Two finite element level-set (FE-LS) formulations are compared for the modeling of grain growth of 316L stainless steel in terms of grain size, mean values, and histograms. Two kinds of microstructures are considered: some are generated statistically from EBSD maps, and the others are generated by the immersion of EBSD data in the FE formulation. Grain boundary (GB) mobility is heterogeneously defined as a function of the GB disorientation. On the other hand, GB energy is considered as heterogeneous or anisotropic, which are, respectively, defined as a function of the disorientation and both the GB misorientation and the GB inclination. In terms of mean grain size value and grain size distribution (GSD), both formulations provide similar responses. However, the anisotropic formulation better respects the experimental disorientation distribution function (DDF) and predicts more realistic grain morphologies. It was also found that the heterogeneous GB mobility described with a sigmoidal function only affects the DDF and the morphology of grains. Thus, a slower evolution of twin boundaries (TBs) is perceived.
Keywords: 316L; anisotropic energy; anisotropic grain growth; finite element method; grain boundary energy; grain boundary mobility; heterogeneous grain growth; heterogeneous mobility; level-set method; stainless steel.