Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Numerical simulation of the solidification microstructure of a 17-4PH stainless steel

investment casting and its experimental verification

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2008 Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 045009

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0965-0393/16/4/045009)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 147.188.128.74
The article was downloaded on 07/08/2013 at 10:04

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING MODELLING AND SIMULATION IN MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 (15pp) doi:10.1088/0965-0393/16/4/045009

Numerical simulation of the solidification

microstructure of a 17-4PH stainless steel investment
casting and its experimental verification
You Yun Li, De Chang Tsai and Weng Sing Hwang1
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan,
Taiwan

E-mail: wshwang@mail.ncku.edu.tw

Received 3 January 2008, in final form 28 March 2008

Published 22 April 2008
Online at stacks.iop.org/MSMSE/16/045009

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to develop a technique of numerically simulating
the microstructure of 17-4PH (precipitation hardening) stainless steel during
investment casting. A cellular automation (CA) algorithm was adopted to
simulate the nucleation and grain growth. First a calibration casting was made,
and then by comparing the microstructures of the calibration casting with those
simulated using different kinetic growth coefficients (a2 , a3 ) in CA, the most
appropriate set of values for a2 and a3 would be obtained. Then, this set of values
was applied to the microstructure simulation of a separate casting, where the
casting was actually made. Through this approach, this study has arrived at a
set of growth kinetic coefficients from the calibration casting: a2 is 2.9 × 10−5 ,
a3 is 1.49 × 10−7 , which is then used to predict the microstructure of the other
test casting. Consequently, a good correlation has been found between the
microstructure of actual 17-4PH casting and the simulation result.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction

17-4PH stainless steel has been extensively used in components such as valves, motor axes,
petrochemical components, golf heads and aeronautic parts. They are usually manufactured
through an investment casting process.
In recent years, the rapid development of computer technology has resulted in an increase
in the application of computer aided design, computer aided engineering and computer aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAE/CAM) systems to shorten the lead time of casting. This is done

1 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

0965-0393/08/045009+15$30.00 © 2008 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 1

Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

in order to improve the quality of castings and has become a trend for many foundries to
adapt such technology. As for most metal castings, solidification microstructures are deeply
influenced by the design and operating conditions of the casting process [1]. If the solidification
microstructure can be accurately predicted by a numerical simulation system, proper design
and operating conditions of the casting can then be achieved to improve the microstructure,
which is essential for mechanical properties and the quality of the product.
As for modeling methods of cast microstructure, there are two major types: deterministic
and probabilistic methods. The deterministic model includes analytical, standard transport and
phase field technologies. In this model the distribution of grain texture is decided in the initial
stages and then by utilizing the continuity theory, nucleation, grain growth and grain selection
during the solidification process can be resolved. The characteristic feature of the deterministic
model is being able to resolve the average radius of grains and local mean solidification time,
but it is unable to describe the morphology of individual grains. In thin castings, equiaxed and
columnar grains will compete with each other during grain growth. While the grain orientation
has an important role in a cast, the deterministic model neglects the effect of heat flow direction
on grain orientation, and therefore disables accurate evaluation of grain morphology in thin cast
products. Moreover, since the grain category is decided in advance, the deterministic model is
also unable to deal with the transformation of grain morphology (CET or ECT). Consequently
the deterministic model has some drawbacks and restrictions in its applications. These limits
can be overcome by the Monte Carlo method developed by Brown and Spittle [3]. Known as
the probabilistic model, the Monte Carlo method adopted the rule of lowest surface energy of
grains and combined it with random sample selection to address nucleation, grain growth and
solid–liquid phase transformation in metals. The resulting simulation is reasonably similar
with a real cast product; however, it appeared to lack physical meaning for many processes
and material parameters.
More recently, the emphasis has been on integrating the advantages of both models to form
a unified model. Rappaz and Gandin [4,5] developed a cellular automation (CA) method based
on heterogeneous nucleation and adopted a continuous nucleation model. The continuous
model is composed of the relationship of the Gaussian distribution curve between nucleation
densities and undercooling. A nucleation location and direction is then randomly assigned. In
the CA model, the growth rate of the dendrite tip adopted the deterministic model based on
physical theories, and the nucleation distributions, nucleation directions and dendrite growth
orientations utilized the probabilistic model. Therefore, the CA method possessed not only the
advantages of the Monte Carlo method but also had the physical meanings on crystallographic
effects and grain selection.
Following previous literature reviews, the heterogeneous nucleation of the CA model
adopted the Gaussian distribution theory developed by Thevoz and Rappaz, which explains the
relationship between nucleation density and undercooling. Two different Gaussian distribution
curves were considered for describing the heterogeneous nucleation on the surface of the casting
and in the bulk liquid. The nucleation density of grain n(
T ), solid fraction fs (
T
), formed
at a certain undercooling temperature, is given by


T
dn  
n(
T ) =
)
1 − fs (
T
) d(
T
), (1)
0 d(
T


where dn/d(
T ) is found according to the Gaussian distribution:
   
dn nmax 1
T
−
TN 2
=√ exp − . (2)
d(
T
) 2π (
Tσ ) 2
Tσ
The Gaussian distribution is determined by three parameters: nmax , maximum density of
nuclei given by the integral of Gaussian distribution from 0 ∼ ∞;
TN , mean nucleation

2
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Table 1. Chemical compositions of 17-4 PH stainless steel.

Element C Si S Cr Fe Ni Cu Mn
wt% 0.02 0.37 0.37 15.05 71.57 6.71 3.29 0.79
Density (g cm−3 ) 7.75

Figure 1. Geometry and dimensions of the calibration casting.

undercooling, equivalent to the maximum on a distribution curve and
Tσ , standard deviation
of undercooling, equivalent to the width of the distribution curve.
Certain CA cells would start nucleation when sufficient undercooling is provided. During
any time step, δt, the temperature of the specimen decreases by an amount, δT , and thus the
undercooling increases by an amount, δ
T . The density of new grains which are nucleated
within the volume of melt is given by


T +δ(
T )
dn
δn = n [
T + δ (
T )] − n(
T ) = d(
T
). (3)

T d(
T
)
Meanwhile, new grain would lead to the increase in grain density, randomly distributed
inside the CA cell. δn is then multiplied by the total volume of specimen to give the number of
grains, δN , which is divided by the number of cells, NCA to give the probability of nucleation,
, where VCA is the volume of cell. During each time step, cells defining the volume of the
specimen are scanned and a random number  is given to each one of them (0

1). CA
cells transform from liquid to solid when 
.
δN
= = δnVCA , (4)
NCA
where  is the probability of nucleation, δN is the number of newly formed nuclei, NCA is the
total number of cells, VCA is the volume of an individual cell and δn is the increase in grain
density.
The algorithm for 3D grain growth with different preferred orientations proposed by
Rappaz [5] is adopted in this study. The 3D CA growth algorithm must be able to reproduce
the preferential 1 0 0 growth direction of fcc or bcc dendrites. It is based on the growth of
an octahedron bounded by the (1 1 1) faces and is applied to each cell having a nonzero state

3
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 2. Geometry and dimensions of the test casting.

Table 2. Related parameters of designed casting samples.

Preheat Volume Pouring Pouring Pouring

Designs Mold temperature (◦ C) (cm3 ) temperature (◦ C ) time (s) velocity (cm s−1 )
Calibration sample Zr sand 1050 56.78 1650 4.5 2.31
Test sample Zr sand 1050 58.21 1650 4.5 2.41

index and at least one neighboring liquid cell. As soon as a cell is fully surrounded by mush
cells, the growth of its associated octahedron is no longer considered. The main diagonals
of the octahedron correspond to the 1 0 0 crystallographic orientations along which dendrite
stems and arms of fcc metals preferentially develop. Thus, within the time step, δt, used for
integrating the growth kinetics of the dendrite tips, the size increment of the diagonals of the
octahedron associated with a cell v,
Rv , is given by

Rv = υ × δt, (5)
where υ is the growth rate of a dendrite tip at certain undercooling and can be calculated by
the Kurz–Giovanola–Trivedi (KGT) model [6]. A more detailed description of the algorithm
is given in [5]. Rappaz and Gandin used two regression numbers a2 and a3 to simplify the
growth velocity based on the KGT model [7]:
υ = a2
T 2 + a3
T 3 , (6)
where a2 and a3 are growth kinetic parameters dependent upon the composition of the alloy.
According to the literature from Rappaz and Gandin [7], the value of a2 is between 10−4 and
10−6 and in order to simplify the KGT model, the value of a3 is set to be zero. For example,
a2 is 1.16 × 10−4 for Al–Si alloys [8], 3 × 10−4 for Mg alloys [9]. In addition, a2 is zero and
a3 is 1.95 × 10−5 for steel–silicon (3 wt% Si) [10], 1.16 × 10−4 and 5.39 × 10−4 for Al–Cu
alloys [11] and 1.39 × 10−7 and 2.45 × 10−8 for MAR-M-247LC super alloy [12]. Based on
the KGT model and related references, we found the ranges of a2 and a3 of 17-4PH stainless
steel (a2 is between 10–4 and 10–6 and a3 is between 10–5 and 10–7). This study uses the
calibration casting to find the appropriate values of a2 and a3 within this range and then verify
the accuracy of a2 and a3 by the subsequent test casting.

4
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Table 3. Related parameters for numerical simulation of 17-4 PH investment casting.

17-4 PH stainless steel Zr sand Number of Elements

Thermal conductivity 21.8 0.88 Calibration sample 11 968
(W m−1 K−1 )
Specific heat 460 770 Test sample 12 709
(J kg−1 K−1 )

Latent heat 229.9 Interface heat transfer Calculating Initial (s) 0.001
(J kg−1 ) coefficients (W m−2 K−1 ) time
Liquidus temperature 1426 Casting/mold 5 step Max. for 0.1
(◦ C) filling (s)
Solidus temperature 1391 Mold/air 10
(◦ C)
Thermal emissivity Stefan–Boltzmann constant (W m−2 K−4 ) Max. (s) 1
0.3 5.67 × 10−8

Figure 3. Sliced planes for the calibration casting.

With respect to calculating the temperature distribution during solidification, our study
adopted Fourier’s fundamental laws of heat transfer and extended it to a three-dimensional
model. The resulting governing equation used are as follows:
  
∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂fs
ρCp = λ + λ + λ + ρ
H , (7)
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂t
where ρ is the density, λ is the thermal conductivity, Cp is the heat capacity under constant
pressure,
H is the latent heat and fs is the solid fraction of the material used.
To simplify boundary conditions during cooling, the Newton’s law of cooling is employed,
which is given as
q = h(T − Ta ), (8)
where h is the interface heat transfer coefficient, T is the metal temperature and Ta is the
ambient temperature.
Since all material would radiate energy at temperatures above absolute zero with or without
a medium, the effects of radiation heat transfer are also considered between the mold and
the atmosphere during investment casting. From the surface radiations, heat flux, q, can be
expressed by
q = εσ (T 4 − Ta4 ), (9)
where σ is the Stefan–Boltzman constant and ε is the surface thermal emissivity (ε < 1,
except for a black body), T is the mold temperature and Ta is the atmosphere temperature. In

5
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Table 4. Related parameters for microstructure modeling.

CA cell Number of cells Number of

size (µm) in a block crystallographic orientations Seed random number
50 10 × 10 × 10 5000 1

Volume nucleation Surface nucleation

TN (◦ C)
Tσ (◦ C) nmax
TN (◦ C)
Tσ (◦ C) nmax

5 0.4 108 4 0.4 2 × 1011

Figure 4. Microstructure on plane A of the calibration casting.

the previous study [13], the experiment of casting a golf club head using the same 17-4PH
stainless steel was conducted, where the temperature field was used to predict the positions
of porosity in a cast using a computer simulation verified with actual cast objects. Thermal
parameters adopted in the golf club cast were the key variables used to verify the accuracy of
the temperature field simulated and are used as reference in this study.
The purpose of this study is to develop a technique of numerically simulating the micro-
structure of 17-4PH stainless steel during investment casting by employing the CA model in
conjunction with a calibration casting. A set of kinetic growth coefficients a2 and a3 are first
obtained by comparing the simulated microstructure with the experimentally observed one of
the calibration casting. The values can then be utilized to simulate the solidification micro-
structure of the 17-4PH stainless steel casting under any other design and operating conditions.
Afterward, this set of values is applied to the microstructure simulation of a separate casting,
where the casting was actually made. The simulated microstructure and the experimentally
observed one were then compared with the examined reliability of the simulation technique.

2. Experimental method

17-4PH stainless steel is the main alloy to be investment cast in this study, where the main
alloying components are iron, chromium, nickel and copper, shown in table 1. In the actual

6
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 5. Microstructure on plane B of the calibration casting.

Figure 6. Microstructure on plane C of the calibration casting.

casting experiment, two molds, calibration and test were designed as shown in figures 1 and 2.
The inlet of the calibration casting is located at the center and the test casting at the edge.
Initially the calibration sample was cast in a mold of Zr sand, where wall thickness was
6.5 mm. The mold was preheated to 1050 ◦ C then poured at 1650 ◦ C. The pouring time was
around 4.5 s. The resulted volume of 17-4PH stainless steel cast was 56.78 cm3 . Parameters
of investment casting are given in table 2. To prepare for microstructure observations, the cast
was cleaned using grade numbers 80–800 sandpapers then etched with HCl 90 vol% + H2 O2
10 vol% for 3–5 min. Finally, the test sample was cast to verify the feasibility of this study. The
experimental parameters were not the same as the calibration sample except for the pouring
time of 4.5 s. The resulting volume of the cast was 58.21 cm3 . Microstructure observations
were made and compared with the numerical simulation to verify the simulation accuracy.

7
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 7. The 3D view on microstructure simulation of 17-4 PH stainless steel (a) nucleation and
growth began from the top and bottom wall of the cast (b) the cross-section of grain growth.

Figure 8. Simulated microstructure with a2 = 2.9×10−5 and a3 = 1.49×10−7 for the calibration
casting, (a) plane A, (b) plane B and (c) plane C.

3. Results and discussions

The approach developed in this study is to employ the CA model in conjunction with a
calibration casting to simulate the solidification microstructure of 17-4PH stainless steel by an
investment casting process. A set of kinetic growth coefficients a2 and a3 are first obtained by
comparing the simulated microstructure with the experimentally observed one of the calibration
casting. The values can then be utilized to simulate the solidification microstructure of 17-4PH
stainless steel casting under any other design and operating conditions. The idea is exercised on

8
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 9. Simulated microstructure with a2 = 10−4 and a3 = 10−5 for the calibration casting, (a)
plane A, (b) plane B and (c) plane C.

one test casting and a comparison between the simulated microstructure and the experimentally
observed one is then conducted to verify the feasibility of the method.
In terms of predicting the microstructure, a CA algorithm was adopted to simulate the
nucleation and grain growth of 17-4 PH stainless steel castings. First a finite element method
(FEM) was used to solve for the macroscopic temperature distribution in the casting and mold.
Related thermal and physical properties data as well as the FEM parameters are displayed in
table 3. The relevant result of the simulated cooling curve is shown in figure 3. The phenomena
of microscopic nucleation and grain growth were then developed using a CA model, where
the macroscopic mesh element was divided into 10 × 10 × 10 micro-cells which were sized
at 50 µm. (In this study, the original cell size chosen was 10 µm; however, when running the
program there were signs of insufficiency for the computer’s hardware (i.e. memory).) The
simulation parameters and conditions are shown in table 4. The actual nucleation parameters
are important and should be determined by the differential thermal analyzer (DTA) experiment.
However, in this study we obtained the parameters from related papers as cited in combination
with computer simulation to determine and verify for the most appropriate values to be used.
These appropriate nucleation parameters are obtained from [5].

3.1. Kinetics growth coefficient a2 and a3

The casting condition of the calibration sample is done by filling the melt from the central
position of the mold; as shown in figure 3. The microstructure observations were made on

9
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 10. Simulated microstructure with a2 = 10−6 and a3 = 10−7 for the calibration casting,
(a) plane A, (b) plane B and (c) plane C.

A, B and C planes. Figure 4 displays the microstructure on plane A. It can be observed

that short and thin parallel grains were formed closer to the wall region of the mold, which
is driven by heterogeneous nucleation. This particular structure is formed due to the rapid
formation of grains from the wall surface, limiting the time and space needed for grain growth.
While solidification advances inwards, an obvious columnar zone appears due to the preferred
orientation of grains. This is then followed by an obscured area showing less length but similar
width as the columnar zone. Grains near to the runner were equiaxed and had larger width
than that of the columnar zone.
Figure 5 displays the microstructure on plane B. As shown by the figure many tiny grains
grew from the top, outer and bottom surfaces as described above, followed by the columnar
zone with an obvious direction slanting towards the pouring gate. Horizontal grain growth
could be observed from the outer surface and tilted growth for grains near the top and bottom
of the cast. This effect is suspected to be due to the direction of solidification. As for grains
closer to the runner, the growth direction tends to be more vertical from the top and bottom
surface, which then meets at the middle region. Figure 6 shows the microstructure on plane
C. It reveals a similar growth pattern at the outer surface as that of plane B. The difference
between planes B and C is that the grain morphology at the top area of plane C, where the
distance to the top wall is shorter than in plane B. The orientation of grains in plane C are
tilted considerably towards the runner due to the more severe thermal effect caused by being
closer to the runner during cooling. Therefore, the column grain growth in plane C is more
noticeably diagonal. Also, there are fewer smaller equiaxed grains on the top surface.

10
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 11. Sliced planes for the test casting.

Figure 12. Comparison between the simulated microstructures and experimentally observed ones
for planes D1 and D2 of the test casting, (a) schematic illustration of the locations of planes D1
and D2, (b) simulated microstructure and (c) experimentally observed microstructure.

Figure 7 is a 3D microstructure simulation picture of 17-4 PH stainless steel. Since the

simulation results in the 3D view were not clear to visualize, we all used the 2D simulation
pictures to express the relevant result. Simulation results of the calibration sample with different
values for a2 and a3 are shown in figures 8–10. By comparing with the microstructure
observations made at planes A, B and C, it was found that the optimum kinetic growth
coefficients, a2 and a3 for the particular alloy of use were 2.9 × 10−5 and 1.49 × 10−7 ,
respectively. The simulated plane A showed similar tendencies as that of the real cast, including
smaller outer grains, obvious columnar zone, cut tilted grains and rounded grains near the

11
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 13. Comparison between the simulated microstructures and experimentally observed ones
for planes E1 and E2 of the test casting, (a) schematic illustration of the locations of planes E1
and E2, (b) simulated microstructure and (c) experimentally observed microstructure.

runner. Although slight deviations were present in the simulation such as the length of the
columnar zone and the shape of the cut tilted grains, they were only due to the difference in
observation plane height. Planes B and C had even higher similarity between the simulation
results and the real cast. Especially for the outer parallel grains, tilted grains on the top
and bottom of the cast, vertical columnar grains and the bottom orientated columnar grains
near the runner. Through continuous repetitive trials on finding appropriate kinetic growth
coefficients, it was discovered that a larger order of the coefficient would tend to coarsen the
simulated grains, as shown in figure 9. As for smaller orders grains would tend to form the
equiaxed structure, shown in figure 10.

3.2. Verification of microstructure simulation

The optimum kinetic growth coefficients a2 and a3 were selected to be 2.9 × 10−5 and
1.49 × 10−7 . In order to verify the feasibility of these coefficients an additionally designed
test sample was developed, changing the location of the runner to the side of the mold.
Microstructures were observed on planes D, E, F and G as shown in figure 11.
On plane D1, as shown in figure 12, the grain morphology is similar to that of plane
A, hence it can be concluded that the solidification behaviors of both are similar. The
simulated microstructure including growth, orientation, sizes and distribution was at a close
resemblance to that of the cast. On the D2 plane, grains grew mainly inwards from the outer
and bottom surface. As for the grains near to the runner, due to thermal effects they solidified
later than others grains. Limited by other existing columnar grains, these grains grew in a
random orientation as seen in figure 12. Therefore, the correlation between the numerical and
experimental results could be proved.

12
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 14. Comparison between the simulated microstructure and experimentally observed one
for plane F of the test casting, (a) schematic illustration of the location of plane F , (b) simulated
microstructure and (c) experimentally observed microstructure.

As illustrated in figure 13 for plane E1, grains grew from the far end towards a central
position, corresponding to that of plane B. The difference is at the plane center. where plane
B displays a bottom-up vertical columnar growth E1 displays symmetrical vertical columnar
growth from both top and bottom of the mold. This is because of the change in runner position
from central to side. As for the E2 plane, grain growth was mostly symmetrical and vertical
from the edges of the mold, with some distortion near the runner. Due to the solidification
sequence and growth rate, grains near the runner were slightly longer on the bottom edge. The
simulated microstructure pattern and tendency approximated to that of the real cast.
A near-runner cast plane, F , was also simulated, as displayed in figure 14. Grains on the
outer edges were equiaxed, and occupied about one-third of the total plane area. It is estimated
that these grains solidified during the earlier stages of the total solidification process, and had
less thermal effect due to its particular position. Horizontal columnar grains grew at the close
center positions. Small amounts of tilted grains were also present due to larger thermal effects
near the runner. In contrast to the top section of the cast, the bottom section had less thermal
effect due to larger heat transfer and solidification rate, and hence resulting in more obvious
vertical columnar grains.

13
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

Figure 15. Comparison between the simulated microstructure and experimentally observed one
for plane G of the test casting, (a) schematic illustration of the location of plane G (b) simulated
microstructure and (c) experimentally observed microstructure.

Figure 15 shows plane G which corresponds to plane C in the calibration sample. The
microstructure of G deviates from C by having symmetrical grain growth due to the change
in runner position, which matched the results from the simulation.

4. Conclusion

A novel approach has been developed in this study to employ the CA model in conjunction with
a calibration casting to simulate the solidification microstructure of 17-4PH stainless steel by
investment casting process. A set of kinetic growth coefficients a2 and a3 are first obtained by
comparing the simulated microstructure with the experimentally observed one of the calibration
casting. The values can then be utilized to simulate the solidification microstructure of 17-
4PH stainless steel casting under any other design and operating conditions. The idea has been
exercised on one test casting and the following conclusions can be made.
1. The appropriate values of the kinetic growth coefficients for the investment casting of
17-4PH stainless steel are 2.9 × 10−5 and 1.49 × 10−7 for a2 and a3 , respectively.

14
Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008) 045009 You Yun Li et al

2. A good correlation has been found between the microstructure of the actual 17-4PH casting
and the simulated one using the proposed approach.

References

[1] Kurz W and Fisher D J 1998 Fundamentals of Solidification 4th edn (Zurich: Trans Tech Publications)
[2] Yu K O 2002 Modeling Casting Solidif. Process 5 123
[3] Brown S G R and Spittle J A 1989 Mater. Sci. Technol. 5 362
[4] Gandin C A and Rappaz M 1994 Acta Metall. Mater. 42 2233
[5] Gandin C A, Desbiolles J L, Rappaz M and Thevoz P 1999 Metall. Mater. Trans. A 30 3153
[6] Kurz W, Giovanola B and Trivedi R 1986 Acta Metall. Mater. 34 825
[7] Gandin C A and Rappaz M 1997 Acta Metall. Mater. 45 2187
[8] Atwood R C and Lee P D 2003 Acta Metall. Mater. 51 5447
[9] Zhu M F, Cao W, Chen S L, Hong C P and Chang Y A 2007 J. Phase Equilib. Diffusion 28 130
[10] Takatani H, Gandin C A and Rappaz M 2000 Acta Metall. Mater. 48 675
[11] Zhu M F and Hong C P 2001 ISIJ Int. 41 436
[12] Ho K S and Hwang W S 2003 Trans. Am. Foundry’s Soc. 1113
[13] Li Y Y, Wu C H, Kuo J H, Hwang W S and Chen C T 2006 Trans. Am. Foundry Soc. 383
[14] Gandin C A and Rappaz M 1993 Acta Metall. Mater. 41 345

15