ISIJ International, Vol. 44 (2004), No. 10, pp.

1661–1668

Equations for the Calculation of the Thermo-physical Properties

of Stainless Steel

Kenneth C. MILLS, Yuchu SU, Zushu LI and Robert F. BROOKS1)

Department of Materials, Imperial College, London, SW7 2BP, UK. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected] 1) National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, TW11 OLW, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
(Received on May 6, 2004; accepted in final form on July 8, 2004 )

Equations have been derived to calculate values of the thermophysical properties of all stainless steels for
temperatures between 300 and 1 800 K (austenitic 3 series, ferritic-4 series and precipitation-hardened 6-se-
ries alloys). Values of the following properties are given in both figures and tables: density (r ), thermal ex-
pansion coefficient (a ), heat capacity (Cp), enthalpy (HT
H298), thermal conductivity (l ) and thermal diffusivi-
ty (a), electrical resistivity (R), viscosity (h ) and surface tension (g ).
KEY WORDS: stainless steels; thermo-physical properties; density; surface tension; viscosity; heat capaci-
ty; enthalpy; thermal and electrical conductivity.

sequently, in these cases, it is not always possible to give

1. Introdction
one equation to cover all the properties for all types of
Stainless steels play an important part in modern living stainless steel.
since they have good corrosion resistance and a pleasing Thermal and electrical conductivity (or resistivity) values
appearance. There are several types of stainless steel (typi- are affected by the microstructure of the solid sample which
cal compositions are given in Table 1): is, in turn, dependent upon the heat treatment and the cold
– 3 series contain Cr and Ni and usually contain Mo; they work given to the alloy. In these cases the thermal conduc-
have a metastable, austenitic structure tivity and electrical resistivity refer to samples with the
– 4 series contain Cr (but no Ni since this stabilises the maximum conductivity or minimum resistance. Property
austenite) and have a ferritic structure but martensitic values based on the various recommended equations are
phases can be formed in some cases (e.g. 410) when oil- given at the end of the paper in Tables 3 and 4.
quenched or air-cooled The liquidus temperatures, Tliq, of the various types of
– 6-series are precipitation-hardened alloys and tend to stainless steels were estimated using the coefficients recom-
contain Cr and Ni in lower amounts mended by Howe.4) The calculated values are shown in
Mathematical modelling has become an established tool Table 1. It has been assumed in Table 3 that liquidus tem-
for improving process control and product quality. How- perature of 3- and 6-series alloys occurs at 1 723 K and for
ever, it has been shown that accurate thermophysical prop- 4-series alloys at 1 773 K.
erty data are needed for reliable predictions of defects1) or
improved product quality (e.g. Weld profiles in TIG/GTA
2. Density (r ), Thermal Expansion Coefficient (a )
welding2,3)). This study seeks to provide reliable thermo-
physical property data for all types of stainless steels. 2.1. Database
The principal objective of this work was to establish Thermal expansion data have been reported by Bogaard
equations which provide reliable values for thermo-physical et al.5) for austenitic 304 steel and ferritic 430 stainless
properties for the full range of stainless steels. The general
approach adopted here makes use of fact that the thermo- Table 1. Typical chemical compositions (in mass%) of exam-
physical properties of Fe, Cr and Ni are very similar; thus ples of 3-, 4-series and 6-series stainless steels and
calculated liquidus temperatures.
differences in Ni% and Cr% in different stainless steels do
not have a significant effect on the property value.
It should be noted that ferritic and martensitic (i.e. 4-se-
ries alloys) undergo a magnetic transition and subsequently
transform to austenite. The values of properties, such as
density and enthalpy, are little affected by these transitions
but their temperature coefficients, i.e. heat capacity (Cp)
and thermal expansion coefficient (a ), respectively, along
with the thermal diffusivity do vary appreciably. Con-

1661 © 2004 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 44 (2004), No. 10

steels. Density data for solid 304, 316, 410 and 446 stain-
less steels are cited by Touloukian6) and by Mills7) for 304
and 316. Density data for the liquid 316 alloy have been re-
ported by McCormick and Brooks8) and for 430 by Li et
al.9)
Experimental uncertainties for measurements are proba-
bly 2% for density (r ) and 10% for the linear thermal
expansion coefficient (a ).
2.2. Analysis of Data
• Thermal Expansion Coefficient (a )
Bogaard et al.5) report data which gives the following
equation for austenitic 304 steel:
Fig. 1. Thermal expansion coefficient of stainless steels as a
a (K
1)15.80.610
2(T
298) .............(1) function of temperature.

As can be seen from Fig. 1, at temperatures below

1 000 K, the ferritic phase (in 430) has a lower a than that
for austenite (in 304); above 1 000 K the austenite formed
results in a higher a value.5) Thus the thermal expansion
for ferritic alloys can be calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3).
T(298
1 000 K)
a (K
1)10.20.610
2(T
298 K) ..........(2)
T(1 000
1 700 K)
a (K
1)14.22.410
2(T
1 000 K) .......(3)
• Densities (r )
Densities were first calculated by assuming that the fol-
lowing equation applied:
Fig. 2. Density of solid stainless steels as a function of tempera-
ρ ∑ x1ρ1  x2 ρ2  x3 ρ3 ....................(4) ture.

where xmole fraction and that 1, 2, 3 etc. refer to different

metallic components. In actual fact this relation is more
correct when using the molar volume, V, than for density,
r , but the errors associated with the above assumption are
small.
Numerical analysis of the experimental density data gave
the following equations:
Solid:
r T((79.6%Fe)(78.3%Cr)(85.4%Ni)(76.9%Mn)
(60.2%Mo)(47.1%Si))
0.5(T
298 K)
...........................................(5)
Liquid:
Fig. 3. Density of liquid stainless steels as a function of temper-
r T(69.4%Fe)(66.3%Cr)(71.4%Ni)(57.2%Mn) ature.
(51.5%Mo)(49.3%Si))
0.86(T
1 823 K)
...........................................(6) 1 900 K. Vinet10) has reported a value of r 6 980 kg · m
3
Equation (5) makes use of an average value for a ; more for 316L at Tliq which is about 1% higher than the values
exact values can be obtained by removing the calculated from Eq. (6), but lies within the band of experi-

0.5(T
298 K) term from Eq. (5) and dividing the remain- mental uncertainty.
der of the equation by (13a (T
298 K)) where a can be
calculated by Eq. (1) for austenitic alloys and by Eqs. (2) 3. Heat Capacity (Cp), Enthalpy (HT
H298)
and (3) for ferritic alloys. However, values calculated using
Eq. (5) with this procedure were found to lie within 0.5% 3.1. Database
of those calculated by the more rigorous treatment. Heat capacity data for 304 and 316 stainless steels have
The calculated densities are in good agreement with the been reported by Bogaard et al.5) and by Mills.7) The exper-
experimental values (Fig. 2). It should be noted that the val- imental uncertainty is probably about 2% at temperatures
ues were calculated using Eq. (5). The liquid density values below 1 000 K and 5% at temperatures in the range 1 000
for 4-series alloys shown in Fig. 3 and Table 3(b) may be to 1 700 K. Ferritic alloys exhibit a magnetic transforma-
very slightly low for temperatures between 1 723 and tion6) leading to a peak in the Cp around 1 000 K as can be

© 2004 ISIJ 1662

 ISIJ International, Vol. 44 (2004), No. 10

tend to vary. However, the enthalpy, (HT
H298) values are

little affected and apply reasonably well to both ferritic and
austenitic alloys. Values for the liquid were derived from
the experimental values reported by Chapman et al.12,7)
The entropy of fusion, DS fus for the steel can be estimat-
ed from values of DS fus for different elements using a simi-
lar relation to that in Eq. (4).
3.3. Results and Discussion
Solid:
Cp (J K
1 kg
1)47213.610
2T
2.82106/T 2 ...(10)
(HT
H298) (J kg
1)472T6.810
2T 2
2.82106/T
156 000 ...(11)
Fig. 4. Heat capacity of stainless steel as a function of tempera-
ture. Liquid:
Cp80050 J K
1 kg
1 ....................(12)
DS fusDH fus/Tliq160 J K
1 kg
1 ............(13)
It can be seen from the results shown in Figs. 4 and 5 that
there is good agreement between the values calculated with
Eqs. (10) to (13). The uncertainty associated with the calcu-
lation of Cp and (HT
H298) is probably less than 5%.

4. Thermal Conductivity (l )
Thermal conductivity data for most solid alloys are sensi-
tive to the microstructure. Consequently, these values are,
in turn, dependent upon the thermal and mechanical histo-
Fig. 5. Enthalpy (HT
H298) of stainless steel as a function of ries of the samples. These effects are relatively small in the
temperature. case of stainless steels because of their relatively low ther-
mal conductivities (cf. Al alloys, where it can make a sig-
seen from Fig. 4; the peak Cp value and the temperature of nificant difference).
the peak (Tpeak) show some deviation in the values collected
by Touloukian.6) The values shown in Fig. 5 were selected 4.1. Database
because they had the same Tpeak as Tmin in the thermal diffu- Thermal conductivities have been reported by the follow-
sivity data for ferritic steels. ing: Bogaard et al.5) for alloys, 304, 321 and 430; Chu and
Ho13) for 410 and 430; Bogaard14) for 3-series and 631 and
3.2. Analysis of Data
Mills7) for alloys 304 and 316. The values cited below re-
The temperature dependencies of Cp and enthalpy late to the maximum thermal conductivity. Values for the
(HT
H298) are usually expressed in the form of Eqs. (7) and liquid phase are based on those reported by Mills.7)
(8), respectively. Kopp’s Rule is found to apply well for al-
loys and the constants a, b, c, can be estimated reason- 4.2. Analysis of Data
ably accurately from relations such as Eq. (9)11); the sub- 4.2.1. Method 1
script ss refers to the stainless steel. The thermal conductivity contains contributions from
both lattice and electronic conductivities (Eq. (14)) and the
CpabT
c/T 2 .......................... (7)
electronic conductivity at 300 K can be calculated from the
(HT
H298)a(T)(b/2)T 2c/T
1
d .........(8) electrical resistivity, R by use of the Wiedemann–Franz–
Lorenz relation (Eq. (15)) where Lo is constant with a value
where da(298)(b/2)2982c/298
of 2.44510
5.
ass′  ∑ x a′  x a′  x a′  ..................(9)
1 1 2 2 3 3 l 300l el300l lat
300 ..........................(14)

where x is mole fraction and subscripts 1, 2, 3 etc. represent LoT

λel300  106 ..........................(15)
the different elements in the steel, respectively. Values of Cp R300
estimated in this way tend to be ca. 2–3% lower than
experimental values at temperatures below 800 K but agree The resistivity, R300 can be calculated from Eq. (16) using
well at higher temperatures. Consequently, the Cp and the values given in Table 2 due to Mills et al.11) The unit of
(HT
H298) values for austenitic 3-series alloys, given in R300 is 10
6 W m
1
Eqs. (7) to (9), were derived from a best fit of the experi-
mental Cp–T relations. It is difficult to derive a relation for
the Cp of ferritic alloys between 500 and 1 100 K because
R300  (1 / 100) ∑ (wt%R 300 )1  ( wt% R300 )2

both the magnitude of Cp and the temperature of the peak  ( wt% R300 )3  . . . ...................................(16)

1663 © 2004 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 44 (2004), No. 10

Table 2. Coefficients used in the calculation of thermal conductivity.11)

where subscripts 1, 2, 3 refer to Fe, Cr, Ni etc.

The lattice conductivities (l lat
300) can be calculated in a
similar manner using Eq. (17) and the values given in Table
2 due to Mills et al.11)

λlat
300  (1 / 100) ∑ (wt% ⋅ λ 300 )1  ( wt% ⋅ λ 300 )2

 ( wt% ⋅ λ300 )3 ...........................................(17)

The thermal conductivity of the alloy at 300 K is then cal-
culated using Eq. (14).
The thermal conductivity–temperature relation was con-
structed by joining l 300 to the following values: 27.6
W m
1 K
1 at 1 273 K, 30.2 W m
1 K
1 at 1 473 K and 32.8
W m
1 K
1 at 1 673 K. Fig. 6. Thermal conductivity as a function of temperature for 3-
series stainless steels (systems 304 and 316).
Experimental thermal conductivity values for both 3- and
4-series stainless steels are similar at high temperatures
(1 100 K), therefore an average value at each temperature
has been used.
4.2.2. Method 2
Equation (18) is a “best fit” equation for the experimen-
tal l data for austenitic 3-series alloys as a function of tem-
perature.
l (W m
1 K
1)9.20.0175T
210
6 T 2 ....(18)
In the case of 4 series alloys there are appreciable differ-
ences between the values reported for alloys 410 and 430.
Consequently, mean values were used in deriving a ‘best fit’
equation
Ferritic: Below 1 100 K Fig. 7. Thermal conductivity as a function of temperature for 4-
series stainless steels (systems 430 and 410).
l (W m
1 K
1)23.50.0016(T
300 K) ......(19)
All alloys above 1 100 K 5.1. Database

1
1
2
l (W m K )25.4 1.310 (T
1 100 K) .....(20) Thermal diffusivity values have been reported for 304 by
Bogaard et al.,5) Monaghan15) and Szelagowski16) (as re-
4.3. Results and Discussion
ported by Mills7)) and by Seetharaman.17) Thermal diffusiv-
The results show that the differences between experimen- ities can be calculated by al /r · Cp but are frequently
tal and calculated values are within 5%, for the 3-series al- measured directly (with the laser pulse method). The mea-
loys and for the alloy 410 but are more than 10% divergent surements of thermal diffusivities of ferritic steels go
for 430. It can be seen from Figs. 6 and 7 that the thermal through a minimum around 1 000 K (al /Cpr ): this corre-
conductivities of ferritic, 4-series alloys are higher than sponds to the peak in the Cp–T relation. Touloukian6) has
those for austenitic 3-series alloys. reported thermal diffusivity values for 403, 410, 416, 420
and 430 alloys, all of which exhibit a minimum value
5. Thermal Diffusivity (a) around 970 K.
Thermal diffusivities for the solid state, like thermal con- 5.2. Results and Discussion
ductivities, are dependent upon the microstructure and are The thermal diffusivity values shown in Figs. 8 and 9
thus influenced by the thermal and mechanical history of refer to austenitic, 3-series and to ferritic, 4-series alloys,
the sample. Furthermore, thermal diffusivity values for fer- respectively, these were calculated from the recommended
ritic alloys are influenced by the magnetic transition values of l , Cp, and r . In Fig. 8 calculated values for 3 se-
(al /r Cp). Values for the liquid were derived from values ries alloys are compared with the experimental values re-
of thermal conductivity. ported by Mills7) and by Seetharaman.17) It can be seen that
the calculated values are within 10% of the experimental

© 2004 ISIJ 1664

 ISIJ International, Vol. 44 (2004), No. 10

Fig. 10. Electrical resistivity of stainless steels as a function of

Fig. 8. Thermal diffusivity as a function of temperature for
temperature.
austenitic, 3- series stainless steels.

Fig. 9. Thermal diffusivity as a function of temperature for fer-

ritic, 4-series stainlesss steels.

Fig. 11. Soluble Oxygen (O%) as a function of M% for Fe–M–O

values. The values for 4-series, ferritic alloys shown in Fig.
systems.3)
9 indicate that the calculated values are very sensitive to the
Cp values used in the region of the magnetic transition.
Nevertheless, the calculated values lie within 10% of ex- Austenitic (3-, 6-series)
perimental values for 4 series alloys. R (10
8 W m
1)51.98.610
2T
2.3510
5T 2
.........................................(21)
6. Electrical Resistivity (R) Ferritic (4 series)
6.1. Database R (10
8 W m
1)23.812.910
2T
4.1710
5T 2
Electrical resistivity (R) data have been reported by .........................................(22)
Bogaard et al.5) for alloys 303, 304, 316, 317, 321, 347 and
410 and 430 and for alloys 316, 631 and 660 by Ho et al.13) It can be seen from Fig. 10 that there is good agreement be-
The electrical resistivity is dependent upon the microstruc- tween the values calculated with Eqs. (21) and (22) and the
ture and hence the thermal and mechanical histories of the experimental data. Values calculated via Eq. (16) and Table
sample; the equations relate to samples with the lowest re- 2 vary by5% from the experimental values.
sistivity.
6.2. Analysis of Data 7. Surface Tension (g )
The electrical resistivity (R) data were assumed to have a The surface tensions of alloys are very dependent upon
similar temperature dependence to that of the enthalpy, the levels of soluble oxygen and sulphur (denoted O and S).
namely, RabTcT 2. Thus “best fit” equations in this The soluble O is also dependent upon the Al content of the
form were derived from the mean experimental data5) for metal (see Fe–Al–O curve in Fig. 113)). Although the Al
304, 316 and 410 and 430 alloys. contents of stainless steels are usually quite low, they are
sufficiently high in most cases to keep the O content con-
6.3. Results and Discussion
stant at a level of about 5 ppm. Thus the surface tension is
The electrical resistivities of the ferritic (4 series) alloys primarily dependent upon the S content of the steel.
at temperatures below 1 000 K are lower than those of the
austenitic (3 series) and 6-series alloys. Best fit expressions 7.1. Database
for R (10
8 W m
1): Surface tension data have been reported for alloys 304

1665 © 2004 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 44 (2004), No. 10

Fig. 12. Surface tension at 1 973 K as a function of activity of S, (aS0.68 wt% S). (a) 304 stainless steel at 1 973 K and
(b) 430 stainless steel at 1 835 K.

and 316 as functions of temperature and sulphur content by

Brooks et al.18) and for alloy 430 by Li et al.9) The experi-
mental uncertainty associated with the surface tension mea-
surements is probably around 3%.
7.2. Analysis of Data
The method has been described in more detail else-
where.19) The method assumes that:
(a) The differing Cr and Ni contents of the various
stainless steels have little effect on the surface tension of
the pure metal, g pure (i.e. with zero O or S content) since the
surface tensions of Fe, Cr and Ni are all very similar. The
following equation was adopted for the “pure” metal.
Fig. 13. The temperature dependence (dg /dT) as function of sul-
g pure (mN m
1)1 840
0.4(T
1 823 K) ........(23) phur content at 1 925 K.
(b) The soluble O is fixed at 5 ppm by the Al content of
the steel and thus variations in temperature are dependent 7.3. Results and Discussion
only on the S content and temperature.
The following equations were derived
(c) The effect of S on the surface tension had the form
(first proposed by Belton20)) g 1 840
0.4(T
1 823)
g pure
g ssR*TG s ln(1KSaS) ...............(24)
0.056T ln{1e(28 798/T
8.5647)(0.68wt%S} ......(26)
where R*Gas constant, G ssurface excess concentration, dγ  28 798(1
B) 

0.4
0.056   ln B .....(27)
KSequilibrium constant for the absorption of S on the dT  BT 
metal and aSactivity coefficient of S in Fe (0.68 wt%
S19)). where B1e (28798/T
8.5647) (0.68wt%S).
The following procedures were employed to analyse the The surface tension values calculated with Eqs. (26) and
data reported by Brooks et al.18) and Li et al.9) (27) are compared with the experimental values reported by
(i) G s was determined from the limiting slope of the plot Li et al.9) and by Brooks et al.18) in Figs. 12(a) and 12(b),
of the surface tension of steel against ln aS (i.e. the respectively. It can be seen that calculated values are in
values at higher S contents where the surface is satu- good agreement and also with the value reported by
rated with S were adopted). Seetharaman et al.17) (Calculated g 1 793 mN m
1 com-
(ii) A mean value for G s was derived from values calcu- pared with a measured value of 1 790 mN m
1 at 1 866 K.)
lated from the surface tension data due to Li et al.9) The calculated values are within 3% of the experimental re-
and Brooks et al.18) sults. The calculated values for the temperature dependence
(iii) This mean value was used in Eq. (24) to derive values (dg /dT) are compared with those reported by Brooks et
for KS. al.18) and with those calculated by McNallen and Debroy21)
(iv) The temperature dependence of KS was derived by in Fig. 13 and can be seen to provide reasonable values of
plotting the various values of ln KS as a function of (dg /dT).
1/T (ln KSln kSA/T where kSpre-exponential term Calculated values of the surface tension of stainless
and AD absH/R*). steels with different amounts of S are shown as a function
of temperature in Fig. 14 and Table 4.
ln KS(28 798/T)
8.5647 ................ (25)
(v) The temperature dependence (dg /dT) was determined 8. Viscosity (h )
by differentiating the Eq. (26) and is given in Eq.
(27). 8.1. Database
The viscosity values shown in Eq. (28) were obtained by
Brooks et al.22) for a stainless steel (25.6% Cr, 6.5% Ni and

© 2004 ISIJ 1666

 ISIJ International, Vol. 44 (2004), No. 10

4% Mo) using oscillation viscometry. These results were ties of the major components Fe, Cr and Ni are probably
used in this study. The measured values at 1 873 K are high- very similar and the thermodynamics of the Fe–Cr, Fe–Ni
er for the alloy than those for pure Fe (e.g. 6.25 mPa · s cf. systems are close to ideal. However, with commercial al-
5.2 mPa · s for Fe). The uncertainties in the reported mea- loys it has been reported that the presence of non-metallic
surements for pure Fe and other metals are large but recent inclusions can cause an increase in viscosity.26,27)
measurements obtained with oscillation viscometry23–25) Consequently, measurements on commercial materials like
fall within a band of 10% (e.g. h (Fe)5.20.3 mPa · s stainless steels are subject to greater uncertainty and to
and h (Ni)4.10.4 mPa · s at 1 873 K). Thus the viscosi- more variability than those for pure metals.

Fig. 14. Calculated values of surface tension of stainless steel Fig. 15. Viscosities of stainless steel as function of reciprocal
with various S content as a function of temperature. temperature.22)

Table 3. Calculated values of the thermophysical properties of stainless steels—where 2 sets of values are given e.g. 481 (452)—the
first value 481 refers to Cp of the austenitic steel and (452) to Cp of the ferritic-phase steel.

1667 © 2004 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 44 (2004), No. 10

Table 4. Surface tension of stainless steels calculated from 5) R. H. Bogaard, P. Desai, H. H. Li and C. Y. Ho: Thermochim. Acta,
Eqs. (22)–(24) (it has been assumed that the Al con- 218 (1993), 373.
tent is sufficient to keep the soluble O content to 6) Y. S. Touloukian: Thermophysical Properties at High Temperature
5 ppm). Solid Materials, Vol. 3, Ferrous Alloys, McMillan, New York,
(1967), 53.
7) K. C. Mills: Recommended Values of Thermophysical Properties for
Commercial Alloys, Woodhead, Abington, (2002), 134.
8) A. McCormick and R. F. Brooks: MTS Programme on processability
thermophysical property data for commercial alloys measured in
PMP 1, 2, 3, Final Report, NPL, Teddington, Middlesex, UK,
(1996).
8.2. Analysis of Data 9) Z. Li, K. Mukai, M. Zese and K. C. Mills: submitted High Temp.
It was assumed that the viscosities of Fe, Cr and Ni are Capillarity Conf., (2004), to be published in J. Mater. Sci.
very similar. Consequently, the experimental viscosity val- 10) B. Vinet, L. Magnusson, H. Fredriksson and P. J. Desre: J. Colloid
Interface Sci., 255 (2003), 363.
ues for a stainless steel22) given in Eq. (28) will apply to all 11) K. C. Mills, A. P. Day and P. N. Quested: Proc. of Nottingham
stainless steels. Univ.–Osaka Joint Symp., Univ. Nottingham, Nottingham, (1995),
Paper 5, see also Ref. 7), 238.
8.3. Results and Discussion 12) L. Chapman: unpublished results, NPL Teddington, Middlesex, UK,
The results due to Brooks et al.22) can be represented by see also M. J. Richardson et al. cited in Ref. 7).
Eq. (28) and are shown in Fig. 15 13) T. K. Chu and C. Y. Ho: Thermal Conductivity, 15, ed. by V. V.
Mirkovich, Plenum, New York, (1978), 79.
ln h (mPa · s)(
2.3967950/T) .............(28) 14) C. H. Bogaard: Thermal Conductivity 18, ed. by T. Ashworth and D.
R. Smith, Plenum, New York, (1985), 175.
Estimated values derived from the relation due to Hirai et 15) B. J. Monaghan and M. J. D. Waters: Laser flash liquid metal thermal
al.28) are significantly lower than the experimental values. conductivity measurement. NPL Report CMMT (D), 196 NPL,
(e.g. 3.6 cf. 6.25 mPa · s, respectively at 1 873 K). Teddington, Middlesex, UK, (1999).
16) H. Szelagowski: Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Material Science, UMIST,
Manchester. (1999).
9. Summary 17) S. Seetharaman: results cited in Thermolab Final Report to European
Space Agency MAP Contract Number AO-99-022, ed. by H. J. Fecht
The calculated values of the thermphysical properties of and R. K. Wunderlich, Europ. Space Agency, Noordwijk, NL,
the solid and liquid phases are given in Tables 3(a) and 3(b) (2003), 89.
respectively. The calculated values for the surface tension 18) R. F. Brooks and K. C. Mills: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, A178 (1994), 77.
19) Y. Su, Z. Li and K. C. Mills: to be published J. Mater. Sci., (2004).
for various temperatures and S contents are given in Table 20) G. R. Belton: Metall Trans. B, 7B (1976), 35.
4. 21) M. S. McNallan and T. Debroy: Metall Trans. B, 22B (1991), 557.
22) R. F. Brooks: Results given in Thermolab Final Report; Phase 1 ed.
Acknowledgements by R. Wunderlich and H. Fecht, Europ. Space Agency, Noordwijk,
The authors would like to acknowledge the fruitful dis- NL, (2003), 102.
cussions held with Dr. Peter Quested (NPL, Teddington), 23) R. F. Brooks: Unpublished results on the viscosity of iron, National
Dr Seshadri Seetharaman (KTH, Stockholm) and Rajil Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, UK, (2004).
24) Y. Sato, T. Nishizuka, T. Takamizawa, K. Sugisawa and T. Yama-
Saraswat (Dept. Materials, Imperial College London). mura: ECTP Sixteenth European Conf. on Thermophysical Proper-
ties at Imperial College, NPL, Teddington, Middlesex, (2002), 272.
25) D. Wang and R. A. Overfeldt: Int. J. Thermophys., 23 (2002), 1063.
REFERENCES
26) Arkharov, G. S. Yerohov and I. A. Novokhatsky: Phys. Met.
1) S. Oxley, P. N. Quested and K. C. Mills: Proc. AVS Conf., Amer. Metallurgy, 31 (1971), 217.
Vac. Soc., New York, (1999), 49. 27) A. T. Dinsdale and P. N. Quested: LMPC 2003 Proc. of the 2003 Int.
2) C. A. Heiple and J. P. Roper: Weld. J., 61 (2002), 915s. Symp. on Liquid Metal Processing and Casting, ed. by P. D. Lee, A.
3) K. C. Mills and B. J. Keene: Int. Mater. Rev., 35 (1990), 185. Mitchell, J. P. Bellot and A. Jardy, SF2M, Paris, (2003), 241.
4) A. A. Howe: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 15 (1988), 134. 28) M. Hirai: ISIJ Int., 33 (1993), 281.

© 2004 ISIJ 1668