Kinetics of the peritectic reaction in an Fe–C alloy

Diffusion-controlled peritectic reaction process in carbon steel analyzed by quantitative phase-field simulation

“…[12] is applied to the computation for the diffusion-controlled peritectic reaction rate in the Fe-C system. The rate-controlling process of the peritectic reaction is discussed based on the comparison between the calculated results and the reported experimental data [2,3]. The present simulation shows that the geometrical shape shown in Fig.…”

“…The rate-controlling process of the peritectic reaction observed in many alloy systems has been considered to be the diffusion of solute atom in the liquid phase. However, recent in-situ observations by means of a confocal scanning laser microscope (CSLM) [2,3] demonstrated that the peritectic reaction rate in carbon steels, viz., the growth rate of austenite (γ) along ferrite(δ)/liquid(L) interface is too fast to be consistent with the diffusion-controlled reaction rate predicted by a theoretical model [4]. Therefore, it was concluded in these experimental studies that the peritectic reaction in the carbon steel is not controlled by the diffusion of carbon [2,3].…”

“…In view of this fact, we consider that there is no reliable value available for the diffusion-controlled peritectic reaction rate. Hence, the recent conclusions claiming diffusionless mechanisms for the peritectic reaction in the Fe-C system [2,3] should be subjected to a reexamination based on a more reliable theory or numerical simulation.…”

Motion and Morphology of Triple Junction in Peritectic Reaction Analyzed by Quantitative Phase-field Model

“…4) This model, which is called FN model hereafter, has been widely used for the analyses on the peritectic reaction process in several alloy systems. [6][7][8][9][10] It should be pointed out that the comparison between experimentally observed reaction rate and the FN model demonstrated that the reaction rate described by the FN model is fairly lower than the experimentally observed rate in several alloy systems. 6,7,10) It is noticed that the validity of the Hillert's assumption for the shape illustrated in Fig.…”

“…[6][7][8][9][10] It should be pointed out that the comparison between experimentally observed reaction rate and the FN model demonstrated that the reaction rate described by the FN model is fairly lower than the experimentally observed rate in several alloy systems. 6,7,10) It is noticed that the validity of the Hillert's assumption for the shape illustrated in Fig. 1 has not been well substantiated yet and the morphology of phases near the triple junction remains to be scrutinized in the cases of the different cooling conditions and different values of physical parameters.…”