Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Shrinkage Porosity
RICHARD A. HARDIN and CHRISTOPH BECKERMANN
A simulation methodology for predicting the fatigue life of cast steel components with shrinkage
porosity is developed and validated through comparison with previously performed measurements. A X-ray tomography technique is used to reconstruct the porosity distribution in 25 test
specimens with average porosities ranging from 8 to 21 pct. The porosity eld is imported into
nite element analysis (FEA) software to determine the complex stress eld resulting from the
porosity. In the stress simulation, the elastic mechanical properties are made a function of the
local porosity volume fraction. A multiaxial strain-life simulation is then performed to determine the fatigue life. An adaptive subgrid model is developed to reduce the dependence of the
fatigue life predictions on the numerical mesh chosen and to account for the eects of porosity
that is too small to be resolved in the simulations. The subgrid model employs a spatially
variable fatigue notch factor that is dependent on the local pore radius relative to the nite
element node spacing. A probabilistic pore size distribution model is used to estimate the radius
of the largest pore as a function of the local pore volume fraction. It is found that, with the
adaptive subgrid model and the addition of a uniform background microporosity eld with a
maximum pore radius of 100 lm, the measured and predicted fatigue lives for nearly all 25 test
specimens fall within one decade. Because the fatigue lives of the specimens vary by more than
four orders of magnitude for the same nominal stress amplitude and for similar average porosity
fractions, the results demonstrate the importance of taking into account in the simulations the
distribution of the porosity in the specimens.
DOI: 10.1007/s11661-008-9755-3
The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2009
I.
INTRODUCTION
II.
EXPERIMENTS
A. Cast Specimens
Specimen blanks were cast from AISI 8630 steel. The
mold geometry was designed using computer modeling,
to obtain a range of shrinkage porosity levels.[19] The
cast blanks were 152-mm-long cylinders having a
nominal 14.3 mm diameter. To produce shrinkage
porosity, a cylindrical disk 25.5 mm in diameter was
positioned at the midlength of the blanks, as shown in
Figure 1. This design concentrated the porosity at the
centerline and midlength of the cast blanks, so that the
porosity could be located in the gage section of the test
specimens. The severity of the porosity was controlled
by varying the disk thickness (dimension along the
casting length); disk thicknesses of 5, 7.5, and 10 mm
were cast. Generally, a smaller disk thickness resulted in
14.25
152.0
25.5
Fig. 2Cut and polished surfaces of three specimens cast with different porosity levels ranging from (a) specimen 22 representing the
least, to (b) specimen 3 representing the middle range, to (c) specimen 13 representing the most porosity. Radiographs of the specimen
gage sections are given to the right of each surface, with the longitudinal position of the cut indicated.
VOLUME 40A, MARCH 2009583
38.5
11
17.5
Gage section
5 .025
R 19
12
116.5
1
2
2E
2K0
where DS/2 and De/2 are the nominal stress and strain
amplitudes, respectively; K is the cyclic strength
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Fig. 4Example of internal porosity distributions reconstructed from X-ray tomography in the test section of fatigue test specimens 8 and 22.
Slices at three axial positions are shown for each specimen.
coecient; and n is the cyclic strain hardening exponent. Note from Tables II and III that the 661 MPa
value for the cyclic yield strength, S0y , is much less
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Table I.
Specimen
Number
Summary of Measurements for 25 Cast Steel Specimens Containing Porosity:[1,19] Test Stress Level, Porosity from
Radiographic Analysis, Strain, Elastic Modulus, and Fatigue Life
Applied
Stress Level
of Test
(MPa)
Average
Porosity
Volume Fraction
in Gage Section
Maximum
Cross-Sectional
Porosity
Fraction
96
96
126
53
126
66
66
66
53
126
66
66
96
126
53
66
96
53
126
53
96
66
126
96
126
0.104
0.101
0.101
0.128
0.097
0.134
0.095
0.185
0.146
0.213
0.117
0.148
0.185
0.139
0.187
0.076
0.096
0.085
0.093
0.099
0.122
0.117
0.121
0.144
0.129
0.432
0.208
0.256
0.297
0.185
0.275
0.201
0.363
0.587
0.326
0.250
0.415
0.538
0.507
0.551
0.160
0.254
0.148
0.225
0.182
0.300
0.262
0.205
0.288
0.280
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sound Material
Su (MPa)
Sy (MPa)
E0 (GPa)
Pct EL
Pct RA
rf (MPa)
ef
K (MPa)
N
1,144
985
207
not measured
29
1,268
0.35
not measured
not measured
Table III.
Property
Sound Material
Sf (MPa)
Sf/Su
K (MPa)
n
S0y (MPa)
b
c
r0f (MPa)
e0f
293
0.26
2,267
0.195
661
0.121
0.693
1,936
0.42
Strain 9104
Elastic
Modulus
(GPa)
Fatigue
Life
(Cycles)
7.01
6.44
8.81
3.84
8.24
4.55
4.68
4.89
6.09
9.33
4.85
5.84
12.47
10.50
6.09
3.98
8.65
3.66
8.87
3.71
7.68
4.37
8.13
6.76
8.51
137
149
143
138
153
145
141
135
87
135
136
113
77
120
87
166
111
145
142
143
125
151
155
142
148
1365
79,908
24,320
851,275
29,023
216,516
4,053,800
57,566
10,812
37,089
113,503
15,419
6042
160
15,868
1,681,018
4392
1,342,218
13,013
249,752
41,066
769,074
40,896
333,025
7456
2
where De/2, Dee/2, and Dep/2 are the total, elastic, and
plastic strain amplitudes, respectively; 2Nf is the number
of reversals to failure; r0f is the fatigue strength coecient; b is the fatigue strength exponent; e0f is the fatigue
ductility coecient; and c is the fatigue ductility
exponent. The sound 8630 steel cyclic properties listed
in Table III were obtained in Reference 40 by tting test
data to Eqs. [1] and [2]. For sound 8630 steel, the fatigue
strength (or fatigue limit), Sf, at 5 9 106 cycles is equal
to 293 MPa.
The measured fatigue lives (as cycles to failure, Nf) of
the porous specimens are plotted in Figure 5 as a
function of the applied stress amplitude, DS/2. In
Figure 5(a), the measurements are compared to the
stress-life curve for sound 8630 steel. The sound stresslife curve was obtained from Eq. [2] by converting the
strain to stress using the elastic modulus from Table II;
plasticity was found to be negligibly small.[19] It can be
seen that the fatigue lives of the porous specimens fall
far below the sound material curve. Depending on the
number of cycles to failure, the stress amplitudes in the
present tests are between approximately 170 and
900 MPa below the stress amplitudes for sound 8630
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
900
Sound keel block data [19]
800
Test Data
700
600
Runout at
5106 cycles
500
400
300
200
100
0
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
(a)
200
180
Runout at
5106 cycles
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
(b)
Fig. 5(a) Fatigue life measurements of specimens with porosity
compared with sound data from Ref. 40. (b) Measured fatigue lives
of specimens with porosity tested at four stress levels: 126, 96, 66,
and 53 MPa. Note the single runout specimen.
A. Simulation Procedure
The present procedure for predicting the fatigue life of
the porous specimens can be summarized as follows.
(a) Map the measured porosity eld from the tomography onto the nodes of the FEA mesh.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
(b) Degrade the elastic properties at each node according to the local porosity fraction, /.
(c) Perform a nite element elastic stress analysis that
corresponds to the loading in the fatigue tests.
(d) Import the predicted stress elds corresponding
to tension and compression into the life prediction software and perform a multiaxial strain-life
analysis.
The rst three steps in this procedure were developed
previously by the present authors; all details can be
found in Reference 1. In brief, the three-dimensional
quadratic interpolation subroutine QD3VL from the
International Mathematics and Statistics Library
(IMSL)[41] is used to map the porosity data onto the
FEA mesh. Ten-node quadratic tetrahedral elements are
used to perform the stress analysis. Elastic mechanical
properties are assigned at each node as a function of the
porosity fraction at that location. The local elastic
modulus is calculated from[1]
/ 2:5
E/ E0 1
3
0:5
where E0 is the elastic modulus of the sound material
and / is the porosity volume fraction. The Poisson
ratio, m, as a function of / is obtained from a relationship developed by Roberts and Garboczi:[42]
m/ mS
/
m1 mS
/1
4
rf rm
b
c
Dcmax Den
1:65
2Nf 1:75e0f 2Nf 5
2
2
E
at each node, where Dcmax/2 is the maximum shear
strain amplitude, Den/2 is the strain amplitude normal
to the shear stress plane, and rm is the mean stress. The
critical plane is dened as the plane having the
maximum value of Dcmax/2 + Den/2. In the critical
plane analysis, the calculated strain tensor at a nite
element node (having three direct and three shear
components) is resolved onto a number of planes where
the damage associated with the strain is evaluated on
each plane. The plane with the most damage is then
selected for use in the strain-life calculations. In a
Cartesian x-y-z coordinate system, unique planes can be
dened by the orientation the normal of the plane
surface makes with respect to the coordinate system.
This orientation can be dened by one angle from the
x-axis toward the y-axis, and a second angle from the
z-axis toward the x-y plane.[13] The software fe-safe
searches for the critical plane with the worst damage
(shortest life) in 10 deg increments over the 180 deg
range of the rst angle and the 90 deg range of the
second angle. Direction cosines are used to project the
strains onto the calculation plane. Additional details
about multiaxial fatigue analysis can be found in the
book by Socie and Marquis.[7]
588VOLUME 40A, MARCH 2009
Fig. 6Results in a longitudinal section for specimen 19. (a) Porosity distribution from tomography. Results from Abaqus stress analysis for (b) maximum principal stress and (c) maximum principal
strain. Fatigue life prediction from fe-safe using Abaqus results (d)
in the section and (e) on the surface with minimum predicted life of
15,847 cycles indicated.
1010
Specimen 20
109
108
Specimen 17
107
106
Specimen 19
105
104
103
102
102
103
104
105
106
107
Fig. 8Predicted axial stress distribution on surface for four grids used to predict the fatigue life of specimen 19 shown in Fig. 7. Finer grids
give higher stresses from more detailed porosity eld.
6
where Dr/2 and De/2 are the local axial stress and
strain amplitudes at the notch root, respectively, and
DS/2 and De/2 are the nominal true stress and strain
amplitudes, respectively. The multiaxial version of
Neubers rule uses the stresses and strains in the critical plane, as explained previously in connection with
the BrownMiller algorithm. Equation [6] is solved
together with the cyclic stress-strain curve for the
notch stress and strain amplitudes; i.e.,
10
De Dr
Dr n
7
2
2E
2K0
The notch strain amplitude resulting from the simultaneous solution of Eqs. [6] and [7] is then used in the
strain-life equation (i.e., Eq. [5]) to calculate the fatigue life. The fatigue notch factor, Kf, in Eq. [6] is
obtained from[3]
Kf 1
Kt 1
1 a=r
8
value of 424 MPa, so that Kt,a 1. For the intermediate node spacing, the hole is poorly resolved and the
maximum stress from the FEA is equal to only
264 MPa. Hence, the corresponding adaptive stress
concentration factor is Kt,a = 424/264 = 1.606. For
the coarsest mesh, only a single node is present within
the hole and the predicted maximum stress from the
FEA of 219 MPa is close to the nominal applied stress
of 207.4 MPa; therefore, Kt,a = 424/219 = 1.94.
These results can be generalized by realizing that, for
a single hole in an innite body, the full stress
concentration factor is independent of the radius of
the hole. Figure 10 shows the computed adaptive stress
concentration factor, Kt,a, as a function of the node
spacing to the pore radius ratio, Ln/Rp. It was veried
that the same result is obtained for hole radii other than
0.1 mm. It can be seen from Figure 10 that, for
Ln/Rp < 0.08, the adaptive stress concentration factor
is equal to unity, implying that the stresses around the
hole are fully resolved. For Ln/Rp > 4, the mesh is so
coarse that the full stress concentration factor of 2.045
must be applied. For use in the present simulations, the
following curve was t through the computed data
points
0:08 Ln Rp
10
Kt;a 2:045 1 2:045 exp
1:286
for Ln/Rp > 0.08. Equation [10] then provides the stress
concentration factor for use in Eq. [8]. For discontinuities other than a single spherical hole, a value that is
dierent from 2.045 could be used in Eq. [10]. Because
the use of Kt = 2.045 yields accurate fatigue life predictions for the microporosity specimens in Reference 19,
this value is kept here.
C. Implementation in fe-safe
The software fe-safe only allows for the application of
a constant fatigue notch factor to the entire surface of
2.2
1.8
1.6
100 m radius hole
Curve fit: Equation (11)
1.4
1.2
1
0
-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
-0.18
-0.20
-0.22
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
(a)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
(b)
Fatigue Ductility Exponent c
-0.68
-0.70
-0.72
-0.74
-0.76
-0.78
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
(c)
Fig. 11Fatigue properties as functions of notch factor for (a) fatigue strength exponent b, (b) fatigue ductility coecient ef, and (c)
fatigue ductility exponent c.
4p 3
R
3 p
11
25
Porosity,
20
0.10%
1%
3%
15
5%
10
0
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
(a)
Pore Number Density (pores/mm 3)
10
= 10%
n = 1.17x106 m-3
100
-1
10
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-2
10-1
100
101
(b)
Fig. 12(a) Pore number density distributions at the start of porosity formation (0.1 pct) and at 1, 3, and 5 pct porosity. Number density decreases as pores grow and merge together into larger pores.
(b) Pore number density distribution at 10 pct porosity, with mean
of merged pores indicated.
Rp;max
2825:2/
1:0 25; 846:63/ 275; 154:35/2
for / 0:0386
12
where Rp,max is in mm. For / greater than approximately 10 pct, the probabilistic pore size model breaks
down, and the last expression given in Eq. [12] represents an extrapolation that is intended to yield realistic
maximum pore radii for large pore fractions. The
present adaptive subgrid model becomes insensitive to
the pore radius for large radii, which, depending on the
nite element mesh used, is approximately the case for
Rp > 1 mm; thus, the accuracy of this extrapolation is
not important. The maximum pore radius function is
plotted in Figure 13. Superimposed on that gure are
several metallographic sections from the present specimens. Good qualitative agreement can be observed
between the maximum pore radii calculated from
Eq. [12] and the size of the largest pores visible on the
sections. Because the present adaptive subgrid model
has many other uncertainties and is only intended to
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
7% Porosity
2.5
20% Porosity
2.0
1 mm
0.7% Porosity
10% Porosity
1.5
1.0
1 mm
0.5
0.0
0.00
1 mm
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
3.0
1010
109
108
107
106
105
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
109
109
With adaptive sub-grid model, no background microporosity
With adaptive sub-grid model, with background
microporosity, Rp = 100 m
108
108
107
106
105
104
103
107
106
105
104
103
Without adaptive sub-grid model
With adaptive sub-grid model
102
10
10
10
105
106
107
earlier. Microporosity was always observed on metallographic sections, such as those shown in Figure 2, in
regions next to larger pores. This can be important in a
fatigue life calculation, because high stress concentrations occur next to large pores. In order to investigate
the sensitivity of the predictions to the presence of
microporosity, simulations were performed with a
uniform background microporosity having a maximum pore radius, Rp,max, of 100 lm. This is easily
accomplished in the present subgrid model by modifying
the pore size model, Eq. [12], such that all values of
Rp,max that are less than 100 lm are overwritten with
100 lm (which only occurs for / less than 0.1 pct). The
porosity eld used in the nite element stress analysis of
the specimens was not changed, because microporosity
corresponds to very small pore fractions with a negligible eect on the elastic properties.
The eect of the background microporosity on the
fatigue life predictions for all 25 specimens is shown in
Figure 16. The simulation results in this gure were
obtained using the adaptive subgrid model and a node
spacing of 0.25 mm. Here, the vertical lines indicate the
movement of the predictions due to the addition of the
background microporosity. As expected, the addition of
the background microporosity lowers the fatigue life
predictions for all specimens. However, the magnitude
of the eect is not the same for all specimens. For some
specimens, background microporosity has a negligible
eect, while for others, the predicted fatigue life changes
by almost two orders of magnitude. These dierences
can be attributed to the nature of the porosity eld in
596VOLUME 40A, MARCH 2009
102
102
103
104
105
106
107
V.
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was undertaken through the American
Metalcasting Consortium (AMC), which is sponsored
by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSC)
(Philadelphia, PA) and the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) (Ft. Belvoir, VA). This work was conducted
under the auspices of the Steel Founders Society of
America (SFSA) through substantial in-kind support
and guidance from SFSA member foundries. Any
opinions, ndings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reect the views of DSC, DLA, or the
SFSA or any of its members.
REFERENCES
1. R.A. Hardin and C. Beckermann: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2007,
vol. 38A, pp. 29923006.
2. R.A. Hardin, R.K. Hu, and C. Beckermann: in Modeling of
Casting, Welding and Advanced Solidication Processes XI, C.
Gandin and M. Bellet, eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 2006, pp. 653
60.
3. R.I. Stephens, A. Fatemi, R.R. Stephens, and H.O. Fuchs: Metal
Fatigue in Engineering, 2nd ed., Wiley-Interscience, New York,
NY, 2000.
4. 2002 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002, vol. 03.01, pp. 56983.
5. S.S. Manson: Behavior of Materials under Conditions of Thermal
Stress, NACA TN2933, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics, Washington, DC, 1954.
6. L.F. Con: Trans. ASME, 1954, vol. 76, pp. 93150.
7. D.F. Socie and G.B. Marquis: Multiaxial Fatigue, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 2000.
8. B.-R. You and S.-B. Lee: Int. J. Fatigue, 1996, vol. 18 (4), pp. 235
44.
9. C.-C. Chu: Int. J. Fatigue, 1996, vol. 19 (Suppl. 1), pp. S325S330.
10. D. Taylor, P. Bologna, and K. Bel Knani: Int. J. Fatigue, 2000,
vol. 22, pp. 73542.
11. Y. Liu, B. Stratman, and S. Mahadevan: Int. J. Fatigue, 2006,
vol. 28, pp. 74756.
12. Y. Liu, B. Stratman, and S. Mahadevan: Rel. Eng. Sys. Saf., 2008,
vol. 93, pp. 45667.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
13. fe-safe User Manual, Safe Technology, Ltd., Sheeld, UK, 2006,
pp. 23339.
14. P.C. Paris and F. Erdogan: Trans. ASME, J. Basic Eng., 1963,
vol. D85, pp. 52834.
15. S.C. Haldimann-Sturm and A. Nussbaumer: Int. J. Fatigue, 2008,
vol. 30, pp. 52837.
16. P. Baicchi, L. Collini, and E. Riva: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2007,
vol. 74, pp. 53948.
17. Y. Nadot and V. Denier: Eng. Fail. Anal., 2004, vol. 11, pp. 48599.
18. P. Hausild, C. Berdin, P. Bompard, and N. Verdiere: Proc. 6th
World 2000 Duplex Conf., Associazione Italiana di Metallurgia,
Venice, Italy, 2000, pp. 20918.
19. K.M. Sigl, R. Hardin, R.I. Stephens, and C. Beckermann: Int. J.
Cast Met. Res., 2004, vol. 17 (3), pp. 13046.
20. S. Jayet-Gendrot, P. Gilles, and C. Migne: Fatigue and Fracture:
1997 PVP-Vol. 350, 1997, ASME, vol. 1, pp. 10716.
21. M. Kohno and M. Makioka: AFS Trans., 1970, vol. 78, pp. 916.
22. K. Chijiwa, T. Nakayama, and M. Imamura: 35e CIF, vol. 36,
pp. 112.
23. P. Heuler, C. Berger, and J. Motz: Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater.
Struct., 1992, vol. 16, pp. 11536.
24. T. Billaideau, Y. Nadot, and G. Bezine: Acta Mater., 2004, vol. 52,
pp. 391120.
25. Y. Nadot, J. Mendez, and N. Ranganathan: Int. J. Fatigue, 2004,
vol. 26, pp. 31119.
26. T. Mansson and F. Nilsson: Int. J. Cast Met. Res., 2001, vol. 13
(6), pp. 37378.
27. X. Zhu, J.Z. Yi, J.W. Jones, and J.E. Allison: Metall. Mater.
Trans. A, 2007, vol. 38A, pp. 111122.
28. X. Zhu, J.Z. Yi, J.W. Jones, and J.E. Allison: Metall. Mater.
Trans. A, 2007, vol. 38A, pp. 112335.
29. J. Linder, M. Axelsson, and H. Nilsson: Int. J. Fatigue, 2006,
vol. 28, pp. 175258.
30. D.L. McDowell, K. Gall, M.F. Horstemeyer, and J. Fan: Eng.
Fract. Mech., 2003, vol. 70 (1), pp. 4980.
31. C. Sonsino and J. Ziese: Int. J. Fatigue, 1993, vol. 15, pp. 7584.
32. A. Dabayeh and T.H. Topper: Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct.,
2000, vol. 23, pp. 9931006.
33. J.-Y. Bue`re, S. Savelli, P.H. Jouneau, E. Maire, and R. Fouge`res:
Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2001, vol. 316, pp. 11526.
34. Q.G. Wang and P.E. Jones: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2007,
vol. 38B, pp. 61521.
35. Q.G. Wang, D. Apelian, and D.A. Lados: J. Light Met., 2001,
vol. 1, pp. 7384.
36. B. Skallerud, T. Iveland, and G. Harkegard: Eng. Fract. Mech.,
1993, vol. 44 (6), pp. 85774.
37. Y. Murakami: Metal Fatigue: Eects of Small Defects and
Nonmetallic Inclusions, Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford, United
Kingdom, 2002.
38. Y. Xue, C.L. Burton, M.F. Horstmeyer, D.L. McDowell, and J.T.
Berry: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2007, vol. 38B, pp. 60106.
39. A.C. Kak and M. Slaney: Principles of Computerized Tomographic
Imaging, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
Philadelphia, PA, 2001, pp. 27596.
40. R.I. Stephens: Fatigue and Fracture Toughness of Five Carbon or
Low Alloy Cast Steels at Room or Low Climatic Temperatures,
Steel Founders Society of America, Des Plaines, IL, 1982.
41. IMSL Fortran Subroutines for Mathematical Applications: Math/
Library Volumes 1 and 2, Visual Numerics, Inc., Houston, TX, 1997.
42. A.P. Roberts and E.J. Garboczi: J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 2000, vol. 83
(12), pp. 304148.
43. Abaqus/Standard, Abaqus, Inc., Providence, RI, 2006.
44. Fatigue Design Handbook, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Warrendale, PA, 1968, vol. 4, p. 29.
45. R.E. Peterson: Stress Concentration Factors, Wiley-Interscience,
New York, NY, 1974, p. 137.
46. K.D. Carlson, S. Ou, R.A. Hardin, and C. Beckermann: Int. J.
Cast Met. Res., 2001, vol. 14, pp. 16983.
47. K.D. Carlson, Z. Lin, R.A. Hardin, C. Beckermann, G.
Mazurkevich, and M.C. Schneider: in Modeling of Casting,
Welding and Advanced Solidication Processes X, D.M. Stefanescu,
J.A. Warren, M.R. Jolly, and M.J.M. Krane, eds., TMS,
Warrendale, PA, 2003, pp. 295302.
48. K.D. Carlson, Z. Lin, and C. Beckermann: Metall. Mater. Trans.
B, 2007, vol. 38B, pp. 541555.