Stacking Fault Energy Maps of

FeMnAlCSi Steels: Effect of

Temperature, Grain Size, and
O. A. Zambrano
Research Group of Fatigue and Surfaces (GIFS);
Variations in Compositions
Research Group of Tribology,
A subregular solution thermodynamic model was employed to calculate the stacking fault
Polymers, Powder Metallurgy and
energy (SFE) in FeMnAlCSi steels with contents of carbon 0.21.6 wt.%, manganese
Processing of Solid Waste (TPMR),
135 wt.%, aluminum 110 wt.%, and silicon 0.54 wt.%. Based on these calculations,
Materials Engineering School,
temperature-dependent and composition-dependent diagrams were developed in the men-
Universidad del Valle,
tioned composition range. Also, the effect of the austenite grain size (from 1 to 300 lm)
Cali 760033, Colombia
on SFEs was analyzed. Furthermore, some results of SFE obtained with this model were
e-mail: oscar.zambrano@correounivalle.edu.co
compared with the experimental results reported in the literature. In summary, the pres-
ent model introduces new changes that shows a better correlation with the experimental
results and also allows to expand the ranges of temperatures, compositions, grain sizes,
and also the SFE maps available in the literature to support the design of
FeMnAlCSi steels as a function of the SFE. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4033632]

Keywords: FeMnAlCSi steels, stacking fault energy, subregular solution model,

temperature, grain size

1 Introduction
The high-ductility, strength, and high-strain-hardening rate of
high manganese steels depend on the austenite stability, which
control the facility of deformation-induced martensitic transfor-
mation of austenite (c) into e martensite, a0 martensite, or mechan-
ical twinning. These plasticity mechanisms are termed
transformation-induced plasticity (TRIP) and twinning-induced
plasticity (TWIP), respectively. Besides, an additional plasticity
mechanism has been reported in high manganese steels:
microband-induced plasticity (MBIP). The existence and extend
of these deformation mechanisms are related to the SFE of the
austenite [1], which in turn depends on the chemical composition,
microsegregation of alloying elements (Suzuki effect [2]), temper-
ature, and grain size [36]. In general, the stress-induced c ! e
transformation occurs in steels with SFEs  20 mJ/m2 [7,8], the
deformation twinning has been observed in steels with SFEs
between 20 mJ/m2 and 40 mJ/m2 [8], partial and/or perfect
dislocation gliding above 40 mJ/m2, and predominant MBIP effect
has been reported in steels with SFEs above 60 mJ/m2 [911].
These phenomena are very important to control and design the
properties of the new generation of steels in different applications.
For this reason, the SFE has been recently reported as an impor-
tant parameter of alloy design [1214].
For the aforementioned reasons, the estimation of the SFE has a
great importance in engineering applications and mainly four
techniques have been used to calculate the SFE: transmission
electron microscopy (TEM) through the dislocation-node radius
method [15,16], which is adequate for low-SFE steels [17]; X-ray
diffraction (XRD) methods [18,19], ab initio calculations [20,21],
and thermodynamics-based methods [5,22]. This last method is
extensively used to measure the SFE in manganese steels
Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF
ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 24, 2016;
final manuscript received May 5, 2016; published online July 8, 2016. Assoc. Editor:
Peter W. Chung.
[5,23,24]. In this sense, this study aims to contribute in the estima-
tion of the SFE of FeMnAlCSi steels via a thermodynamic
subregular solution model with improved parameters and analyze
the effect of aluminum additions of 110 Al wt.%, silicon addi-
tions of 0.54 wt.%, austenitic grain sizes of 1300 lm, and tem-
peratures of 300200 K. In this study, the SFE values of 20 mJ/m2
and 40 mJ/m2 were employed as the upper limit for the strain-
induced martensite and TWIP effect, respectively. In summary,
this work expands the SFEs maps available in the literature for
FeMnAlCSi steels as a function of temperature, composition,
and grain size.
2 Thermodynamic Calculation of the SFE
The SFE of face-centered cubic (FCC) alloys (C) is expressed
according to the thermodynamic model proposed by Olson and
Cohen [25]
C 2qDGc!e 2rc=e (1)
where q is the molar surface density, that is, the density of atoms
in a closely packed plane, i.e., {111} planes, in a mole per unit
area, DGc!e is the Gibbs free energy change of c ! e transfor-
mation, and rc=e is the interfacial energy between c=e phases.
The molar surface density (q) is related to the lattice parameter
(a0 ) of the austenite as
4 1
q p 2 (2)
3 ao N
where N is the Avogadros number. The lattice parameter of aus-
tenite is calculated using the composition-dependent equation
determined by Charles et al. [26] for FeMnAlC steels with
compositions of Fe(2040)%Mn(05)%Al(01)%C (which is
more appropriate for this alloy system in comparison to other
composition-dependent equations employed so far in the literature
[5]) and the temperature-dependent [27] equations

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 041010-1
C 2016 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 aoFCC 3:5945 0:00125%Mn  20 0:00594%Al TNc 669:271  exp 5:46vMn  2408vC 1  vMn  vC
0:0272%C (3)  1300vSi  621vAl  256vCr  109 (10)

aoT aoFCC 1 bc T  300 (4)

TNc 250lnvMn  4750vC vMn  222vCu
where (bc is the linear thermal expansion coefficient of austen-  2:6vCr  6:2vAl  13vSi 720 (11)
ite, and (T) is the absolute temperature. Based on the regular solu-
tion model, DGc!e can be calculated using the equation given Nevertheless, Eqs. (10) and (11) do not work well for medium and
below low Mn with high carbon austenitic steels [33]. In this sense, Jin
et al. [33] proposed a new equation (that fits better with 116 dif-
DGc!e DGc!e chem DGc!e mag DGc!e seg DGex (5) ferent austenitic steels) to calculate the TNc values of manganese
austenitic steels as a function of chemical composition (at.%), as
follows:
where (DGc!e chem is the molar thermochemical Gibbs free
energy difference between c and e, (DGc!e mag ) is the contribu- TNc 0:00001v3Mn 0:08984v2Mn 11:76vMn  19:92vC
tion from the magnetic transition energy, (DGex is the excess of
free energy due to the grain size, and (DGc!e seg ) is the free energy  12:72vSi  6:61vAl 152:4 (12)
difference due to the Suzuki effect between c and e. Using as
starting point the approach established by Yang and Wan [28], it Equation (12) was used in the present investigation. The other
is proposed in the current work that the chemical Gibbs free parameters used are expressed by Eqs. (13)(15) [3]
energy difference between c and e phases DGc!e chem ) for the
FeMnAlCSi system is bc
0:7vFe 0:62vMn  0:64vFe vMn  4vC (13)
lb
c!e c!e c!e c!e
DG chem vFe DG Fe vMn DG Mn vAl DG Al
c!e c!e be
vSi DG Si vC DG C vFe vMn DXFeMn 0:62vMn  4vC (14)
lb
vFe vAl DXFeAl vFe vSi DXFeSi vFe vC DXFeC
(6) TNe 580vMn (15)

When it is not desired to analyze the effect of silicon, the terms In Eq. (7), f is a polynomial function that takes the next form [34]
related to Si are zero and the FeMnAlC model is obtained. In if s  1
Eq. (6), v are the mole fractions of each constituent, (DGc!e is (   3 )
the Gibbs free molar energy of each pure element, and DX) is 79s1 474 1 s s9 s15
the interaction parameter between c and e. The magnetic term 1
140p 497 p 6 135 600
(DGc!e mag ) due to Neel transition could be obtained for each f 1 (16)
phase n(c,e) D

DGc!e mag DGe mag  DGc mag (7) if s  1, f is

where DGn mag is the magnetic contribution due to the
orderingdisordering phenomenon, which modifies the Gibbs
energy of the phases and is referred to as the IndenHillertJarl
(IHJ) model [29,30] and is expressed by
! For the both possible f functions, s T=TNn , p 0:28, and
! D  2:3424 for FCC and HCP phases [34]. The term DGc!e
bn T seg in
n
DG mag RTln 1 f ; n c; e (8)
lb TNn
wherein R, T bn , f , TNn ; and lb are the universal constant of
gases, temperature, magnetic moment, polynomial function,
the Neel temperature of the phase n, and the Bohr magneton,
respectively. Different empirical equations to model the TNc as a
function of the chemical composition have been reported. For
instance, Zhang et al. [31] analyzed 38 alloys in the compositional
range of 19.730.73%Mn, 09.77%Al, 0.0311.72%Si, 07.22Cr,
and 0.071.78%C (in at.%) and obtained through regression anal-
ysis in the equation given below
TNc 251:71 6:81Mn  11:51Al  2:72Cr  15:57 Si
 17:40C
However, the study of Huang [32] showed that TNc does not
change linearly with the Mn content. The other expressions for
TNc have been proposed to overcome the aforementioned limita-
tion as have been addressed, for example, by Allain et al. [24]
(Eq. (10)) and Dumay et al. [3] (Eq. (11))
 
s5 s15 s25
f  10 315 1500 (17)
D
Eq. (5) represents the effect when the solute concentration at the
stacking fault differs from the bulk concentration. This term is
neglected in the present investigation due to the following rea-
sons: (i) its values depend on the particular element that needs to
be analyzed, (ii) the total energy contribution due to the Suzuki
effect is expected to be small [35], and (iii) many interaction
parameters are not available in the literature and many simplifica-
tions have to be made to be included in the thermodynamic analy-
sis [22]. However, the interested reader can refer to the work of
Curtze et al. [22], who performed an analysis of the Suzuki effect
(due to the nitrogen content) to the global SFE and the work of
Hickel et al. [36], who performed an analysis of carbon nanodiffu-
sion and its impact on the SFE.
The excess of free energy (DGex ) produced by the austenite
grain size d (lm) is expressed by the equation given below [37]
(see Sec. 3.4 for the discussion of this term)
(9)
 
d
DGex 170:06 exp (18)
18:55
On the other hand, one of the barriers and uncertainties about the
determination of the SFE is related to the interfacial energy
between c=e : In this sense, Lee et al. [38] used ab initio

041010-2 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Thermodynamic functions and parameters used to
estimate the SFE

Parameters Function (K, J mol1) References

DGc!e
Fe 1828.4 4.686 T [8]
DGc!e
Mn 3970  1.6667 T [5] and [7]
DGc!e
Al 5481.04  1.79912 T [41]
DGc!e
Si 560  8 T [3]
DGc!e
Si
a
1800 T [7]
DGc!e
C 22,166 [7] and [24]
DXc!e
FeMn 9135.5 15,282.1XMn(J mol1) [5]
DXc!e
FeAl 3326.28 [28]
DXc!e
FeSi 1780 [7]
DXc!e
FeC 42,500 [7] and [24]
rc=e 10 mJ m2 [5] and [7]
bc 2.065 109 K1 [5]
R 8.314 (J K1 mol1
Fig. 1 Comparison of the calculated SFE values by increasing d 40 lm
manganese content for FeMn0.5 C system in the current work
and in the literature at 300 K a
Thermodynamic function used for Si contents above 3 wt.%.

calculations to determine this value in pure iron, however, the
value obtained was negative and this work should be considered
as a first step to have fundamental understanding of the interfacial
energy between the c=e and further investigations are required to
obtain better values of this parameter. Furthermore, recently
Pierce et al. [23] proposed a parabolic function to overcome this
difficulty (implicitly in function of the chemical composition)
rc=e c2qDGc!e chem DGc!e mag 2 rc=e min (19) the alloy. Thus, in this work, only the relationship between the
where c is a constant to be determined from the fitting of the
experimental values, and rc=e min is equal to 9.5 mJ m2. How-
ever, this relation has not adjusted well with the present experi-
mental results (see Sec. 3.5). In general, the interfacial energy
varies from 5 to 15 mJ m2 [23]. Equation (19) fitted well for
FeMnAlSi (above 20% Mn) and FeMnAlC (low Al content)
alloys. In this research, most of the calculations used a constant
value of 10 mJ m2. However, some specific compositions were
calculated using the interfacial energy value reported by the
author to obtain a better fit of the present model.
For comparison purpose, different thermodynamic functions
and values reported in the literature were used to plot Fig. 1 for
the FeMnC system. The thermodynamic functions reported by
the Scientific Group Thermodata Europe (SGTE) [39] conduct the
negatives values of SFE, which did not correspond with the exper-
imental values of the SFE. However, Xiong et al. [40] and Pierce
et al. [23] reported a good agreement between the SFE calculated
using a broad number of thermodynamic functions of the SGTE
and the SFE obtained experimentally for the FeMnSiC and
FeMnAlSi steels, respectively. This fact is representative of
the current difficulty of establishing an accurate model to repre-
sent the general behavior of the SFE in FeMnAlC steels. In this
sense, modifications and changes have been done to adapt in a bet-
ter way the proposed model to the SFE values reported in the liter-
ature. The main parameters used in this work are summarized in
Table 1.
3 SFE Maps
3.1 Temperature Effect. In general, with the increase of the
temperature the dislocation nodes decrease, i.e., the SFE increases
with temperature. This fact was reported originally by Remy [42]
and Remy et al. [43] through TEM observations, in which the dis-
location nodes decrease as the temperature increases. Recently,
Hickel et al. [36] through ab initio calculations and TEM observa-
tions found the opposite trend using as a start temperature, a cryo-
genic temperature, to study the nanodiffusion effect (Suzuki
segregation) of carbon in the stacking faults. They found with
increasing the test temperature the partial dislocation width
increases, which decreases the SFE. Consequently, according to
this last research, the local SFE changes drastically in comparison
with the SFE obtained from the global chemical composition of
global concentrations of alloying elements and SFE will be con-
sidered, and the local SFE change will be neglected. In this sense,
taking into account the aforementioned restrictions, the effect of
the temperature on the SFE in FeMnAlC steels is shown in
Figs. 2 and 3.
3.2 Manganese and Silicon Effect. The increase of the SFE
with the increase of the manganese content has been reported by
Lee and Choi [37] in FeMn binary alloys and Dai et al. [44] for
austenitic steels, which are consistent with the results obtained in
this work. It is important to point out that the drastic change in
behavior of the SFE with the manganese content (or other ele-
ments like aluminum or carbon) is strongly influenced by the term
DGc!e chem (Eq. (6)) more than DGc!e seg or DGex , even for
DGc!e mag which has been recently remarked by Pierce et al.
[23]. On the other hand, the effect of the silicon additions on the
SFEs in austenitic stainless steels has been studied by Lehnhoff
et al. [45] via TEM, who found a decrease in the SFE with the
addition of Si. The same effect of silicon has been reported in
FeMnSiC steels using XRD analysis [46] and thermodynamic
calculations [47] and also has been reported in FeMnC steels
using thermodynamic models [3] but never has been reported for
FeMnAlCSi steels. The current results are shown in Fig. 4. It
is worth mentioning that in this study, the effect of Si is stronger
when the aluminum content is increased. For the lowest aluminum
content (1%Al), the SFE decreases 6 mJ m2 when the silicon
content is increased from 0% to 4%, and for the highest aluminum
content (10%Al) the SFE decreases 11 mJ m2 when the silicon
content is increased from 0% to 4%.
3.3 Aluminum and Carbon Effect. There are many reports
in the literature about the drastic increase of the SFE by aluminum
additions. For instance, Chen et al. [48] in Fe20MnAlC steels
observed a decrease of strain-induced martensite and deformation
twinning by increasing the aluminum additions, i.e., an increase

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 041010-3

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 2 Variations in the temperature-dependent SFE map of FeMnAlC system by increasing the temperature and manga-
nese content for (a) 1 wt.% Al and (b) 10 wt.% Al

Fig. 3 Two-dimensional SFE (unit: mJ/m2) map for (a) FeXMn1Al0.5 C alloy system and (b) FeXMn10Al0.5 C alloy sys-
tem with different temperatures

on SFE. Even an addition of 1 wt.%Al inhibited the TRIP effect.
In this sense, Tian et al. [49] also reported the suppression of the
strain-induced c ! e transformation and deformation twinning by
the increase of SFE by aluminum additions in Fe25MnAlC
steels. The SFEs composition-dependent maps with carbon and
aluminum variations are shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) with the
present model.
On the other hand, the carbon content also has an important
influence on the SFE depending on the manganese and aluminum
contents. For example, Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) show an increase of the
SFE with the increase of the carbon content for 1 wt.%Al. How-
ever, when the manganese increases to 25 wt.%, the SFE
decreases as the carbon content increases. Previous studies about
the carbon effects on the SFE show a remarkably different trend;
a strong increase on the SFE with the increase of the carbon con-
tent [18,50] and negligible effect on the SFE by the carbon con-
tent [51]. Recently,it was concluded, using ab initio calculations,
that the carbon increases the SFE in FeC [52] and FCC for pure
iron [20,53]. The current results show an interaction effect
between the carbon content and other alloy elements on the SFE,
that is, depending on the chemical composition of the alloy, the
SFE of the austenite could increase or decrease with the carbon
content.
3.4 Grain Size Effect. It is not clear yet how the grain size
affects the SFE in austenitic steels and there are only few reports
in the literature about this relation. One of these few investigations
was performed by Jun and Choi [54], who studied in FeMn
alloys the relation between grain size and SFE. They found that
decreasing the grain size below 35 lm, SFE increases exponen-
tially. On the other hand, if the grain size increases above 35 lm,
the SFE decreases. The work of Lee and Choi [37] in FeMn
alloys for a range of austenitic grain size from 5 to 150 lm

041010-4 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 4 Variations in composition-dependent SFE map for increases in silicon and manganese content for (a) 1 wt.% Al and
(b) 10 wt.% Al

Fig. 5 Variations in composition-dependent SFE map by increasing silicon, manganese, and aluminum content: (a) 15 wt.%
Mn and (b) 25 wt.% Mn

confirms that with the increase of the grain size, the SFE drasti-
cally decreases for all the manganese contents, and with these
results they proposed Eq. (18) to include this effect on the SFE.
The contribution of the austenitic grain size to the excess Gibbs
energy (DGex is show in Table 2. It is clear that there is an
increase of the Gibbs energy if the grain size decreases. Even, in
low-SFE steels, the effect of grain size is relevant for both kinds
of e-martensite and the suppression of this effect is as reported by
Takaki et al. [55]. In a larger range of SFEs variations, it is con-
cluded that at higher grain sizes, the deformations modes of TRIP
and TWIP (that require low-SFEs) are more probably to occur
than in a fine-grain size microstructure. Some experimental stud-
ies in high manganese steels show that these phenomena, i.e., the
TRIP and TWIP effects, are reduced or suppressed in fine-grain
sizes [4,56,57] or promoted in coarse grain sizes [54].
The decrease of SFE due to the increases in the austenite grain
size is show in Fig. 7. For instance, at 25% of manganese content
Fig. 7(a) shows implicitly a change from the TWIP to TRIP defor-
mation mechanism if the grain size increases from 1 to 300 lm.
These results are consistent with the results reported by Lee and
Choi [37] in FeMn binary alloys. It is important to point out that
the greatest change in the grain size (from 1 to 300 lm) produces
a decrease in the SFE  10 mJ m2.
3.5 Comparison With Experimental Data. The experimen-
tal values of the SFE reported in the literature (using TEM, XRD,
and other thermodynamic models) are confronted with the results
obtained through the present model, as shown in Table 3. In par-
ticular cases, for the calculations of the SFE, the interfacial energy
rc=e was used as reported by the author. However, most of the
calculations have been performed with a rc=e of 10 mJ=m2 .
Some values show relatively good consistence with the values
found experimentally and other values are over- or subestimated.
There are many reasons that could affect this discrepancy, for
example: (i) even for a same chemical composition, different
authors report different SFE values, and these values also depend
on the technique used [58], (ii) it is known that the formation of

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 041010-5

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 6 Two-dimensional SFE (unit: mJ/m2) map at 300 K for (a) FeXMn1AlXC alloy system, (b) FeXMn3AlXC alloy sys-
tem, (c) FeXMn6AlXC alloy system, and (d) FeXMn9AlXC alloy system

the symmetrical nodes, necessary to calculate SFE, requires

appropriate heat treatments [23] and also these nodes should have
a symmetrical morphology to allow to calculate the SFE correctly,
Table 2 Correlation between grain size and excess of the (iii) in general, the effect of the core of the dislocations is not
Gibbs energy taken into account, however, this effect could induce a variation
in the SFE of 2.5 mJ/m2 [23] in comparison when the dislocations
Austenitic grain size (lm) 2qDGex (mJ/m2) are treated as a singular cores, and (iv) even using HTEM it is dif-
ficult to determine the width of the stacking fault (which is then
1 9.09 used to calculate the SFE) because the partial dislocations should
10 5.59 be parallel and without angles between them, which in the real sit-
20 3.26
uations is not likely [59]. This induces the stacking faults to
38 1.45
50 0.64 appear wider, making it difficult to measure the exact width of the
100 0.04 stacking fault and produce an overestimation of the SFE values.
200 0.0004 The present model can estimate relatively well the SFE in
300 0 FeMnAlCSi steels but new efforts are required to obtain
more accurate values and produce better SFE maps.

041010-6 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 7 Variations in SFE map by increasing grain size and manganese and aluminum contents: (a) 1 wt.% Al and
(b) 10 wt.% Al

Table 3 Comparison between experimental and calculated SFEs for different steels

Chemical composition of Experimental SFE predicted by the Interfacial energy rc=e

the alloy (wt.%) SFE (mJ/ m2 current model (mJ/m2) used in the calculation

Fe20Mn1.2C 15.0 [60]a 28.4 10.0

Fe18Mn0.6C 13.0 6 3.0 [61]a 10.6 10.0
Fe17.7Mn0.62C 19.3 6 3.0 [23] 10.6 12.8
Fe18Mn2.5Al0.6C 40.4 (calculated) [23] 28.3 10.0
Fe17.7Mn1.59Si0.59C 13.8 6 2.5 [23] 6.8 11.6
Fe22.2Mn2.76Al2.92Si 15.0 6 3.0 [23]a 14.3 10.0
Fe22Mn0.6C (673 K) 80.0 [24]b 81.3 10.0
Fe30.5Mn2.1Al1.2C 63.0 [10]b 58.8 10.0
Fe18Mn0Al0.6C 13 6 3 [61]a 6.7 10.0
Fe18Mn0Al0.6C 17 6 3 [62]c 16.6 15.0
Fe18Mn0Al0.6C 20.0 6 4.0 [63]d 16.6 15.0
Fe18Mn1.5Al0.6C 30.0 6 10.0 [61]a 28.5 14.3
Fe18Mn1.5Al0.6C 29.0 6 5.0 [62]c 29.8 15.0
Fe18Mn1.5Al0.6C 26.4 [15] (node)a 28.5 14.3
Fe18Mn1.5Al0.6C 30.0 [15] (WBDF)a 28.5 14.3
Fe18Mn1.5Al0.6C 29.0 6 3.0 [63]d 29.9 15.0
Fe18Mn3Al0.6C 44.0 6 5.0 [63]d 42.4 15.0
Fe28Mn3Si3Al 38.8 6 5.0 [23]a 37.6 14.5
Fe25Mn3Si3Al 21.0 6 3.0 [23]a 22.6 10.3
Fe22Mn3Si3Al 15.0 6 3.0 [23]a 15.0 9.3
Fe25Mn0.15C0.6Al 7.8 [64]c 7.3 10.0
Fe25Mn0.15C1.57Al 10.6 [64]c 16.6 10.0
Fe25Mn0.15C2.22Al 15.1 [64]c 22.5 10.0
Fe25Mn0.15C4.8Al 54.7 [64]c 45.3 10.0
Fe17.13Mn5.71Si.0.32C 12 [40]c 2.47 10.0
Fe17.69Mn4.76Si.0.46C 12 [40]c 2.17 10.0
Fe16.42Mn3Si.0.59C 1218 [40]c 4.49 10.0
Fe13.08Mn1.23Si0.96C 18 [40]c 16.3 10.0
a
TEM.
b
Thermodynamic model.
c
XRD.
d
Neutron diffraction.

4 Conclusions The SFE is more sensitive to increases in temperature,

This research analyzed the effect of the temperature, grain size,
and alloy composition of the SFE in FeMnAlCSi steels. The
results support the following conclusions:
The present model shows a good capacity to reflect the effect
of the temperature, grain size, and chemical composition on
the SFE of Fe-Mn-Al-C-Si steels, and also a good consis-
tency with the experimental results was obtained.
aluminum, and carbon content than grain size and silicon
content.
Increases in the austenite grain size favored the TRIP and
TWIP by reducing the SFE.
The obtained SFE maps support the selection and design of
FeMnAlC steels from the point of view of SFE, where it
is possible to predict the deformation mechanisms, such as
TRIP, TWIP, or MBIP, by changing carbon, manganese,

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 041010-7

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 aluminum, and silicon contents with the temperature and
grain size.
Supplementary code is available to facilitate the calculation
of the SFE by the reader.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Uni-
versidad del Valle through the Project No. CI 2762 and the fund
for Ph.D. Program COLCIENCIAS (Colombia).
Appendix: Supplementary Data
The supplementary data code used in this work to
calculate the SFE in FeMnAlSiC steels can be found in
https://goo.gl/Ob6Zc8.
References
[1] Song, W., Ingendahl, T., and Bleck, W., 2014, Control of Strain Hardening
Behavior in High-Mn Austenitic Steels, Acta Metall. Sin., 27(3), pp. 546556.
[2] Suzuki, H., 1962, Segregation of Solute Atoms to Stacking Faults, J. Phys.
Soc. Jpn., 17(2), pp. 322325.
[3] Dumay, A., Chateau, J. P., Allain, S., Migot, S., and Bouaziz, O., 2008,
Influence of Addition Elements on the Stacking-Fault Energy and Mechanical
Properties of an Austenitic FeMnC Steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 483484, pp.
184187.
[4] Dini, G., Najafizadeh, A., Monir-Vaghefi, S. M., and Ueji, R., 2010, Grain
Size Effect on the Martensite Formation in a High-Manganese TWIP Steel by
the Rietveld Method, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 26(2), pp. 181186.
[5] Saeed-Akbari, A., Imlau, J., Prahl, U., and Bleck, W., 2009, Derivation and
Variation in Composition-Dependent Stacking Fault Energy Maps Based on
Subregular Solution Model in High-Manganese Steels, Metall. Mater. Trans.
A, 40(13), pp. 30763090.
[6] Wan, J., Chen, S., and Xu, Z., 2001, The Influence of Temperature on Stacking
Fault Energy in Fe-Based Alloys, Sci. China Ser. E, 44(4), pp. 345352.
[7] Grassel, O., Frommeyer, G., Derder, C., and Hofmann, H., 1997, Phase Trans-
formations and Mechanical Properties of Fe-Mn-Si-Al TRIP-Steels, J. Phys.
IV France, 07(C5), pp. C5-383C5-388.
[8] Sato, K., Ichinose, M., Hirotsu, Y., and Inoue, Y., 1989, Effects of Deforma-
tion Induced Phase Transformation and Twinning on the Mechanical Properties
of Austenitic FeMnAl Alloys, ISIJ Int., 29(10), pp. 868877. [37] Lee, Y.-K., and Choi, C., 2000, Driving Force for c!e Martensitic Transfor-
[9] Yoo, J. D., and Park, K.-T., 2008, Microband-Induced Plasticity in a High
MnAlC Light Steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 496(12), pp. 417424.
[10] Gutierrez-Urrutia, I., and Raabe, D., 2012, Multistage Strain Hardening
Through Dislocation Substructure and Twinning in a High Strength and Ductile
Weight-Reduced FeMnAlC Steel, Acta Mater., 60(16), pp. 57915802.
[11] Yoo, J. D., Hwang, S. W., and Park, K. T., 2009, Origin of Extended
Tensile Ductility of a Fe-28Mn-10Al-1C Steel, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 40(7),
pp. 15201523.
[12] Antunes, R. A., and de Oliveira, M. C. L., 2014, Materials Selection for Hot
Stamped Automotive Body Parts: An Application of the Ashby Approach
Based on the Strain Hardening Exponent and Stacking Fault Energy of Materi-
als, Mater. Des., 63, pp. 247256.
[13] Raabe, D., Springer, H., Gutierrez-Urrutia, I., Roters, F., Bausch, M., Seol,
J. B., Koyama, M., Choi, P. P., and Tsuzaki, K., 2014, Alloy Design, Combi-
natorial Synthesis, and MicrostructureProperty Relations for Low-Density
Fe-Mn-Al-C Austenitic Steels, JOM, 66(9), pp. 18451856.
[14] Sawaguchi, T., Nikulin, I., Ogawa, K., Sekido, K., Takamori, S., Maruyama, T.,
Chiba, Y., Kushibe, A., Inoue, Y., and Tsuzaki, K., 2015, Designing
FeMnSi Alloys With Improved Low-Cycle Fatigue Lives, Scr. Mater., 99,
pp. 4952.
[15] Kim, J., and De Cooman, B. C., 2011, On the Stacking Fault Energy of Fe-18
Pct Mn-0.6 Pct C-1.5 Pct Al Twinning-Induced Plasticity Steel, Metall. Mater.
Trans. A, 42(4), pp. 932936.
[16] Pierce, D. T., Bentley, J., Jimenez, J. A., and Wittig, J. E., 2012, Stacking
Fault Energy Measurements of FeMnAlSi Austenitic Twinning-Induced
Plasticity Steels, Scr. Mater., 66(10), pp. 753756.
[17] Smallman, R. E., and Dobson, P. S., 1970, Stacking Fault Energy Measure-
ment From Diffusion, Metall. Trans., 1(9), pp. 23832389.
[18] Schramm, R. E., and Reed, R. P., 1975, Stacking Fault Energies of
Seven Commercial Austenitic Stainless Steels, Metall. Trans. A, 6(7),
pp. 13451351.
[19] Balogh, L., Ribarik, G., and Ungar, T., 2006, Stacking Faults and Twin
Boundaries in FCC Crystals Determined by X-Ray Diffraction Profile Analy-
sis, J. Appl. Phys., 100(2), p. 023512.
[20] Medvedeva, N. I., Park, M. S., Van Aken, D. C., and Medvedeva, J. E., 2014,
First-Principles Study of Mn, Al and C Distribution and Their Effect on Stack-
ing Fault Energies in FCC Fe, J. Alloys Compd., 582, pp. 475482.
[21] Guvenc, O., Roters, F., Hickel, T., and Bambach, M., 2015, ICME for
Crashworthiness of TWIP Steels: From Ab Initio to the Crash Performance,
JOM, 67(1), pp. 120128.
041010-8 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[22] Curtze, S., Kuokkala, V. T., Oikari, A., Talonen, J., and Hanninen, H., 2011,
Thermodynamic Modeling of the Stacking Fault Energy of Austenitic Steels,
Acta Mater., 59(3), pp. 10681076.
[23] Pierce, D., Jimenez, J., Bentley, J., Raabe, D., Oskay, C., and Wittig, J., 2014,
The Influence of Manganese Content on the Stacking Fault and Austenite/
e-Martensite Interfacial Energies in FeMn(AlSi) Steels Investigated by
Experiment and Theory, Acta Mater., 68, pp. 238253.
[24] Allain, S., Chateau, J. P., Bouaziz, O., Migot, S., and Guelton, N., 2004,
Correlations Between the Calculated Stacking Fault Energy and the Plasticity
Mechanisms in Fe-Mn-C Alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 387389(12),
pp. 158162.
[25] Olson, G. B., and Cohen, M., 1976, A General Mechanism of Martensitic
NucleationPart I: General Concepts and the FCC ! HCP Transformation,
Metall. Trans. A, 7(12), pp. 18971904.
[26] Charles, J., Berghezan, A., and Lutts, A., 1984, High ManganeseAluminum
Austenitic Steels for Cryogenic Applications, Some Mechanical and Physical
Properties, J. Phys. Colloques, 45(C1), pp. C1-619C1-623.
[27] Garca de Andres, C., Caballero, F. G., Capdevila, C., and Bhadeshia,
H. K. D. H., 1998, Modelling of Kinetics and Dilatometric Behavior of
Non-Isothermal Pearlite-to-Austenite Transformation in an Eutectoid Steel,
Scr. Mater., 39(6), pp. 791796.
[28] Yang, W. S., and Wan, C. M., 1990, The Influence of Aluminium Content to
the Stacking Fault Energy in Fe-Mn-Al-C Alloy System, J. Mater. Sci., 25(3),
pp. 18211823.
[29] Hillert, M., and Jarl, M., 1978, A Model for Alloying in Ferromagnetic
Metals, Calphad, 2(3), pp. 227238.
[30] Inden, G., 1994, Experimental Determination of Phase Diagrams, Statics and
Dynamics of Alloy Phase Transformations, P. A. Turchi and A. Gonis, eds.,
Springer, New York, pp. 1743.
[31] Zhang, Y. S., Lu, X., Tian, X., and Qin, Z., 2002, Compositional Dependence
of the Neel Transition, Structural Stability, Magnetic Properties and Electrical
Resistivity in FeMnAlCrSi Alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 334(12),
pp. 1927.
[32] Huang, W., 1989, An Assessment of the Fe-Mn System, Calphad, 13(3),
pp. 243252.
[33] Jin, J.-E., Jung, M., Lee, C.-Y., Jeong, J., and Lee, Y.-K., 2012, Neel Tempera-
ture of High Mn Austenitic Steels, Met. Mater. Int., 18(3), pp. 419423.
[34] Cotes, S., Fernandez Guillermet, A., and Sade, M., 1999, Gibbs Energy
Modelling of the Driving Forces and Calculation of the FCC/HCP Martensitic
Transformation Temperatures in Fe-Mn and Fe-Mn-Si Alloys, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, 273275, pp. 503506.
[35] Ishida, K., 1976, Direct Estimation of Stacking Fault Energy by Thermody-
namic Analysis, Phys. Status Solidi (A), 36(2), pp. 717728.
[36] Hickel, T., Sandl obes, S., Marceau, R. K. W., Dick, A., Bleskov, I., Neugeba-
uer, J., and Raabe, D., 2014, Impact of Nanodiffusion on the Stacking Fault
Energy in High-Strength Steels, Acta Mater., 75, pp. 147155.
mation and Stacking Fault Energy of c in Fe-Mn Binary System, Metall.
Mater. Trans. A, 31(2), pp. 355360.
[38] Lee, S.-J., Lee, Y.-K., and Soon, A., 2012, The Austenite/E Martensite Inter-
face: A First-Principles Investigation of the fcc Fe(1 1 1)/hcp Fe(0 0 0 1) Sys-
tem, Appl. Surf. Sci., 258(24), pp. 99779981.
[39] Dinsdale, A. T., 1991, SGTE Data for Pure Elements, Calphad, 15(4),
pp. 317425.
[40] Xiong, R., Peng, H., Si, H., Zhang, W., and Wen, Y., 2014, Thermodynamic
Calculation of Stacking Fault Energy of the FeMnSiC High Manganese
Steels, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 598, pp. 376386.
[41] Kaufman, L., 1977, Proceedings of the Fourth Calphad Meeting Workshop on
Computer Based Coupling of Thermochemical and Phase Diagram Data Held
1822 August 1975 at the National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,
Maryland, Calphad, 1(1), pp. 789.
[42] Remy, L., 1977, Temperature Variation of the Intrinsic Stacking Fault
Energy of a High Manganese Austenitic Steel, Acta Metall., 25(2),
pp. 173179.
[43] Remy, L., Pineau, A., and Thomas, B., 1978, Temperature Dependence of
Stacking Fault Energy in Close-Packed Metals and Alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng.,
36(1), pp. 4763.
[44] Dai, Q.-X., Wang An-Dong, C. X.-N., and Luo, X.-M., 2002, Stacking
Fault Energy of Cryogenic Austenitic Steels, Chin. Phys., 11(6), pp. 596600.
[45] Lehnhoff, G. R., Findley, K. O., and De Cooman, B. C., 2014, The Influence
of Silicon and Aluminum Alloying on the Lattice Parameter and Stacking Fault
Energy of Austenitic Steel, Scr. Mater., 92, pp. 1922.
[46] Tian, X., and Zhang, Y., 2009, Effect of Si Content on the Stacking Fault
Energy in c-FeMnSiC AlloysPart I: X-Ray Diffraction Line Profile
Analysis, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 516(12), pp. 7377.
[47] Tian, X., and Zhang, Y., 2009, Effect of Si Content on the Stacking Fault
Energy in c-FeMnSiC AlloysPart II: Thermodynamic Estimation, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A, 516(12), pp. 7883.
[48] Chen, F. C., Chou, C. P., Li, P., and Chu, S. L., 1993, Effect of Aluminium on
TRIP Fe-Mn-Al Alloy Steels at Room Temperature, Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
160(2), pp. 261270.
[49] Tian, X., Tian, R., and Zhang, Y., 2004, Effect of Al Content on Work
Hardening in Austenitic Fe-Mn-Al-C Alloys, Can. Metall. Q., 43(2),
pp. 183192.
[50] Peng, X., Zhu, D.-Y., Hu, Z.-M., Wang, M.-J., Liu, L.-L., and Liu, H.-J., 2014,
Effect of Carbon Content on Stacking Fault Energy of Fe-20Mn-3Cu TWIP
Steel, J. Iron Steel Res., Int., 21(1), pp. 116120.
Transactions of the ASME
 [51] Brofman, P. J., and Ansell, G. S., 1978, On the Effect of Carbon on the Stack-
ing Fault Energy of Austenitic Stainless Steels, Metall. Trans. A, 9(6),
pp. 879880.
[52] Abbasi, A., Dick, A., Hickel, T., and Neugebauer, J., 2011, First-Principles
Investigation of the Effect of Carbon on the Stacking Fault Energy of FeC
Alloys, Acta Mater., 59(8), pp. 30413048.
[53] Gholizadeh, H., Draxl, C., and Puschnig, P., 2013, The Influence of
Interstitial Carbon on the c-Surface in Austenite, Acta Mater., 61(1),
pp. 341349.
[54] Jun, J.-H., and Choi, C.-S., 1998, Variation of Stacking Fault Energy With
Austenite Grain Size and Its Effect on the MS Temperature of c ! e Martensitic
Transformation in FeMn Alloy, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 257(2), pp. 353356.
[55] Takaki, S., Nakatsu, H., and Tokunaga, Y., 1993, Effects of Austenite Grain
Size on e Martensitic Transformation in Fe-15mass%Mn Alloy, Mater. Trans.
JIM, 34(6), pp. 489495.
[56] Lee, T., Koyama, M., Tsuzaki, K., Lee, Y.-H., and Lee, C. S., 2012, Tensile
Deformation Behavior of FeMnC TWIP Steel With Ultrafine Elongated
Grain Structure, Mater. Lett., 75, pp. 169171.
[57] Ueji, R., Tsuchida, N., Terada, D., Tsuji, N., Tanaka, Y., Takemura, A., and
Kunishige, K., 2008, Tensile Properties and Twinning Behavior of High
Manganese Austenitic Steel With Fine-Grained Structure, Scr. Mater., 59(9),
pp. 963966.
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[58] Crampin, S., Hampel, K., Vvedensky, D., and MacLaren, J., 1990, The Calcu-
lation of Stacking Fault Energies in Close-Packed Metals, J. Mater. Res.,
5(10), pp. 21072119.
[59] Liao, X. Z., Srinivasan, S. G., Zhao, Y. H., Baskes, M. I., Zhu, Y. T., Zhou, F.,
Lavernia, E. J., and Xu, H. F., 2004, Formation Mechanism of Wide Stacking
Faults in Nanocrystalline Al, Appl. Phys. Lett., 84(18), pp. 35643566.
[60] Idrissi, H., Renard, K., Ryelandt, L., Schryvers, D., and Jacques, P. J., 2010,
On the Mechanism of Twin Formation in FeMnC TWIP Steels, Acta
Mater., 58(7), pp. 24642476.
[61] Kim, J., Lee, S.-J., and De Cooman, B. C., 2011, Effect of Al on the Stacking
Fault Energy of Fe18Mn0.6C Twinning-Induced Plasticity, Scr. Mater.,
65(4), pp. 363366.
[62] Jin, J. E., and Lee, Y. K., 2012, Effects of Al on Microstructure and Tensile
Properties of C-Bearing High Mn TWIP Steel, Acta Mater., 60(4),
pp. 16801688.
[63] Jeong, J. S., Woo, W., Oh, K. H., Kwon, S. K., and Koo, Y. M., 2012, In situ
Neutron Diffraction Study of the Microstructure and Tensile Deformation
Behavior in Al-Added High Manganese Austenitic Steels, Acta Mater., 60(5),
pp. 22902299.
[64] Tian, X., Li, H., and Zhang, Y., 2008, Effect of Al Content on Stacking
Fault Energy in Austenitic FeMnAlC Alloys, J. Mater. Sci., 43(18),
pp. 62146222.
OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 041010-9