Search Documents

By L. D. Jaffe, M. R. Norton, J. H. Hollomon

In the practical heat-treatment of steel the decomposition of austenite usually occurs during cooling rather than at constant temperature. Nevertheless, the course of this decomposition has generally been studied only isothermally. Isothermal studies are not only simpler experimentally, but have the great theoretical advantage that one of the variables, temperature, is constant. It is the purpose of this paper to outline the principles that govern the relations between isothermal and anisothermalt‡ decomposition of austenite, to present and systematize the available experimental information, and to indicate the gaps in the existing knowledge. Some of the experimental information is the result of new work.§ Most of it is derived from scattered data in the literature. Many of these data were obtained incidentally in the course of research on other subjects and their significance has not been pointed out and perhaps not understood. It is hoped that this paper will aid future planning of more extensive research on anisothermal decomposition. Method In order to study the relations between isothermal and anisothermal decomposition, it appears fruitful to view anisothermal decomposition as taking place at a series of constant temperatures1 (except for the martensite reaction, which does not occur isothermally to an appreciable extent). When the time the steel is at each temperature is finite, the over-all amount of the reaction is considered to be the sum of the amounts occurring at each of the successive temperatures. During continuous cooling or heating, the time the steel is at each temperature and the difference between successive temperatures can be considered to approach zero. The over-all amount of transformation will then be given by integration over the range of temperatures involved. This point of view is advantageous in that it considers anisothermal transformation to be a series of isothermal transformations. The problem thus becomes one of determining the effect of partial decomposition at any given temperature upon subsequent decomposition at another temperature. Single Anisothermal Reaction Consider a phase brought to a temperature at which it is unstable, held there until it has partially transformed, and then brought to another temperature at

Jan 1, 1947

By Leonard D. Jaffe

In recent years, the advantages of tempered martensite as a microstructure for steel parts have been well established. For parts that must not fracture brittlely when loaded at high rates, at low temperatures, or under conditions of combined stress, tempered martensite is especially desirable. One of the factors that determine whether a steel part will have a martensitic structure after heat treatment is the hardenability of the steel. Despite the large amount of recent research, there are still many unsettled basic questions concerning hardenability and its relation to chemical composition, and, indeed, considerable disagreement among investigators in the field. Much of the uncertainty that beclouds the existing knowledge of hardenability arises from the fact that hardenability is still a wholly empirical concept, and has not been quantitatively related to the more fundamental knowledge of isothermal decomposition of austenite. Hardenability is, essentiaily, a measure of the time required for small percentages of austenite to decompose, during continuous cooling, to pearlite, bainite, proeutectoid ferrite, or proeutec-toid carbide. In the practical heat-treat- ment of steel, also, the decomposition of austenite is usually not isothermal but rather during cooling, or, in general, is not at a single constant temperature. Thus, both hardenability and practical heat treatment involve anisothermal decomposition of austenite. In a previous publication1 the author and his collaborators outlined the principles that govern the relations between isothermal and anisothermal decomposition of austenite, and reviewed the experimental information available in 1945. To avoid repetition, familiarity with that article (Paper I) will be assumed, and attention given primarily to work carried out or published since 1945. The method generally employed was explained in Paper I: anisothermal transformation is studied through investigation of the effect of holding austenite at one temperature upon its subsequent decomposition at another temperature. Both temperatures are below the stability range of the austenite. This paper is confined to studies in which only a small amount of transformation occurred at the first temperature. This is the only case of importance in practical heat treatment when an essentially martensitic structure is sought. Materials and Procedure It was necessary to use different steels for the studies involving proeutectoid ferrite and for those involving proeutectoid carbide, beeause the two constituents have not been found to form in the same steel. Several steels were tried and rejected

Jan 1, 1949

By Leonard D. Jaffe

In recent years, the advantages of tempered martensite as a microstructure for steel parts have been well established. For parts that must not fracture brittlely when loaded at high rates, at low temperatures, or under conditions of combined stress, tempered martensite is especially desirable. One of the factors that determine whether a steel part will have a martensitic structure after heat treatment is the hardenability of the steel. Despite the large amount of recent research, there are still many unsettled basic questions concerning hardenability and its relation to chemical composition, and, indeed, considerable disagreement among investigators in the field. Much of the uncertainty that beclouds the existing knowledge of hardenability arises from the fact that hardenability is still a wholly empirical concept, and has not been quantitatively related to the more fundamental knowledge of isothermal decomposition of austenite. Hardenability is, essentiaily, a measure of the time required for small percentages of austenite to decompose, during continuous cooling, to pearlite, bainite, proeutectoid ferrite, or proeutec-toid carbide. In the practical heat-treat- ment of steel, also, the decomposition of austenite is usually not isothermal but rather during cooling, or, in general, is not at a single constant temperature. Thus, both hardenability and practical heat treatment involve anisothermal decomposition of austenite. In a previous publication1 the author and his collaborators outlined the principles that govern the relations between isothermal and anisothermal decomposition of austenite, and reviewed the experimental information available in 1945. To avoid repetition, familiarity with that article (Paper I) will be assumed, and attention given primarily to work carried out or published since 1945. The method generally employed was explained in Paper I: anisothermal transformation is studied through investigation of the effect of holding austenite at one temperature upon its subsequent decomposition at another temperature. Both temperatures are below the stability range of the austenite. This paper is confined to studies in which only a small amount of transformation occurred at the first temperature. This is the only case of importance in practical heat treatment when an essentially martensitic structure is sought. Materials and Procedure It was necessary to use different steels for the studies involving proeutectoid ferrite and for those involving proeutectoid carbide, beeause the two constituents have not been found to form in the same steel. Several steels were tried and rejected

Jan 1, 1949

By M. Cohen, R. T. Howard

The purpose of this paper is to direct attention to the lower part of the austenite transformation diagram, or TTT curves, where considerable uncertainty still exists as to the blending of the bainite and martensite reactions. The dissimilarities between these two low temperature transforrnations have been summarized recently by Troiano and Greninger.' Of particular importance to the present work is the fact that martensite formation, unlike bainite formation, is not suppressed by the fastest quenching rates attainable. However, most of the investigations in this direction have been concerned primarily with the start of the martensite transformation (Mg) during cooling, rather than with the quantitative aspects of the subsequent reaction on either further cooling or isothermal holding. Several years ago, Cohen2 suggested a form of transformation diagram which reconciled, at least schematically, the isothermal characteristics of the bainite transformation with the insuppressible nature of the martensite transformation. In essence, the diagram consisted of a family of horizontal lines (representing the progress of the austenite-martensite reaction during quenching) which were interrupted in point of time by the bainite family of C-curves extending down from higher temperatures. This picture received later support by metal-lographic3 and dilatometric4,5 studies, but the techniques employed were not sufficiently critical to substantiate some of the details. Elmendorf6 and Grange and Stewardi have shown that the Greninger-Troiano metallographic technique8 may be used not only for M, determinations, but for studying the course of further austenite decomposition. In fact, the latter investigators have observed the amount of martensite formed as a function of temperature below M, in fourteen commercial steels. In the present paper, the Greninger-Troiano technique has been combined with the lineal method of Howard and Cohen9 to provide a unique, quantitative treatment of the austenite-martensite reaction. Furthermore, isothermal transformations have been similarly measured on holding at temperatures above and below M., thus permitting a fairly detailed presentation of the lower part of the conventional austenite transformation diagram. Experimental Details Materials The steels, listed in Table I, were selected for study because they exhibit a satisfactory range of M. temperatures and have not received as much attention as the lower carbon grades. They were prepared as 30 lb induction furnace heats in the laboratories of the Vanadium-Alloys

Jan 1, 1949

By M. Cohen, R. T. Howard

The purpose of this paper is to direct attention to the lower part of the austenite transformation diagram, or TTT curves, where considerable uncertainty still exists as to the blending of the bainite and martensite reactions. The dissimilarities between these two low temperature transforrnations have been summarized recently by Troiano and Greninger.' Of particular importance to the present work is the fact that martensite formation, unlike bainite formation, is not suppressed by the fastest quenching rates attainable. However, most of the investigations in this direction have been concerned primarily with the start of the martensite transformation (Mg) during cooling, rather than with the quantitative aspects of the subsequent reaction on either further cooling or isothermal holding. Several years ago, Cohen2 suggested a form of transformation diagram which reconciled, at least schematically, the isothermal characteristics of the bainite transformation with the insuppressible nature of the martensite transformation. In essence, the diagram consisted of a family of horizontal lines (representing the progress of the austenite-martensite reaction during quenching) which were interrupted in point of time by the bainite family of C-curves extending down from higher temperatures. This picture received later support by metal-lographic3 and dilatometric4,5 studies, but the techniques employed were not sufficiently critical to substantiate some of the details. Elmendorf6 and Grange and Stewardi have shown that the Greninger-Troiano metallographic technique8 may be used not only for M, determinations, but for studying the course of further austenite decomposition. In fact, the latter investigators have observed the amount of martensite formed as a function of temperature below M, in fourteen commercial steels. In the present paper, the Greninger-Troiano technique has been combined with the lineal method of Howard and Cohen9 to provide a unique, quantitative treatment of the austenite-martensite reaction. Furthermore, isothermal transformations have been similarly measured on holding at temperatures above and below M., thus permitting a fairly detailed presentation of the lower part of the conventional austenite transformation diagram. Experimental Details Materials The steels, listed in Table I, were selected for study because they exhibit a satisfactory range of M. temperatures and have not received as much attention as the lower carbon grades. They were prepared as 30 lb induction furnace heats in the laboratories of the Vanadium-Alloys

Jan 1, 1949

By Clarence Zener

The heat-treatment of steels will not pass from the stage of an art into that of a science until the mechanism of the phase transformations associated therewith is thoroughly understood. Such an understanding will involve two distinct types of inquiry: (I) the direction of the transformation, (2) the speed of the transformation. The first type of inquiry, which involves only the equilibrium relations between the various phases in steel, is the subject of the present and of a succeeding article; the second type, which involves the kinetics of transformations, will be the subject of a later article. In order that a theory of equilibrium relations may give useful information, certain experimental data must be put into the theory. It is customary for these data to be of a thermal nature. In the system discussed herein—steel—such thermal data are very scarce. In medium-alloy steels another type of data might possibly be used. In these steels the concentration of solute is so low that it may be possible to use the approximation of dilute solutions, an approximation that leads to linear relationships. The unknown functions, or constants, may then be determined in some cases from the binary iron-alloy system and in other cases from the ternary iron-carbon-alloy system. From the functions, or constants, so determined may then be computed the equilibrium relations in more complex medium-alloy steels. In the present article this second approach is used, the necessary experimental data 'being obtained from the simple binary and ternary equilibrium diagrams. Fundamental Equations In this article are derived the equilibrium relations between the gamma, alpha and cementite phases. In these three phases all important alloying elements except carbon form substitutional solutions, each alloying atom occupying a potential site for an iron atom. Carbon, on the other hand, forms an interstitial solution. In the face-centered cubic gamma phase, the interstitial positions are at the center of the unit cube and at the centers of the cube edges. There are therefore four interstitial positions per unit cell, or one per iron atom. In the body-centered cubic alpha phase, the interstitial positions are probably at the face centers, and also at the centers of the edges, which are crystallographically equivalent to the face centers. There are therefore six interstitial positions per unit cube, or three per iron atom. In cementite, (Fe, Alloy)3C, the carbon atoms may. be regarded as filling all the lattice positions of a given type. The introduction of the fundamental the of equilibrium has presented the author with a quandary. These equations are formally so similar to other equations that have been derived1,2 for related systems that they may appear to some readers

Jan 1, 1947

By Clarence Zener

The heat-treatment of steels will not pass from the stage of an art into that of a science until the mechanism of the phase transformations associated therewith is thoroughly understood. Such an understanding will involve two distinct types of inquiry: (I) the direction of the transformation, (2) the speed of the transformation. The first type of inquiry, which involves only the equilibrium relations between the various phases in steel, is the subject of the present and of a succeeding article; the second type, which involves the kinetics of transformations, will be the subject of a later article. In order that a theory of equilibrium relations may give useful information, certain experimental data must be put into the theory. It is customary for these data to be of a thermal nature. In the system discussed herein—steel—such thermal data are very scarce. In medium-alloy steels another type of data might possibly be used. In these steels the concentration of solute is so low that it may be possible to use the approximation of dilute solutions, an approximation that leads to linear relationships. The unknown functions, or constants, may then be determined in some cases from the binary iron-alloy system and in other cases from the ternary iron-carbon-alloy system. From the functions, or constants, so determined may then be computed the equilibrium relations in more complex medium-alloy steels. In the present article this second approach is used, the necessary experimental data 'being obtained from the simple binary and ternary equilibrium diagrams. Fundamental Equations In this article are derived the equilibrium relations between the gamma, alpha and cementite phases. In these three phases all important alloying elements except carbon form substitutional solutions, each alloying atom occupying a potential site for an iron atom. Carbon, on the other hand, forms an interstitial solution. In the face-centered cubic gamma phase, the interstitial positions are at the center of the unit cube and at the centers of the cube edges. There are therefore four interstitial positions per unit cell, or one per iron atom. In the body-centered cubic alpha phase, the interstitial positions are probably at the face centers, and also at the centers of the edges, which are crystallographically equivalent to the face centers. There are therefore six interstitial positions per unit cube, or three per iron atom. In cementite, (Fe, Alloy)3C, the carbon atoms may. be regarded as filling all the lattice positions of a given type. The introduction of the fundamental the of equilibrium has presented the author with a quandary. These equations are formally so similar to other equations that have been derived1,2 for related systems that they may appear to some readers

Jan 1, 1947

By J. M. Hodge, M. A. Orehoski

The relationship between hardenability based on a 50 per cent martensite criterion, and that based on higher percentages of martensite in a number of low-alloy steels was discussed in a previous paper by the authors.' It was found that the differences between the hardenability values based on the 50 per cent martensite and full martensite criterions increased as the hardenability increased and that, in the steels of higher hardenability, these differ-

Jan 1, 1947

By M. A. Orehoski, J. M. Hodge

The relationship between hardenability based on a 50 per cent martensite criterion, and that based on higher percentages of martensite in a number of low-alloy steels was discussed in a previous paper by the authors.' It was found that the differences between the hardenability values based on the 50 per cent martensite and full martensite criterions increased as the hardenability increased and that, in the steels of higher hardenability, these differ-

Jan 1, 1947

By Clarence Zener

Contents Page General Principles................................................................. 551 Equilibrium Diagrams......................................................... 551 Nucleation................................................................... 553 Kinetics of Phase-boundary Propagation......................................... 553 Kinetics of Growth of New Phase............................................... 556 Spheroidization............................................................... 560 Pure Iron-carbon System........................................................... 561 Formation of Pearlite.......................................................... 561 Interlamellar Spacing........................................................ 562 Pearlite C-curve............................................................. 563 Bainite Formation............................................................. 565 Formation of Martensite....................................................... 570 Loss of Tetragonality of Martensite.............................................. 570 Effect of Alloys upon Decomposition of Austenite..................................... 572 Pearlite...................................................................... 572 Bainite and Martensite......................................................... 574 Time-temperature-transformation Curves............................................. 576 Appendix A............................................................. ......... 579 Appendix B....................................................................... 580 Appendix C....................................................................... 580 The present investigation started in an attempt to understand certain details of the decomposition of austenite, and of the effect of alloying elements thereon. As the investigation proceeded it became apparent that not only these details, but all the general features of austenite decomposition, could be understood in terms of fundamental physical principles. Since the direct applicability of these physical principles has not been previously recognized, it was decided to incorporate the original results of the investigation into a review of the general subject of the kinetics of austenite decomposition. This review constitutes the present article. An extended summary of the results is given on pages 576 to 579. This article, which deals with the kinetics of phase transformations, may appropriately be considered as a sequel to two recent articles1,2 from this laboratory on the equilibrium relations in medium alloy steels.

Jan 1, 1947

By Clarence Zener

Contents Page General Principles................................................................. 551 Equilibrium Diagrams......................................................... 551 Nucleation................................................................... 553 Kinetics of Phase-boundary Propagation......................................... 553 Kinetics of Growth of New Phase............................................... 556 Spheroidization............................................................... 560 Pure Iron-carbon System........................................................... 561 Formation of Pearlite.......................................................... 561 Interlamellar Spacing........................................................ 562 Pearlite C-curve............................................................. 563 Bainite Formation............................................................. 565 Formation of Martensite....................................................... 570 Loss of Tetragonality of Martensite.............................................. 570 Effect of Alloys upon Decomposition of Austenite..................................... 572 Pearlite...................................................................... 572 Bainite and Martensite......................................................... 574 Time-temperature-transformation Curves............................................. 576 Appendix A............................................................. ......... 579 Appendix B....................................................................... 580 Appendix C....................................................................... 580 The present investigation started in an attempt to understand certain details of the decomposition of austenite, and of the effect of alloying elements thereon. As the investigation proceeded it became apparent that not only these details, but all the general features of austenite decomposition, could be understood in terms of fundamental physical principles. Since the direct applicability of these physical principles has not been previously recognized, it was decided to incorporate the original results of the investigation into a review of the general subject of the kinetics of austenite decomposition. This review constitutes the present article. An extended summary of the results is given on pages 576 to 579. This article, which deals with the kinetics of phase transformations, may appropriately be considered as a sequel to two recent articles1,2 from this laboratory on the equilibrium relations in medium alloy steels.

Jan 1, 1947

By W. A. West

One who attempts to collect and classify equilibrium data from various iron-alloy systems is soon struck with the absence of any quantitative theory that can serve as a general background against which to compare and contrast results from different systems, at different temperatures, and with different concentrations. It is not necessary to wait for a perfect theory; investigation of divergences of theory from observation may prove of great value in acquiring understanding of the subject. For example, one has only to think of Raoult's law as applied to aqueous solutions. The equations developed by Zener1 represent an effort to provide such a quantitative theoretical background, and it is therefore desirable to subject this theory to such tests as can be applied. The present article is intended to be an application of available tests, and may thus be considered as a supplement to Zener's paper. It is assumed that this paper is available to the reader. The equations make it possible to calculate the effect on the equilibrium concentration of one alloying element due to the presence of one or more other elements. In particular. they are intended to give, for alloy steels, the carbon concentrations in alpha and gamma phases in equilibrium with each other, and in gamma in equilibrium with cementite. They may, however, be modified for use for carbon-free alloys. A summary is given later of the equations used in analyzing the data in this paper, and the symbols are there defined. About 125 papers have been examined for experimental data suitable for this investigation. An effort was made to look up all available reports of ternary systems including iron and carbon, as well as similar systems of higher order. Supplementary material was also obtained from a number of binary systems. A few noncarbon ternary systems were also found to which these methods could be applied. A comparatively small proportion oi the papers read provided usable material. In many systems the number of quantitative observations made in the iron-rich region is extremely small, and the smoothed curves to be found in most published phase diagrams are entirely useless for quantitative treatment. This opinion is confirmed by the authors of the series on Alloys of Iron Research, whose remarks show clearly that they have no illusions as to the accuracy of many diagrams that they present. A further difficulty arises from the fact that these equations apply only to rather low percentages of alloying elements. The result is that at the lowest concentrations, where the best agreement might be hoped for, the errors of observation become relatively very large. The experimental difficulties in measurements of this kind of equilibrium are, of course, an old story.

Jan 1, 1947

By W. A. West

One who attempts to collect and classify equilibrium data from various iron-alloy systems is soon struck with the absence of any quantitative theory that can serve as a general background against which to compare and contrast results from different systems, at different temperatures, and with different concentrations. It is not necessary to wait for a perfect theory; investigation of divergences of theory from observation may prove of great value in acquiring understanding of the subject. For example, one has only to think of Raoult's law as applied to aqueous solutions. The equations developed by Zener1 represent an effort to provide such a quantitative theoretical background, and it is therefore desirable to subject this theory to such tests as can be applied. The present article is intended to be an application of available tests, and may thus be considered as a supplement to Zener's paper. It is assumed that this paper is available to the reader. The equations make it possible to calculate the effect on the equilibrium concentration of one alloying element due to the presence of one or more other elements. In particular. they are intended to give, for alloy steels, the carbon concentrations in alpha and gamma phases in equilibrium with each other, and in gamma in equilibrium with cementite. They may, however, be modified for use for carbon-free alloys. A summary is given later of the equations used in analyzing the data in this paper, and the symbols are there defined. About 125 papers have been examined for experimental data suitable for this investigation. An effort was made to look up all available reports of ternary systems including iron and carbon, as well as similar systems of higher order. Supplementary material was also obtained from a number of binary systems. A few noncarbon ternary systems were also found to which these methods could be applied. A comparatively small proportion oi the papers read provided usable material. In many systems the number of quantitative observations made in the iron-rich region is extremely small, and the smoothed curves to be found in most published phase diagrams are entirely useless for quantitative treatment. This opinion is confirmed by the authors of the series on Alloys of Iron Research, whose remarks show clearly that they have no illusions as to the accuracy of many diagrams that they present. A further difficulty arises from the fact that these equations apply only to rather low percentages of alloying elements. The result is that at the lowest concentrations, where the best agreement might be hoped for, the errors of observation become relatively very large. The experimental difficulties in measurements of this kind of equilibrium are, of course, an old story.

Jan 1, 1947

By G. K. Manning, C. H. Lorig

TWO metallurgical tools have acquired wide use within the past several years as a means of studying the transformation characteristics of steel. One is a technique used first by Bain and Davenport for determining the transformation characteristics of a steel at constant temperature; the second is the end-quench hardenability test. Constant-temperature transformation curves like those of Bain and Davenport have done much to rationalize the metallography of steel; however, in commercial practices, constant-temperature transformation is seldom encountered, therefore only rarely can such curves be directly applied. The real reason for the determination of such curves lies in the fact that they provide a way of thinking about transformation that is both convenient and productive. The end-quench hardenability test is a more practical means of studying transformation, for, by correlating positions on the hardenability bar with shapes of different masses, an almost direct application of the results can be made. Unfortunately, the end-quench test, though practical, can do very little toward improving the metallurgists' way of thinking about transformation. These two metallurgical tools, dealing with precisely the same phenomenon, should be very closely associated in metallurgists' minds. Actually, they are frequently pushed into separate mental corners and considered as being more or less distinct and unrelated. The reason for this is that no strong connecting link between them has been developed. An attempt is sometimes made to relate these two tools by projecting the critical cooling rate on the isothermal transformation plot as illustrated in Fig. I. The critical cooling rate is considered as a constant rate-though in practical applications, cooling rates are never constant—and this constant cooling rate is given uniform significance from the Ae temperature down to the temperature of initial transformation. A little thought indicates the errors of such a procedure. Certainly the time interval spent just below point A of Fig. I cannot be as effective in promoting nucleation as is the time interval spent just above point B. Yet the procedure represented in Fig. I considers all the time spent between temperatures A and B to be just as effective in promoting nucleation as though all the time were spent at temperature B. Furthermore, change the shape of the isothermal curve between points B and C in any way desired, and the required critical cooling rate is not changed one iota. This cannot possibly be true. Such a way of thinking about critical cooling rates not only is incapable of giving any results that are quantitatively satisfactory but is likely to give very misleading qualitative results.

Jan 1, 1947

By G. K. Manning, C. H. Lorig

TWO metallurgical tools have acquired wide use within the past several years as a means of studying the transformation characteristics of steel. One is a technique used first by Bain and Davenport for determining the transformation characteristics of a steel at constant temperature; the second is the end-quench hardenability test. Constant-temperature transformation curves like those of Bain and Davenport have done much to rationalize the metallography of steel; however, in commercial practices, constant-temperature transformation is seldom encountered, therefore only rarely can such curves be directly applied. The real reason for the determination of such curves lies in the fact that they provide a way of thinking about transformation that is both convenient and productive. The end-quench hardenability test is a more practical means of studying transformation, for, by correlating positions on the hardenability bar with shapes of different masses, an almost direct application of the results can be made. Unfortunately, the end-quench test, though practical, can do very little toward improving the metallurgists' way of thinking about transformation. These two metallurgical tools, dealing with precisely the same phenomenon, should be very closely associated in metallurgists' minds. Actually, they are frequently pushed into separate mental corners and considered as being more or less distinct and unrelated. The reason for this is that no strong connecting link between them has been developed. An attempt is sometimes made to relate these two tools by projecting the critical cooling rate on the isothermal transformation plot as illustrated in Fig. I. The critical cooling rate is considered as a constant rate-though in practical applications, cooling rates are never constant—and this constant cooling rate is given uniform significance from the Ae temperature down to the temperature of initial transformation. A little thought indicates the errors of such a procedure. Certainly the time interval spent just below point A of Fig. I cannot be as effective in promoting nucleation as is the time interval spent just above point B. Yet the procedure represented in Fig. I considers all the time spent between temperatures A and B to be just as effective in promoting nucleation as though all the time were spent at temperature B. Furthermore, change the shape of the isothermal curve between points B and C in any way desired, and the required critical cooling rate is not changed one iota. This cannot possibly be true. Such a way of thinking about critical cooling rates not only is incapable of giving any results that are quantitatively satisfactory but is likely to give very misleading qualitative results.

Jan 1, 1947

By W. H. Brandt

ThEre has been much progress in the last two decades in understanding the hardenability of steel. Roughly, the progress has been along two lines, which may be designated as empirical and fundamental. This empirical work has progressed to the point where steels may be manufactured to the desired characteristics quite closely and heat-treatment and application problems can be approached with considerable confidcnce. Particularly noteworthy among the empirical work is that of Grossmann,12. who has given formulas for calculating hardenability as a function of composition, and the establishment of the isothermal transformation curve by Davenport and Bain.13 The latter does not fall entirely in the class of an empirical study, for while it provides a means of presenting a tremendous amount of empirical data in the form of a single curve, it also outlines clearly the problems that face the fundamental investigator. The isothermal transformation curve shows clearly that the phenomena occurring in the neighborhood of the knee of the curve are those that limit the hardenability of steel. Above the knee of the curve, the product of decomposition of austenite is lamellar pearlite and fundamental progress has consisted chiefly of a detailed study of structure and formation of pearlite, largely at the hands of Mehl and his collaborators.'-5 They have shown that formation of pearlite proceeds by a process of nuclea-tion and growth and they measured both the nucleation and growth rate. However, there is still a wide gap between our empirical knowledge and fundamental knowledge, owing largely to the fact that there is no satisfactory theory of nucleation rate or of growth rate. This paper is being written in an attempt to Hl in a small part of the gap. A method was prcsented recently1' for calculating the velocity of edgewise growth of pearlite using an expression for the carbon concentration that satisfies the diffusion equation. The edgewise velocity of pearlite growth in a plain carbon eu-tectoid steel was calculated, using linear extrapolations of the ferrite and comentite solubilities. While the results are in fairly good agreement with the experimental facts, the calculated velocity of edgewise growth is smaller at 600°C. than G, the radial growth velocity of pearlite nodules, whereas one would expect it to be larger. In this paper the calculation will be repeated using a new extrapolation for the ferrite solubility, which gives better agreement between G and T', the calculated velocity of edgewise growth. A calculation will also be made of the effect of carbon content on velocity of edgewise growth, and the problems of calculating the effects of other alloying elements on growth rates will be discussed. It will be assumed that the mechanism of pearlite growth, established by Mehl and

Jan 1, 1947

By W. H. Brandt

ThEre has been much progress in the last two decades in understanding the hardenability of steel. Roughly, the progress has been along two lines, which may be designated as empirical and fundamental. This empirical work has progressed to the point where steels may be manufactured to the desired characteristics quite closely and heat-treatment and application problems can be approached with considerable confidcnce. Particularly noteworthy among the empirical work is that of Grossmann,12. who has given formulas for calculating hardenability as a function of composition, and the establishment of the isothermal transformation curve by Davenport and Bain.13 The latter does not fall entirely in the class of an empirical study, for while it provides a means of presenting a tremendous amount of empirical data in the form of a single curve, it also outlines clearly the problems that face the fundamental investigator. The isothermal transformation curve shows clearly that the phenomena occurring in the neighborhood of the knee of the curve are those that limit the hardenability of steel. Above the knee of the curve, the product of decomposition of austenite is lamellar pearlite and fundamental progress has consisted chiefly of a detailed study of structure and formation of pearlite, largely at the hands of Mehl and his collaborators.'-5 They have shown that formation of pearlite proceeds by a process of nuclea-tion and growth and they measured both the nucleation and growth rate. However, there is still a wide gap between our empirical knowledge and fundamental knowledge, owing largely to the fact that there is no satisfactory theory of nucleation rate or of growth rate. This paper is being written in an attempt to Hl in a small part of the gap. A method was prcsented recently1' for calculating the velocity of edgewise growth of pearlite using an expression for the carbon concentration that satisfies the diffusion equation. The edgewise velocity of pearlite growth in a plain carbon eu-tectoid steel was calculated, using linear extrapolations of the ferrite and comentite solubilities. While the results are in fairly good agreement with the experimental facts, the calculated velocity of edgewise growth is smaller at 600°C. than G, the radial growth velocity of pearlite nodules, whereas one would expect it to be larger. In this paper the calculation will be repeated using a new extrapolation for the ferrite solubility, which gives better agreement between G and T', the calculated velocity of edgewise growth. A calculation will also be made of the effect of carbon content on velocity of edgewise growth, and the problems of calculating the effects of other alloying elements on growth rates will be discussed. It will be assumed that the mechanism of pearlite growth, established by Mehl and

Jan 1, 1947

By R. A. Grange, H. M. Stewart

Man.; steel parts may crack if quenched directly into a bath near room temperature, but not if quenched at a temperature just above the range where martensite forms and then allowed to cool slowly to room temperature. This latter procedure, which is the basis for such modern hardening techniques as "martempering" and "isothermal quenching," may entail some sacrifice in depth of hardening but very little, if any, in intensity of hardening. In planning such treatments, it is necessary to know the upper limit of the martensite range, and often desirable to know the proportion of martensite that would form on cooling to any lower temperature; furthermore, the tendency of a particular steel to crack when quenched is unquestionably associated with the temperature range of martensite formation, and consequently knowledge of this range aids in selecting the optimum composition for a given application. Certain puzzling phenomena associated with the properties of quenched and tempered steel may be at least partly clarified as the manner in which martensite forms is more fully understood. Information on the temperature range of martensite formation, particularly with respect to how much martensite results from quenching to a given temperature, is lacking for most commercial types of carbon and low-alloy steel. These considerations led us to study martensite formation in 14 carbon and low-alloy steels. The resultant data may be directly used in the following ways: (I) for selecting the lowest quenching temperature at which no martensite will form; (2) for selecting the highest quenching temperature at which virtually all marten . site will form, thereby avoiding quenching to an unnecessarily lower temperature with attendant danger of cracking; and (3) in producing a mixture of tempered martensite and bainite, which in high-carbon steels has been found to possess somewhat better ductility than tempered martensite, yet does not require the full transformation time necessary for a completely bainitic (austempered) structure. PART I. OBSERVATIONS OF MARTENSITE FORMATION IN FOURTEEN CARBON AND LOW-ALLOY STEELS Transformation of austenite to pearlite or bainite can be conveniently studied by observing the change that occurs over a period of time at constant temperature; such studies are the basis of the isothermal transformation diagram (S-curve). This isothermal technique is not applicable to martensite formation, which occurs within a time interval too small to measure, at least by any ordinary means. For all practical purposes, therefore, martensite may be regarded as forming only during cooling and not during a period of time at constant temperature. As austenite is cooled below

Jan 1, 1947

By H. M. Stewart, R. A. Grange

Man.; steel parts may crack if quenched directly into a bath near room temperature, but not if quenched at a temperature just above the range where martensite forms and then allowed to cool slowly to room temperature. This latter procedure, which is the basis for such modern hardening techniques as "martempering" and "isothermal quenching," may entail some sacrifice in depth of hardening but very little, if any, in intensity of hardening. In planning such treatments, it is necessary to know the upper limit of the martensite range, and often desirable to know the proportion of martensite that would form on cooling to any lower temperature; furthermore, the tendency of a particular steel to crack when quenched is unquestionably associated with the temperature range of martensite formation, and consequently knowledge of this range aids in selecting the optimum composition for a given application. Certain puzzling phenomena associated with the properties of quenched and tempered steel may be at least partly clarified as the manner in which martensite forms is more fully understood. Information on the temperature range of martensite formation, particularly with respect to how much martensite results from quenching to a given temperature, is lacking for most commercial types of carbon and low-alloy steel. These considerations led us to study martensite formation in 14 carbon and low-alloy steels. The resultant data may be directly used in the following ways: (I) for selecting the lowest quenching temperature at which no martensite will form; (2) for selecting the highest quenching temperature at which virtually all marten . site will form, thereby avoiding quenching to an unnecessarily lower temperature with attendant danger of cracking; and (3) in producing a mixture of tempered martensite and bainite, which in high-carbon steels has been found to possess somewhat better ductility than tempered martensite, yet does not require the full transformation time necessary for a completely bainitic (austempered) structure. PART I. OBSERVATIONS OF MARTENSITE FORMATION IN FOURTEEN CARBON AND LOW-ALLOY STEELS Transformation of austenite to pearlite or bainite can be conveniently studied by observing the change that occurs over a period of time at constant temperature; such studies are the basis of the isothermal transformation diagram (S-curve). This isothermal technique is not applicable to martensite formation, which occurs within a time interval too small to measure, at least by any ordinary means. For all practical purposes, therefore, martensite may be regarded as forming only during cooling and not during a period of time at constant temperature. As austenite is cooled below

Jan 1, 1947

By M. Cohen, B. L. Averbach

Many hardened steels contain significant quantities of retained austenite even in cases where the carbon and alloy contents are low. In fact austenite has been detected in plain carbon steels containing as little as 0.50 pct carbon.1 Although the austenite may not be visible metallographically it causes definite dilatometric and magnetic effects during subsequent tempering or sub-atmospheric coo1ing.l,2,3 Therefore if the reactions which hardened steels undergo during later treatment are to be understood in quantitative fashion it is most essential to have some kind of absolute analysis for the austenite content in hardened steels. Once this analysis has been made, the austenite transformations can be followed precisely by observing such sensitive phenomena as changes in length or in magnetization but the latter techniques can only determine differences in the amount of retained austenite and usually an independent method must be found to put these differences on an absolute basis. In certain instances the microscope can be used advantageously to determine the percentage of retained austenite. The quenched sample is tempered to "darken" the martensite with minimum decomposition of the coexisting austenite, and then is polished and etched in the usual fashion. If the austenite is clearly distinguishable from the tempered martensite and other possible constituents its volume percentage can be measured quantitatively by point counting or lineal analysis.4 Such microscopic methods, however, depend on the etch being sufficiently discriminatory. In fairly coarse structures, if the austenite content is greater than 10-15 pct, there is probably little smearing of the etch, and point counting or lineal analysis seems to be quite accurate. On the other hand if the structure is difficult to resolve, as in commercially treated fine-grained . steels which contain less than 10-15 pct retained austenite, the latter may be completely obliterated by the dark etching martensite or it may appear disproportionately low as the interfaces between the two constituents become difficult to distinguish. Another disadvantage of the metallographic method is the need for "darkening" the martensite and hence the determination cannot be applied to as-hardened steels. The required tempering may spoil the structure for other tests or may even remove a small part of the austenite which is being sought. X ray methods hold more promise for covering the range under 15 pct retained austenite. Although austenite and martensite in the hardened steel may be chemically identical, their crystal structures and lattice parameters differ, and the intensity of an austenite diffraction line is some continuous function of the percentage of re-

Jan 1, 1949