: more degrees of freedom
analytical solutions (multibinary) fail
Scheil equation Scheil conditions empirical phase diagram:
tie-lines not defined
calculate tie-lines with ChemApp
cB
cA

cB

position cA
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 real solidification paths between idealized ones?

Scheil hypothetic phase diagram:

cB
10 equal (constant) partitioning of elements B and C
equal diffusion coefficients of B and C
8
deflection of solidification path from
6
linearity if symmetry is broken
4
including diffusion
2 lever rule
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 c
C

ternary or multicomponent alloys:

solidification paths my lie on top of each other
difference of kinetic coefficients sets limits of solidification path
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 solidification path

solidification paths:
estimated (steepest slope)
calculated Ds,Mg = 0, Ds,Si =
calculated Ds,Si = 0, Ds,Mg =
12.5

10.0
cMg [at.-%]

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0
0 5 10 15
Al cSi [at.-%]

FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe

 real concentration profiles between idealized ones?

Al-Mg-Si: realistic concentration distribution:

partitioning Si similar as in Al-Si
1.8 partitioning of Mg dependent on Si
solidification path dependent on kinetics
concentration [at.%]

1.5 Mg solidifies segregation free

1.2

concentration [at.%]
0.9 0.3

0.6 0.2

0.3 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
position [m] position [m]

realistic interface concentrations not neccessarily between Scheil and lever rule
realistic concentration profiles not necessarily between Scheil and lever rule
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 example: DC casting

form of liquid pool

sheet ingot extrusion ingot

liquid liquid

water cooled solid solid

ring mold
liquid
air gap
mush
water jet
solid

Materials
stable metastable
Al-0.8Fe-0.8Si secondary phases
+ Cu, Mn, Cr, Zn & Ti
Al-1.3Fe-0.1Si
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 cooling rate and microstructure

furnace air forced air

oil water

FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe

 evaluation: image analysis

1 Le(Al)
2
LeAl

1.8
1.8

[%] [%]
1.5
1.5

weightedHfrequency
1.2
1.2

0.9
0.9

0.6
0.6

0.3
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1 11 10
10 100
100 1000
1000
L [m]
chord length [!m]
FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe
 experiment and simulation

37

36
feut [Gew%]

35
2.25 1.95

34 2.23 1.93
0.01 0.1 1 10 Fe

cSi [Gew%]
cFe [Gew%]
.
T [K/s] 2.21 1.91

2.19 1.89

2.17 Si 1.87

2.15 1.85
0.01 0.1 1 10
.
T [K/s]

FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe

 conclusions

reliable phase diagrams are a prerequisite for solidification simulation

kinetic calculations are not meaningful if phase diagram is not accurate

technically important features can be modelled

qualitative predictions most important (solidifying phases, solidification path)
quantitative predictions for design of further processing steps

accurate predictions of phase fractions are possible

measurements are as tedious as modelling
both lever rule and analytical Scheil equations are not sufficient
apply Scheil conditions (Ds = 0, Dl = ) and CALPHAD

Scheil conditions and lever rule do not necessarily represent limiting cases
in ternary or multicomponent alloys

FSU Jena Metallische Werkstoffe