Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
It is well known that martensitic transformation can be
triggered above the martensite start temperature by
deformation of the austenite. When the applied stress is
below the yield strength of the austenite, the transformation is said to be stress assisted, and the influence of
the stress can be described in terms of a mechanical
driving force DGMECH, which adds to any chemical free
energy change due to transformation1
DGMECH ~sN dzts
(1)
366
2011
VOL
27
NO
Das et al.
Method
Experimental data were collected from the published
literature on strain induced martensitic transformation
in a variety of austenitic stainless steels tested in
tension.1327 The ranges of the various parameters in
the dataset are listed in Table 1; the martensite start
temperatures MS in the absence of deformation were in
each case calculated as a function of the chemical
composition, using an empirical relation published
specifically for stainless steels;28 however, the equation
does not include niobium, titanium and cobalt, which
therefore had to be neglected in the calculation of the
start temperature.
Stress versus plastic strain curves were used to convert
strain data in plots of volume fraction of martensite V a
versus plastic strain, into a tensile stress that was then
used to estimate the mechanical driving force, which is
equal to 20?86 J mol21 MPa21.29 The stressstrain
curves were available in the published work on strain
induced martensite.1327 The total driving force DGT is
the sum of the mechanical and chemical terms, where the
latter was calculated using the MTDATA thermodynamic software in combination with the TCFE database.30 Plots of the kind illustrated schematically in
Fig. 1 were then used to calculate the stress affected
martensite start temperature MSs .
The Koistinen and Marburger equation31 gives the
volume fraction of martensite as a function of undercooling below the martensite start temperature as
1{V a ~ exp {0:011(MSs {Tq ) provided that
(2)
MS wTq w{800 C
where MSs has been substituted for MS to deal with stress
induced transformation, and Tq refers to the lowest
temperature at which the martensite was generated. It
was thus possible to calculate the volume fraction of
martensite expected for any steel, applied stress and
temperature.
change
Carbon, wt-%
Manganese, wt-%
Chromium, wt-%
Nickel, wt-%
Molybdenum, wt-%
Nitrogen, wt-%
Copper, wt-%
Strain rate, s21
Tq, uC
Grain size, mm
True stress, MPa
True strain
MS, uC
V a
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Standard deviation
0.10
6.46
18.58
11.84
2.03
0.17
0.46
200
100
180
1728
0.65
0.2
0.92
0.02
0.42
16.19
4.12
0
0
0
0.0001
280
5.9
322
0.02
2175
0.01
0.06
1.32
18.05
8.17
0.18
0.04
0.18
6.02
21.25
28
949
0.30
279
0.31
0.03
0.43
0.37
0.61
0.17
0.03
0.12
33
37.7
22
237
0.13
36
0.22
2011
VOL
27
NO
367
Das et al.
(a)
(b)
2 a comparison between measured and calculated martensite fractions for 301, 304L, 304, 305 and 316L stainless steels
(experimental techniques used to measure V a included X-ray diffraction and magnetic methods) and b same but only
plotting data from X-ray determinations
Empirical analysis
The entire data were subjected to neural network
analysis as another method of deciphering the independent roles of stress and strain in stimulating martensitic
transformation when both are applied simultaneously in
experiments. The method used here is in a Bayesian
framework and has been comprehensively described42,43
and reviewed4446 so it is not introduced here. Suffice it
to say that it is the ultimate tool for non-linear
regression, and its predictions are associated not only
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
a illustrating accuracy with which model replicates all of available measured martensite fractions; b isolated effect of true
plastic strain on calculated fraction of martensite for specific set of inputs; c isolated effect of true stress on calculated
fraction of martensite for same specific set of inputs
3 Neural network analysis for estimation of stress or strain induced martensite for data listed in Table 2: error bars
represent 1s modelling uncertainties
368
2011
VOL
27
NO
Das et al.
Carbon, wt-%
Manganese, wt-%
Chromium, wt-%
Nickel, wt-%
Molybdenum, wt-%
Nitrogen, wt-%
Copper, wt-%
Niobium, wt-%
Titanium, wt-%
Cobalt, wt-%
Strain rate, s21
Tq, uC
Grain size, mm
True stress, MPa
True strain
V a
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Standard deviation
Example
0.10
8.92
18.58
13.53
2.53
0.24
0.70
0.11
0.67
0.20
200
200
200
1951
0.65
1.00
0.007
0.42
15.40
2.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0001
2196
5.9
14
0.0
0.00
0.05
1.76
17.78
8.03
0.31
0.05
0.16
0.006
0.01
0.04
6.44
21.5
29
848
0.25
0.22
0.03
1.61
0.68
1.59
0.53
0.05
0.15
0.016
0.08
0.07
35
67
28
283
0.14
0.24
0.028
1.32
18.13
8.32
0.15
0.044
0.26
0.015
0.01
0.1
1.2561024
24
24
*The column marked Example is a specific case used to generate Fig. 3b and c.
with an average measure of scatter (reflecting uncontrolled variables) but, more importantly in the present
context, also a modelling uncertainty which describes
the ambiguity with which different empirical models can
express the same data.
The dataset used to create the model was more
extensive (,1600 rows)1327,4757 than in the thermodynamic analysis. This is because many of the data do
not satisfy the condition listed in equation (2) that
MS.Tq.280uC. Since the calculated martensite start
temperature is not used in the neural network model, a
much larger set becomes available.
The neural network model was created as a function
of all the variables listed in Table 2, with the exception
of the volume fraction of martensite, which was its
output. Figure 3a shows that the model created is able
to reasonably estimate the martensite fraction for all the
available data.
Figure 3b and c shows predictions made for a specific
304 stainless steel. The remarkable result is that the role
of stress is convincingly revealed, whereas the independent effect of strain is seen to be minor and more
uncertain. These results confirm the earlier conclusion
that in experiments where martensite is stimulated
during a tensile test, it is the mechanical driving force
which plays a dominant role rather than strain induced
transformation.
Conclusions
It appears that the major part of the variation in
martensite fraction during the tensile deformation of
austenitic stainless steels can be attributed to the fact
that the stress adds to the driving force for martensitic
transformation. An empirical analysis of a wide range of
data supports the predominant role of stress over plastic
strain.
A simple model based on classical theory1,31 can be used
to estimate quantitatively the fraction of martensite as
long as the stress versus plastic strain relationship, the MS
temperature and the dependence of chemical free energy
on temperature are known. This can be done without
using any fitting parameters. The influence of strain rate is
implicitly included through its effect on the stressstrain
relationship and provided that the temperature is maintained constant during the course of deformation.
Acknowledgements
Arpan Das is grateful to the Ministry of Science &
Technology, Department of Science & Technology,
Government of India for the BOYSCAST Fellowship.
The authors are grateful to Professor A. L. Greer for the
provision of laboratory facilities at the University of
Cambridge.
References
1. J. R. Patel and M. Cohen: Criterion for the action of applied stress
in the martensitic transformation, Acta Metall., 1953, 1, 531538.
2. G. B. Olson and M. Cohen: Kinetics of strain-induced martensitic
transformation, Metall. Trans. A, 1975, 6A, 791795.
3. G. B. Olson: Transformation plasticity and the stability of plastic
flow, in Deformation, processing and structure, 390424; 1982,
Metals Park, OH, American Society for Metals.
4. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: An aspect of the nucleation of burst
martensite in steels, J. Mater. Sci., 1982, 17, 383386.
5. M. Mukherjee, S. B. Singh and O. N. Mohanty: Deformationinduced transformation of retained austenite in transformation
induced plasticity-aided steels: a thermodynamic model, Metall.
Mater. Trans. A, 2008, 39A, 23192328.
6. J. C. Bokros and E. R. Parker: The mechanism of the martensite
burst transformation in FeNi single crystals, Acta Metall., 1963,
11, 12911301.
7. A. A. Shirzadi, H. Abreu, L. Pocock, D. Klobcar, P. J. Withers and
H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Bainite orientation in plastically deformed
austenite, Int. J. Mater. Res., 2009, 100, 4045.
8. I. Tamura: Deformation induced martensitic transformation and
transformation-induced plasticity in steels, Met. Sci., 1982, 16,
245254.
9. S. Kundu and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Transformation texture in
deformed stainless steel, Scr. Mater., 2006, 55, 779781.
10. S. Chatterjee and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: TRIP-assisted steels:
stress or strain-affected martensitic transformation, Mater. Sci.
Technol., 2007, 23, 11011104.
11. E. S. Perdahcioglu, H. J. M. Geijselaers and M. Groen: Influence
of plastic strain on deformation-induced martensitic transformations, Scr. Mater., 2008, 58, 947950.
12. H. J. M. Geijselaers and E. S. Perdahcioglu: Mechanically induced
martensitic transformation as a stress-driven process, Scr. Mater.,
2009, 60, 2931.
13. T. Angel: Formation of martensite in austenitic stainless steel, J.
Iron Steel Inst., 1954, 181, 165174.
14. S. S. Hecker, M. G. Stout, K. P. Staudhammer and J. L. Smith:
Effects of strain state and strain rate on deformation-induced
transformation in 304 stainless steel. Part I magnetic measurements and mechanical behaviour, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1982,
13A, 619626.
15. S. K. Varma, J. Kalyanam, L. E. Murr and V. Srinivas: Effect of
grain size on deformation-induced martensite formation in 304 and
2011
VOL
27
NO
369
Das et al.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
370
2011
VOL
27
NO