MARTENSITE CRYSTALLOGRAPHY

Home Work 3

Arranged By :

GALIH SENOPATI
170699376

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
DEPARTEMEN TEKNIK METALURGI DAN MATERIAL
UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
DEPOK
2017
The name martensite is came from German scientist Martens. It was used to describe hard
microconstituent found in quenched steels. Martensite transformations are diffusionless.
Martensite can form at very low temperature where diffusion even of interstitial atos is not
conceivable over the time period of the experiment. In 1924 Edgar Collin Bain published the
nature of martens. This article still provides fascinating reading about its crystallography,
morphology, kinetics, and mechanical properties. Indeed, on the subject at hand here, it may
be said that Bain laid some crucial cornersones of the presently accepted phenomenological
theory of martensite crystallography (PTMC). This theory became fully developed, more or
less in the 1950s, following much intervening work of increasing degrees of sophistication
and definitiveness. Today The Bain Strain is common knowledge even outside metallurgical
circles.
A. The Lattice Correspondence
All martencite transformations involve a correspondence by means of which lattice points in
the parent phase are uniquely related on a one-by-one basis to those in the product
(martensite). Bain’s correspondence related the body-centered tetragonal (bct) cell (heavy
lines) within two unit face-centered cubic (fcc) cells to the body-centered cubic (bcc) unit cell
of α-iron. A simple upsetting of the former produces the bcc lattice (it was then thought that
martensite was cubic α-iron). Thic contraction along the c-axis and expansion along the α-
axis is almost obvious from inspection, but there are many possible fcc-bcc cprrespondences,
another case in point given in Figure 2. Jaswon and Wheeler considered many such
correspondences between the two lattices and showed mathematically that all considered,
Bain’s correspondences involved the smallest principal strains. For this and other reasons as
well, the Bain’s strain has gained universal acceptance as a model for the fcc-bcc
transformations and even in other alloy systems involving different crystal structures and
correspondeces the pure strain effecting the structure change is most frequently referred to as
the Bain strain.
Bain argued in faor of his distortion by furtheer noting that there are also extension
and compressions locally developed as shown by roughening of a polished surface of
austenite (fcc parent) after martensitization is brought about by cooling to liquid-air
temperatures. But he went further to say that it is not to be supposed that the long needles
(actually plates of martensite) one sees in an austenite-martensite mixture are wholly of one
orientation, reasoning that one orientation would result in too much strain accumulation. Thu,
Bain’s noted a correspondence and distortion, a shape change of a transformed region and
provideed the notion that a crystal of martensite is not really a single crystal (which had
undergone solely the Bain distortion). These three features in one way or another have been
retained in present thinking and the crystallography. Bain said nothing quantitative about the
shape change but did specify numerically the principal strains (distortions) involved in his
correspondece.

B. The Orientation Relationship Between The Martensite and Parent Lattice

Referring to Figure 1. It is easy to see that certain planes and directions should remain prallel
after the Bain distortion has occured (“martensitization”). In other words, the orientation
relationship, as expressed by the prallelism of important planes and directions, is rational. Not
much later is was shown that this simplicity is not true. Both Kurdjumov and Sachs and
Nishiyama using X-ray diffraction found that these important planes and directions (as well
as some others) were not really parallel, in some cases detecting deviations of more than a
few degrees. Thus, the corresponding cells in the martensite and parent are also rotated with
respect to each other. Important planes and directions were no longer precisely parallel and it
became clear that the martensite parent orientation relation was irrational.
At the next juncture people began to note that martensite had a definite habit plane
and that surface relief (macroscopic shape strain) attendant to the formation of a plate
resembled a shear and various shear mechanism were put forth.
Figure 1. Model for the fcc to bcc austenite (γ)-martensite (α) transformation in steels as proposed by
Bain. At the time (1924) it was thought that martensite was the same as cubic α-iron

C. The substructure in Martensite

Although not known by Bain, Kurdjumov and Sachs, Nishiyama, and contemporary
investigators, it has been known for some time since that most martensites have a fine
structure consisting of internal twins or stacking faults. Somehow this must fit into the theory,
and so did the two-shear models around the time of Greeninger and Troiano which did not
provide an accounting of all the known geometrical aspect of the transformation, principally
because the shape change was taken to be a simple shear (not IPS) on the habit plane.
However, the important point was made by Greninger and Troiano that a shear on the habot
plane failed to produce the correct martensite crystal structure. As will be seen, the martensite
substructure acts to counteract certain dimensional changes brought about by Bain strain.It
should be mentioned that the substructure in martensite is typically on the scale of 100 Å, and
this inhomogeneity (twinning, faulting, and slip “inhomogeneous shear” in current theories).
Figure 2 is a transmission electron micrograph showing a single martensite plate in an Fe-Ni-
C alloy which is finely internally twinned. These twins are referred to a transformation twins.
Figure 3 shows schematically the appearance of internally twinned (a) and internally slipped
martensite (b). Note that jogs in the interface act in push-pull to average out the long-range
interface distortion. Figura 4 shows that the same macroscopic efect is given by the effective
shear angle γ. Thus matematically there is no difference between Figure 4(a) and (b) and use
is made of this convenience in theories which follow.

Figure 2. Transmission electron micrograph showing internally twinned martensite plate in a matrix of retained
austenite in a Fe-Ni-C alloy. The fine twins in the martensite are transformation twins.

(a) ((b)
Figure 3. Schematic apperance of internally twinned (a) and internally slipped (b) martensite plates. The serrated
interfaces in both cases prevent the localized Bain strain from accumulating, thus leaving in the interface (habit
plane) one of zero distortion.
 (a) ((b)
Figure 4. Idealized diagram showing the matematical equivalance of twinning (a) slip (b). Region A and B are
twinned related, and the overall macroscopic shear angle γ is identically in each case.
References
ASM Handbook , ASM Internasional., Vol. 4, pp. 160-290 , 1991.
T. H. E. L. Correspondence, “The Phenomenological Theory of Martensite Crystallography:
Interrelationships,” vol. 25, no. September, pp. 1787–1795, 1994.