0
Research Papers: Melting and Solidification

Uncertainty Quantification in Modeling Metal Alloy Solidification

[+] Author and Article Information
Kyle Fezi

Purdue Center for Metal Casting Research,
School of Materials Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907
e-mail: kfezi@purdue.edu

Matthew John M. Krane

Purdue Center for Metal Casting Research,
School of Materials Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907
e-mail: krane@purdue.edu

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received April 13, 2016; final manuscript received March 13, 2017; published online April 19, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Gennady Ziskind.

J. Heat Transfer 139(8), 082301 (Apr 19, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: HT-16-1198; doi: 10.1115/1.4036280 History: Received April 13, 2016; Revised March 13, 2017

Numerical simulations of metal alloy solidification are used to gain insight into physical phenomena that cannot be observed experimentally. These models produce results that are used to draw conclusions about a process or alloy and often compared to experimental results. However, uncertainty in model inputs cause uncertainty in model results, which have the potential to significantly affect conclusions drawn from their predictions. As a step toward understanding the effect of uncertain inputs on solidification modeling, uncertainty quantification (UQ) and sensitivity analysis are performed on a transient model of solidification of Al–4.5 wt % Cu in a rectangular cavity. The binary alloy considered has columnar solidification morphology, and this model solves equations for momentum, temperature, and species conservation. UQ and sensitivity analysis are performed for the degree of macrosegregation and solidification time. A Smolyak sparse grid algorithm is used to select input values to construct a polynomial response surface fit to model outputs. This polynomial is then used as a surrogate for the complete solidification model to determine the sensitivities and probability density functions (PDFs) of the model outputs. Uncertain model inputs of interest include the secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS), heat transfer coefficient, and material properties. The most influential input parameter for predicting the macrosegregation level is the dendrite arm spacing, which also strongly depends on the choice of permeability model. Additionally, the degree of uncertainty required to produce accurate predictions depends on the outputs of interest from the model.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Beckermann, C. , 2002, “ Modelling of Macrosegregation: Applications and Future Needs,” Int. Mater. Rev., 5, pp. 243–261. [CrossRef]
Ahmadein, M. , Wu, M. , and Ludwig, A. , 2015, “ Analysis of Macrosegregation Formation and Columnar-to-Equiaxed Transition During Solidification of Al–4 wt.%Cu Ingot Using a 5-Phase Model,” J. Cryst. Growth, 417, pp. 65–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chernatynskiy, A. , Phillpot, S. R. , and LeSar, R. , 2013, “ Uncertainty Quantification in Multiscale Simulation of Materials: A Prospective,” Annu. Rev. Mater. Res., 43(1), pp. 157–182. [CrossRef]
Hunt, M. , Haley, B. , McLennan, M. , Koslowski, M. , Murthy, J. , and Strachan, A. , 2015, “ PUQ: A Code for Non-Intrusive Uncertainty Propagation in Computer Simulations,” Comput. Phys. Commun., 194, pp. 97–107. [CrossRef]
Reddy, A. V. , and Beckermann, C. , 1997, “ Modeling of Macrosegregation Due to Thermosolutal Convection and Contraction-Driven Flow in Direct Chill Continuous Casting of an Al–Cu Round Ingot,” Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 28(3), pp. 479–489. [CrossRef]
Vreeman, C. J. , and Incropera, F. P. , 2000, “ The Effect of Free-Floating Dendrites and Convection on Macrosegregation in Direct Chill Cast Aluminum Alloys Part II: Predictions for Al–Cu and Al–Mg Alloys,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 43(5), pp. 687–704. [CrossRef]
Yanke, J. , Fezi, K. , Trice, R. W. , and Krane, M. J. M. , 2015, “ Simulation of Slag Skin Formation in Electroslag Remelting Using a Volume-of-Fluid Method,” Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A: Appl., 67(3), pp. 268–292. [CrossRef]
Fezi, K. , Yanke, J. , and Krane, M. J. M. , 2015, “ Macrosegregation During Electroslag Remelting of Alloy 625,” Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 46(2), pp. 766–779. [CrossRef]
Wasserstein, R. L. , 1997, “ Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications,” Technometrics, 39(3), p. 338.
Koslowski, M. , and Strachan, A. , 2011, “ Uncertainty Propagation in a Multiscale Model of Nanocrystalline Plasticity,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 96(9), pp. 1161–1170. [CrossRef]
Babaee, H. , Wan, X. , and Acharya, S. , 2013, “ Effect of Uncertainty in Blowing Ratio on Film Cooling Effectiveness,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 136(3), p. 031701. [CrossRef]
Marepalli, P. , Murthy, J. Y. , Qiu, B. , and Ruan, X. , 2014, “ Quantifying Uncertainty in Multiscale Heat Conduction Calculations,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 136(11), p. 111301. [CrossRef]
Sarangi, S. , Bodla, K. K. , Garimella, S. V. , and Murthy, J. Y. , 2014, “ Manifold Microchannel Heat Sink Design Using Optimization Under Uncertainty,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 69, pp. 92–105. [CrossRef]
Schneider, M. C. , and Beckermann, C. , 1995, “ A Numerical Study of the Combined Effects of Microsegregation, Mushy Zone Permeability and Flow, Caused by Volume Contraction and Thermosolutal Convection, on Macrosegregation and Eutectic Formation in Binary Alloy Solidification,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 38(18), pp. 3455–3473. [CrossRef]
Kumar, A. , Zaloznik, M. , and Combeau, H. , 2012, “ Study of the Influence of Mushy Zone Permeability Laws on Macro- and Meso-Segregations Predictions,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., 54, pp. 33–47. [CrossRef]
Bhat, M. S. , Poirier, D. R. , and Heinrich, J. C. , 1995, “ Permeability for Cross Flow Through Columnar-Dendritic Alloys,” Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 26(5), pp. 1049–1056. [CrossRef]
Bhat, M. S. , Poirier, D. R. , and Heinrich, J. C. , 1995, “ A Permeability Length Scale for Cross Flow Through Model Structures,” Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 26(5), pp. 1091–1092. [CrossRef]
Brown, S. G. R. , Spittle, J. A. , Jarvis, D. J. , and Walden-Bevan, R. , 2002, “ Numerical Determination of Liquid Flow Permeabilities for Equiaxed Dendritic Structures,” Acta Mater., 50(6), pp. 1559–1569. [CrossRef]
Drummond, J. E. , and Tahir, M. I. , 1984, “ Laminar Viscous Flow Through Regular Arrays of Parallel Solid Cylinders,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 10(5), pp. 515–540. [CrossRef]
Ganesan, S. , Chan, C. L. , and Poirier, D. R. , 1992, “ Permeability for Flow Parallel to Primary Dendrite Arms,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 151(1), pp. 97–105. [CrossRef]
Krane, M. J. M. , and Vušanović, I. , 2009, “ Macrosegregation in Horizontal Direct Chill Casting of Aluminium Slabs,” Mater. Sci. Technol., 25(1), pp. 102–107. [CrossRef]
Ares, A. E. , Gueijman, S. F. , and Schvezov, C. E. , 2010, “ An Experimental Investigation of the Columnar-to-Equiaxed Grain Transition in Aluminum–Copper Hypoeutectic and Eutectic Alloys,” J. Cryst. Growth, 312(14), pp. 2154–2170. [CrossRef]
Bennon, W. D. , and Incropera, F. D. , 1987, “ A Continuum Model for Momentum, Heat and Species Transport in Binary Solid-Liquid Phase Change Systems—I. Model Formulation,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 10, pp. 2161–2170. [CrossRef]
Patankar, S. V. , 1980, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, DC.
Iberall, A. S. , 1950, “ Permeability of Glass Wool and Other Highly Porous Media,” J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand., 45(5), pp. 398–406. [CrossRef]
Thevik, H. J. , and Mo, A. , 1997, “ The Influence of Micro-Scale Solute Diffusion and Dendrite Coarsening Upon Surface Macrosegregation,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 40(9), pp. 2055–2065. [CrossRef]
Fezi, K. , Plotkowski, A. , and Krane, M. J. M. , 2016, “ Macrosegregation Modeling During Direct Chill Casting of Aluminum Alloy 7050,” Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A: Appl., 70(9), pp. 939–963. [CrossRef]
Krane, M. J. M. , and Incropera, F. P. , 1995, “ Analysis of the Effect of Shrinkage on Macrosegregation in Alloy Solidification,” Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 26(9), pp. 2329–2339. [CrossRef]
Fezi, K. , and Krane, M. J. M. , 2016, “ Uncertainty Quantification in Modelling Equiaxed Alloy Solidification,” Int. J. Cast Met. Res., 30(1), pp. 34–49. [CrossRef]
Fezi, K. , Plotkowski, A. , and Krane, M. J. M. , 2016, “ A Metric for the Quantification of Macrosegregation During Alloy Solidification,” Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 47(6), pp. 2940–2951. [CrossRef]
Fezi, K. , 2016, “ Modeling Transport Phenomena and Uncertainty Quantification in Solidification Processes,” Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Melo, M. L. N. M. , Rizzo, E. M. S. , and Santos, R. G. , 2005, “ Predicting Dendrite Arm Spacing and Their Effect on Microporosity Formation in Directionally Solidified Al–Cu Alloy,” J. Mater. Sci., 40(7), pp. 1599–1609. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the numerical domain showing the dimensions and thermal boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Mushy zone permeability as a function of secondary dendrite arm spacing and fraction solid showing (a) three different permeability functions and (b) normalized permeability as a function of solid fraction [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Composition distributions of a statically cast Al–4.5 wt % alloy showing (a) the distribution as volume fraction of the ingot and (b) volume distribution function with a Weibull distribution fit and the composition specifications superimposed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Contour plots of the Cu distribution, showing counterclockwise rotating liquid flow (streamlines are thin black lines) and the mushy zone (solidus and liquidus are bold lines) at (a) 100 s, (b) 500 s, (c) 1000 s, (d) 1300 s, and (e) 1430 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Final composition fields predicted with the three permeability models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Composition distributions of three permeability models plotted with the fit of the Weibull function and compositional specifications

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Secondary dendrite arm spacing measurements showing (a) uncertainty in experimental measurements (data taken from Fig. 8 in Ref. [32]) and (b) input SDAS uncertainty

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Predictions of volume fraction out of the compositional specification, from three different permeability models showing (a) the resulting uncertainty in the model predictions due to dendrite arm spacing uncertainty and (b) model predictions with the resulting surrogate model overlaid. The RMSE for each surrogate fit to the model predictions is 0.68% for KI, 4.34% for KII, and 1.66% for KIII.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Normalized Weibull deviation predictions from three different permeability models showing (a) predicted uncertainty distributions and (b) WCu surrogate models. The RMSEs for surrogate model fits are 0.58% for KI, 2.57% for KII, and 3.71% for KIII.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Surrogate models for each output of interest for the three different input uncertainty levels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Model outputs of interest predictions from three different input levels of uncertainty showing probability density functions of (a) the normalized Weibull deviation, (b) the volume fraction outside the composition specification range, and (c) the total solidification time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Mean OOI sensitivities (μ*) to the uncertain inputs for case B1. The error bars are ±2σ.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Plot of the solutal and thermal buoyancy contributions for equilibrium solidification of Al–4.5 wt % Cu

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Probability density functions of the model outputs comparing the four different input uncertainty levels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Uncertainty in model predictions of the OOI for cases B1–B4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Plots of the outputs of interest sensitivities to the uncertain inputs showing μ* as the height of each bar and 2σ* are the error bars

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Probability density functions of the model outputs for uncertain material properties, dendrite arm spacing, and heat transfer coefficient

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In