English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Two finite element level-set (FE-LS) formulations are compared for themodeling of grain growth of 316L stainless steel in terms of grain size, meanvalues and histograms. Two kinds of microstructures are considered, some aregenerated statistically from EBSD maps and the others are generated byimmersion of EBSD data in the FE formulation. Grain boundary (GB) mobility isheterogeneously defined as a function of the GB disorientation. On the otherhand, GB energy is considered as heterogeneous or anisotropic, respectivelydefined as a function of the disorientation and both the GB misorientation andthe GB inclination. In terms of mean grain size value and grain sizedistribution (GSD), both formulations provide similar responses. However, theanisotropic formulation better respects the experimental disorientationdistribution function (DDF) and predicts more realistic grain morphologies. Itwas also found that the heterogeneous GB mobility described with a sigmoidalfunction only affects the DDF and the morphology of grains. Thus, a slowerevolution of twin boundaries (TBs) is perceived.

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