Materials Science and Technology

ISSN: 0267-0836 (Print) 1743-2847 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymst20

Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P

steel

G. A. Thomas & J. G. Speer

To cite this article: G. A. Thomas & J. G. Speer (2014) Interface migration during
partitioning of Q&P steel, Materials Science and Technology, 30:9, 998-1007, DOI:
10.1179/1743284714Y.0000000546

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1743284714Y.0000000546

Published online: 02 Apr 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 899

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymst20

Download by: [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] Date: 23 June 2017, At: 02:36
 Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P
steel
G. A. Thomas* and J. G. Speer
The quenching and partitioning (Q&P) process for heat treatment of steel has previously been
shown yield to good combinations of strength and ductility owing to the presence of martensite
and austenite. Interface mobility has been discussed in previous literature, mostly related to local
driving forces. The present work considers the migration of the martensite/austenite interface in
two steels (containing CMnSiMo or CNiSiMo). Experimental data show clear evidence of interface
migration in the CMnSiMo steel during partitioning treatments at temperatures between 200 and
400uC for times ranging from 30 to 1000 s; conversely, the interface in the CNiSiMo steel was
stationary during the same partitioning treatments. The different behaviours observed are
considered in the context of differences in interface mobility and driving forces, and it appears
that interface crystallography differences could influence the partitioning behaviour of Q&P steels.
Keywords: Quenched and partitioned steel, Q&P, Interface migration, Martensite, Austenite, Orientation relationships

This paper is part of a special issue on Adventures in the Physical Metallurgy of Steels

Introduction observations from before and after the partitioning

Quenching and partitioning (Q&P) is a thermal process
aimed at stabilising retained austenite.1–4 The process
involves an initial partial or full austenitisation, then
quenching to a temperature (typically .100uC) between
the martensite start and finish temperature to create a
controlled fraction of martensite, followed by a ‘parti-
tioning step’ to allow carbon to diffuse from martensite
into the remaining austenite. The enhanced carbon levels
in the austenite stabilise it to room temperature. Early
assumptions in the development of the Q&P concept
utilised assumptions of an immobile martensite/austenite
interface during partitioning to define the constrained
carbon equilibrium condition.1 However, later analyses
also included the possibility of a mobile interface in light
of experimental evidence of interface migration.5–9 The
present study was intended to further the understanding
of interface mobility and migration by direct observa-
tion of the microstructure and the martensite/austenite
interface before and after partitioning treatments. The
present work utilised relatively highly alloyed Q&P
chemistries that allowed for direct quenching from
austenitisation temperatures to room temperature
(instead of some elevated quench temperature) while
maintaining significant fractions of austenite. The steels
were characterised after this quenching step using a
variety of techniques (e.g. SEM/EBSD and XRD), then
subjected to a partitioning treatment (e.g. reheated to
200–400uC for 30–1000 s) and then cooled back to room
temperature and characterised again. Comparison of
Department of Product Research and Applications Engineering, AK Steel
Research, 705 Curtis St, Middletown, OH 45011, USA
*Corresponding author, email grant.thomas@aksteel.com
treatment allowed for observation of changes that
occurred during the partitioning treatment such as
interface migration.
Speer et al.5 provided an early conceptual treatment of
the potential for interface migration during partitioning;
in their description, the authors point out that there is a
clear potential for a driving force for martensite/austenite
interface migration (in either direction) due to carbon
partitioning resulting in chemical potential gradients for
iron (and substitutionals) in each of the two phases. Based
on this work, Santofimia et al.7,8 modelled the migration
of such interfaces considering various cases of interface
mobility (described as a function of an activation energy
for iron atom motion at the interface). The model
included carbon partitioning kinetics and allowed the
interface between martensite (ferrite) and austenite to
move with various degrees of contraint, ranging from
immobile (e.g. a coherent interface) to relatively highly
mobile (e.g. an incoherent interface). The model predicts
very different microstructural evolution depending on the
interface mobility. For the case of the immobile interface,
it was found that the behaviour was the same as that
predicted for constrained carbon equilibrium behaviour
(i.e. stationary interface and carbon transport from
martensite into austenite). For the semicoherent interface,
results suggested it was found that the carbon concentra-
tion profiles were similar to those of the immobile
interface for short times; however, for longer partitioning
times, the calculated phase fractions and carbon con-
centrations move closer to equilibrium values (i.e. the
interface migrated in the direction of austenite). Finally,
for the case of the more mobile incoherent interface, it
was found that carbon profiles and phase fractions were
uniquely coupled during the partitioning process and the
martensite/austenite interface migrated first towards the

ß 2014 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 1 October 2013; accepted 26 March 2014
998 DOI 10.1179/1743284714Y.0000000546 Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9

martensite and later towards the austenite (i.e. austenite
growth followed by martensite growth).
The movement of the martensite/austenite interface in
the direction of martensite is perhaps consistent with
classically observed ‘reversion’ (the literature is not clear
whether ‘reversion’ refers only austenite growth by shear
mechanisms or if interface migrations by diffusional
processes are also included12–14,30–37). Martensite reversion
to austenite has been reported to occur by growth of
existing austenite or by nucleation of new austenite and
subsequent growth; in which the former would result in
reversed austenite of the same orientation as the parent
austenite10 and the latter might cause austenite to be
formed with orientations that are different than the parent
austenite from which martensite formed.10,11 Growth of
austenite might occur by an athermal shear mechanism
(i.e. martensitic ‘reverse’ transformation) or by a thermally
activated diffusional mechanisms (i.e. short range diffusion
across the martensite/austenite interface).12 The dominant
mechanism depends on the temperature and the heating
rate; where high heating rates are reportedly associated
with shear transformations11,12 and low heating rates are
typically associated with thermally activated diffusion
mechanisms.12,13 In either case, the reversed austenite
typically has a high density of defects14 (although austenite
formed by shear mechanisms may have a higher defect
density as compared to that formed by diffusional
growth12). It has been hypothesised that the reversed
austenite is more stabile than the parent austenite (i.e.
resistant to transformation back to martensite) due to
hindering of martensitic growth by the recovered sub-grain
structure of the reversed austenite.10,12
Diffusional interface migration is reported to occur by
one of two mechanisms. The first is a step or ledge
mechanism15 which occurs for coherent and semicoher-
ent interfaces with relatively low index orientation
relationships and habit planes; this mechanism usually
displays start–stop growth behaviour due to the
necessity of critical nucleation events.15–17 The second
is the massive transformation which involves continuous
or stepwise growth. The structure (e.g. coherency) of the
martensite/austenite interface may partially govern the
mobility of the interface. Ma and Pond18 have modelled
martensite/austenite and suggest that the interface is
semicoherent and can migrate by glissile motion of
transformation dislocations at the interface. The present
work aimed to understand the role of interface structure
on interface mobility.
Procedure
Two steels were studied in this work, containing 0?31C–
13?95Ni–1?91Si–0?24Mo (wt-%) or 0?27C–8?31Mn–
1?94Si–0?25Mo (wt-%); the steels were designated as
‘14Ni steel’ and ‘8Mn steel’ respectively, due to the
elevated nickel or manganese levels. The steels were
laboratory cast and hot rolled to 2?54 mm thickness.
Salt pots were used to heat treat the material according
to the Q&P heat treatment process. The samples were
austenitised at 875uC for 300 s and the quenched into
water to room temperature. Some samples were left in
this as quenched condition for examination. Other
samples were reheated to 200, 300 or 400uC and held
for 30, 60, 100 or 1000 s. This is referred to as the
partitioning step. After the partitioning step, the samples
were quenched in water to room temperature.
Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel
X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to measure the
retained austenite fraction and estimate the carbon
content of austenite before and after the partitioning
treatments. XRD was performed at room temperature
with nickel filtered copper radiation using a Phillips X-
pert diffractometer operating at 45 kV and 40 mA and
equipped with an X’celerator detector with a 1u slit.
Samples were prepared by grinding to remove surface
oxides with 60, 120, 240, 300, 400 and 600 grit silicon
carbide papers. The grinding step introduces work into
the sample that might alter the XRD measurement; to
avoid the detrimental effects of grinding, the samples
were chemically thinned for approximately 15 min in a
water cooled container of 10 parts water, 10 parts 30%
hydrogen peroxide and 1 part hydrofluoric acid.
Samples were scanned through a 2h range from 40 to
105u over a total scan time of about 21 min. Filtered
copper radiation was used and four austenite peaks
({111}, {200}, {220} and {311}) and four ferrite/
martensite peaks ({110}, {200}, {211}, {220}) were
quantified and the austenite fraction was estimated using
the SAE method.19 The carbon content of the as
c
quenched austenite (Cquenched ) was assumed to be that
of the bulk alloy. The carbon content of austenite after
c
partitioning treatments (Cpartitioined ) was calculated from
the change in lattice parameter relative to the as
quenched condition according to the equation20–22
c c ac {aco
Cpartitioined ~Cquenched z : (1)
0 00453
where ac is the lattice parameter of austenite after the
partitioning treatment and aco is the lattice parameter of
austenite in the as quenched condition. Unless otherwise
noted, all data were collected from unique samples
which were each subjected to partitioning treatments for
the times and temperatures indicated.
EBSD was used to characterise the microstructures
before and after partitioning, to identify phases (auste-
nite and ferrite/martensite) present in the microstruc-
ture, observe the morphology of austenite and provide
orientation information useful for understanding micro-
structural evolution. EBSD analyses were performed
using a JEOL-7000F FESEM. Samples were polished
with 6, 3 and 1 mm diamond slurries. The final step
before EBSD data collection involved vibratory polish-
ing using 0?05 mm colloidal silica. The samples were
tilted 70u (with respect to horizontal) towards the
camera used to collect EBSD patterns. Owing to the
tilting of the sample, the working distance (approxi-
mately 15 mm) varied with position; therefore, dynamic
focus control was used to focus the entire image during
data collection. The accelerating voltage was 20 kV. The
step size for EBSD data collection was 50 nm using a
hexagonal grid pattern. EDAX-TSL OIM Data
Collection 5?1 software was used to collect and index
the Kikuchi band patterns and TSL OIM Data Analysis
5?1 software was used to analyse the results obtained
from EBSD. Post-processing cleaning routines were not
employed (unless otherwise noted).
Results
The austenite fractions and austenite carbon content
estimated from XRD are shown for both steels in Fig. 1
as a function of partitioning time (Pt). As seen Fig. 1a,
relative to the as quenched condition (i.e. Pt50 s), the
Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9 999
Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel

1 XRD results as a function of partitioning time. a, c Austenite fractions for 8Mn and 14Ni steel respectively. b, d
Austenite carbon contents for 8Mn and 14Ni steel respectively. With exception of the closed symbols in a, all data
were collected from unique samples subjected to partitioning treatments for the times and temperatures indicated. The
closed symbols in a were collected from a single sample that was heat-treated cumulatively for the indicated time at
400uC

austenite fractions of the 8Mn steel increased signifi-
cantly with increasing partitioning time after partition-
ing at 200, 300 or 400uC. The higher partitioning
temperatures resulted in a greater increase in the
austenite fraction for the partitioning times examined.
To verify that the increase in austenite fraction observed
was a real effect and not an artefact of the experimental
method, a single sample was subjected to a cumulative
partitioning treatment in which the austenite fraction
was measured by XRD and then the same sample was
heated to the partitioning temperature (PT) for the
prescribed amount of time and then cooled to room
temperature for XRD analysis, and then reheated to the
partitioning temperature and so on. The results are
shown as closed symbols in Fig. 1a. This procedure led
to a similar increase in austenite fractions with
partitioning time. The increase in austenite fraction
must be the result of either growth of existing austenite
or nucleation of new austenite and subsequent growth.
The austenite fractions measured from the 14Ni steel
were essentially stabile with partitioning times up to
1000 s for partitioning temperatures of 200, 300 or
400uC, as shown in Fig. 1c. In this regard, the behaviour
of the 14Ni steel was in contrast to the 8Mn steel, but
consistent with assumptions made with respect to
constrained carbon equilibrium (CCE).1 The austenite
carbon content estimated from XRD are shown in
Fig. 1) and d as a function of partitioning time. The
austenite carbon concentrations increased in both steels
after partitioning treatments at 300uC or higher, and the
effect was apparently more pronounced in the 14Ni
steel. However, it should be noted that the austenite

1000 Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9


2 Percentage of total carbon that crossed the martensite/
austenite interface as a function of partitioning time
based on carbon mass balance using XRD data from
Fig. 1. Values were calculated by dividing the number
(or weight) of carbon atoms that crossed the interface
during the partitioning treatment by the total number
(or weight) of carbon atoms in the system
fraction in the 8Mn steel was increasing simultaneously
with the observed increase in carbon content of the
austenite; thus, the flux of carbon atoms across the
interface was greater in the 8Mn steel than the measured
average carbon content of the austenite alone would
indicate. To illustrate this point, Fig. 2 shows the
percentage of carbon atoms that crossed the marten-
site/austenite interface as a function of partitioning time
based on carbon mass balance using XRD data from
Fig. 1. Values were calculated by dividing the number
(or weight) of carbon atoms that crossed the interface
during the partitioning treatment by the total number
(or weight) of carbon atoms in the system. Positive
values indicate carbon migration in the direction from
martensite to austenite. As seen in the figure, the
percentages of carbon atoms that must have crossed
the martensite/austenite interface are similar for each of
the steels. Further, the percentage of carbon atoms that
must have crossed the interface for the samples
partitioned at any particular temperature was greater
for the 8Mn steel than that for the 14Ni steel, despite the
fact that the enrichment of austenite appears to be less in
the 8Mn steel-as measured by carbon concentration (e.g.
Fig. 1b versus d).
Figure 3 shows the results of a series of EBSD analyses
also performed on individual samples of the 8Mn steel to
examine the evolution of microstructure during partition-
ing at 400uC for various times. Figure 3 displays the data
as a phasezimage quality map in which colour represents
the indexed phase (red for bcc or bct, and green for fcc)
and the greyscale represents the image quality (compar-
able to band contrast in some EBSD analysis packages)
which gives an indication of the dislocations density of
the martensite.23,24 As shown in the phasezimage quality
maps of Fig. 3, the austenite fractions in the 8Mn steel
Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel
increased significantly with increasing partitioning time
up to about 100 s. This observation is in agreement with
the XRD analyses presented in Fig. 1. The austenite in
the microstructures shown in Fig. 3 is in thin films as well
as large pools. This increase in austenite fraction must be
the result of either growth of existing austenite or
nucleation of new austenite and subsequent growth, as
previously mentioned. To determine which of these two
phenomena occurred, additional EBSD analyses were
performed. Figure 4 shows inverse pole figure maps of
only regions that indexed as austenite; the colour
indicates the orientation of the austenite crystal (marten-
site appears black). Inspection of figures reveals that the
orientations of the prior austenite grains remain after
quenching and partitioning for various times. That is, the
individual austenite grains present in the microstructure
share common orientations inherited from the parent
austenite grains (present at the austenitising tempera-
ture). If new austenite crystals were to have nucleated,
these common orientations would not be dominant
and additional austenite orientation variants would be
expected.10 Thus, Fig. 4 shows strong evidence that
existing austenite was growing (instead of new austenite
nucleating and growing).
Table 1 shows the number of austenite crystals found
in a 20625 mm area as measured by EBSD after
quenching and after partitioning at 400uC for various
times. As seen in the table, the as quenched condition
(i.e. Pt50 s) featured the highest number of distinct
crystals. The number of distinct crystals decreased with
partitioning times as a result of multiple austenite
features growing into one another (hence becoming
one feature). If new austenite were have nucleated, the
number of distinct austenite features likely would have
increased for some time. The observed behaviour is
hypothesised to result from coalescence of austenite
grains during growth, although the details of this
process are not completely understood. Therefore, it is
most likely that existing austenite was growing during
the partitioning step. Thus, based on the evidence
collected by XRD and EBSD methods, it is clear that
the martensite/austenite interface is mobile and there is a
driving force for movement of the interface towards
martensite during the partitioning treatment of the 8Mn
steel.
Similar analyses were performed using the 14Ni steel
which exhibited stabile austenite fractions based on
XRD. Figure 5 shows the EBSD results for an
individual sample of the 14Ni steel after quenching
(figure a) and after quenching and partitioning at 400uC
for 100 s (Fig. 5b). As seen in the figure, the austenite is
present as thin films and pools typical of Q&P
microstructures. Although not presented here, EBSD
analyses of the 14 Ni steel were also conducted25 for a
variety of other partitioning conditions (e.g. as
quenched, and quenched and partitioned 200 or 400uC
for 30, 60, 100 or 1000 s). The images revealed that the
austenite fraction was stabile during partitioning treat-
ment, in agreement with the XRD analyses. The only
change observed in EBSD results for the other
partitioning conditions was variation in the image
quality (represented by greyscale in Fig. 5), where
samples subjected to longer partitioning treatments
generally exhibited higher values of image quality, likely
due to recovery of the martensite.
Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9 1001
Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel

a 8Mn steel 875uCzWQ (as quenched); b 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 30 s; c 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 60 s;
d 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 100 s; e 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 1000 s; f legend
3 EBSD image qualityzphase maps of 8Mn steel: a as quenched; then partitioned at 400uC for b 30 s, c 60 s, d 100 s,
e 1000 s; f legend

Figure 6 shows inverse pole figure maps that are sometimes exhibit alternating variants. This morphology
representative of the martensite observed in each steel. has been termed ‘ladder martensite’ due to the appear-
As shown in Fig. 6a, the martensite in the 8Mn steel ance of alternating layers of twin related a9-martensite.
exhibited a morphology that consists of fine laths that This type of martensite morphology has been related to

1002 Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9

 Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel

a 8Mn steel 875uCzWQ (as quenched); b 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 30 s; c 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 60 s;
d 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 100 s; e 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 1000 s; f legend
4 Inverse pole figure maps of austenite in 8Mn steel: a as quenched, partitioned at 400uC for b 30 s, c 60 s, d 100 s,
e 1000 s; f legend. Regions that indexed as martensite regions appear black

the formation of e-martensite prior to formation of a9-
martensite.26 XRD analysis of the 8Mn steel showed
evidence of e-martensite, suggesting that e-martensite
may have preceded a9-martensite formation and yielded
this characteristic morphology. In Fig. 6b, yellow lines
highlight boundaries between laths that represent 60u
rotations about a ,111.a axis which represents a low
energy twin boundary. This type of boundary was
observed for all of the alternating laths observed in the
8Mn steel. As shown in Fig. 6c, the 14Ni steel did not

Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9 1003

Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel
a 14Ni steel 875uCzWQ (as quenched); b 14Ni steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 100 s; c legend
5 EBSD image qualityzphase maps of 14Ni steel after a water quenching and b water quenching and partitioning at
400uC for 100 s
exhibit any of the ‘ladder martensite’ structure when
observed via EBSD, rather a more plate-like morphol-
ogy was observed in which twin orientations were not
observed. Further, XRD analyses did not reveal any
evidence of e-martensite in the 14Ni steel suggesting that
a9-martensite may have formed directly from austenite.
Thus, the mechanisms of martensite formation and
resulting structures of the martensite formed in each of
the two steels appear to be quite different.
Previous literature has reported different orientation
relationships between austenite and martensite. Two
commonly cited orientation relationships are the
Kurdjumov–Sachs (KS) orientation relationship and
the Nishiyama–Wassermann (NW) orientation relation-
ship (OR).27 Table 2 shows the description for these
orientation relationships as well as associated axis–angle
pairs (an axis–angle pair describes a rotation about a
common axis necessary to bring two unit cell orienta-
tions into coincidence).28 Figure 7 shows greyscale
image quality maps of each steel in which austenite is
highlighted green and martensite/austenite phase bound-
aries associated with the KS or NW orientation
relationship are highlighted red or yellow respectively.
Table 1 Number of distinct austenite crystals present in
8Mn steel in 20625 mm area measured by EBSD*
after partitioning at 400uC for times indicated
Partitioning time/s PT5400uC
As quenched 758
30 748
60 544
100 482
1000 572
*The EBSD data were subjected to a ‘grain dilation’ cleaning
routine to eliminate ‘noise’ from the data. The settings for the
grain dilation cleanup routine considered neighbouring pixels
that were indexed with orientations within 5u of each other and
required that each grain be at least 2 pixels in size.
1004 Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO
The samples shown were partitioned at 400uC for 60 s.
The angular tolerance for this analysis was ¡2?5u. The
angular tolerance was chosen to avoid overlap based on
the difference between the KS and NW orientation
relations of 5?26u.28,29
Table 3 tabulates the total line length of the afore-
mentioned boundaries and shows the ratio of boundary
lengths of KS/NW for all of the partitioning conditions
of the 8Mn steel. As seen in the table, the martensite/
austenite interfaces exhibited in the 8Mn steel were
predominately of the KS OR (at a ratio of about 2 : 1
compared to the NW OR). The 14Ni steel featured the
opposite behaviour, wherein the predominant OR of the
martensite/austenite interfaces was of the NW OR (at a
ratio of about 2 : 1 compared to the KS OR).
Discussion
The results of this work have shown that the martensite/
austenite interface in the 8Mn steel migrated during the
partitioning step. This migration was evident as a
significant increase in austenite fraction after partition-
ing as compared to the as quenched condition. In
contrast, the behaviour of the 14Ni steel during
partitioning treatments was very different, with of
stabile austenite fractions indicative of a stationary
martensite/austenite interface. While both steels exhib-
ited a significant flux of carbon atoms across the
boundary, it is evident that boundary movement was
prominent in the 8Mn steel but not in the 14Ni steel. On
a basic level, the difference in the behaviour of the two
steels must be the result of (1) differences in the driving
force for austenite formation and/or (2) differences in
the mobility of the martensite/austenite interface. It is
apparent that there was a driving force for interface
migration (e.g. austenite growth) and the interface was
mobile at the partitioning temperatures of interest such
that the interface could move at an appreciable velocity
9
 Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel

a 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 30 s; b 8Mn steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 30 s; c 14Ni steel 875uCzWQz400uC, 30 s;

d legend
6 Representative inverse pole figure map of ferrite/martensite in a 8Mn steel and c 14Ni steel. Samples were partitioned
at 400uC for 30 s. b Higher magnification image of that shown in a where yellow highlighting shows all boundaries that
represent a 60u rotation about a ,111.a axis. These boundaries were found in all conditions of the 8Mn steel

7 Representative EBSD. Image quality maps (greyscale) with austenite highlighted in green and martensite/austenite
boundaries that exhibit particular orientation relationships highlighted in red (KS OR) or yellow (NW OR). Samples
were partitioned at 400uC for 60 s

Table 2 Orientation relationships and associated axis–angle pairs28

Orientation relationship Definition Axis–angle pair

Kurdjumov–Sachs (KS) {1 1 1}c//{1 1 0}a9 ,1 1 0.c//,1 1 1.a9 42.85u ,0.968 0.178 0.178.
Nishiyama–Wassermann (NW) {1 1 1}c//{1 1 0}a9 ,1 1 1.c//,1 1 0.a9 45.98u ,0.976 0.083 0.201.

Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9 1005

Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel

Table 3 Length of boundaries associated with KS or NW orientation relationships analysed by EBSD

8Mn steel 14Ni steel

PT5200uC PT5400uC PT5400uC

Boundary Boundary Boundary

length/mm length (mm) length/mm
Partitioning Ratio
time/s KS NW Ratio (KS/NW) KS NW (KS/NW) KS NW Ratio (KS/NW)

0 256 135 1.9 : 1 256 135 1.9 : 1 131 270 0.5 : 1

30 212 138 1.5 : 1 556 252 2.2 : 1 162 301 0.5 : 1
60 397 168 2.4 : 1 574 291 2.0 : 1 162 343 0.5 : 1
100 259 174 1.5 : 1 537 237 2.3 : 1 151 305 0.5 : 1
1000 287 123 2.3 : 1 519 220 2.4 : 1 164 266 0.6 : 1

in the 8Mn steel. Alternatively, at least one of these two References

criteria clearly was not met for the 14Ni steel. At
present, it is difficult to positively identify which of these
criteria were not met, but it is clear that there are
significant differences in the martensitic structures and
interface character between the two phases that might
have led to a more highly mobile interface in the 8Mn
steel versus the 14Ni steel. The 8Mn steel exhibited and e-
martensite precursor and ladder martensite with multiple
twin variants; while the 14Ni steel did not exhibit twinned
variants and was associated with a much greater
propensity toward the NW OR (whereas the 8Mn steel
exhibited the KS OR). Kajiwara and Owen30,31 have
suggested that differences in dislocation density or
differences in the martensite morphology (such as the
presence of transformation twins that extend to the
martensite/austenite interface) might have an effect on
the interface mobility. Thus, the differences in observed
martensite morphologies and interface structure may
offer an explanation for the observed interface migration
in the 8Mn steel and the stationary interface in the 14Ni
steel. The results do not conclusively prove, but are
suggestive that austenite/martensite interface between
crystals having a KS OR may be more mobile during
partitioning in comparison to crystals having a NW OR.
Conclusions
Based on changes in phase fractions during partitioning
(measured by both XRD and EBSD) it is concluded that
the martensite/austenite interface in a CMnSiMo steel
(8Mn steel) migrated towards martensite during partition-
ing treatments at 200, 300 and 400uC, indicating that the
martensite/austenite interface was mobile. The martensite/
austenite interface in a CNiSiMo (14Ni steel) did not
migrate during partitioning treatments at 200, 300 or
400uC. The martensite morphology and OR with austenite
was found to be quite different between the two steels. The
8Mn steel featured ‘ladder martensite’ resulting from e-
martensite formation preceding a9-martensite formation
with a predominately KS OR with austenite. Alternatively,
the 14Ni steel featured more plate-like martensite with a
predominately NW OR with austenite. It is hypothesised
that differences in the martensitic structure and interface
orientation may be related to the difference in interface
mobility between the two steels, where the 8Mn steel
featured a mobile martensite/austenite interface, and the
14Ni steel featured a stationary interface.
1. J. Speer, D. K. Matlock, B. C. de Cooman and J. G. Schroth:
‘Carbon partitioning into austenite after martensite transforma-
tion’, Acta Mater., 2003, 51, 2611–2622.
2. D. V. V. Edmonds, K. He, F. C. C. Rizzo, B. C. C. de Cooman,
D. K. K. Matlock and J. G. G. Speer: ‘Quenching and partitioning
martensite – a novel steel heat treatment’, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2006,
A438–A440, 25–34.
3. E. de Moor, S. Lacroix, A. J. Clarke, J. Penning and J. G. Speer:
‘Effect of retained austenite stabilized via quench and partitioning
on the strain hardening of martensitic steels’, Metall. Mater. Trans.
A, 2008, 39A, 2586–2595.
4. A. Clarke, J. G. Speer, D. K. Matlock, F. C. Rizzo, D. V. Edmonds
and M. J. Santofimia: ‘Influence of carbon partitioning kinetics on
final austenite fraction during quenching and partitioning’, Scr.
Mater., 2009, 61, 149–152.
5. J. G. Speer, R. E. Hackenberg, B. C. Decooman and D. K.
Matlock: ‘Influence of interface migration during annealing of
martensite/austenite mixtures’, Philos. Mag. Lett., 2007, 87, 379–
382.
6. N. Zhong, X. Wang, Y. Rong and L. Wang: ‘Interface migration
between martensite and austenite’, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2006,
22, 751–754.
7. M. J. Santofimia, L. Zhao and J. Sietsma: ‘Model for the
interaction between interface migration and carbon diffusion
during annealing of martensite–austenite microstructures in steels’,
Scr. Mater., 2008, 59, 159–162.
8. M. J. Santofimia, J. G. Speer, a. J. Clarke, L. Zhao and J. Sietsma:
‘Influence of interface mobility on the evolution of austenite–
martensite grain assemblies during annealing’, Acta Mater., 2009,
57, 4548–4557.
9. L. Yuan, D. Ponge, J. Wittig, P. Choi, J. A. Jiménez and D. Raabe:
‘Nanoscale austenite reversion through partitioning, segregation,
and kinetic freezing: example of a ductile 2 GPa Fe–Cr–C steel’,
Acta Mater., 2012, 60, 2790.
10. K. B. Guy, E. P. Butler, and D. R. F. West: ‘Reversion of bcc a9
martensite in Fe–Cr–Ni austenitic stainless steels’, Met. Sci., 1983,
17, 167–176.
11. H. Kessler and W. Pitsch: ‘On the nature of the martensite to
austenite reverse transformation’, Acta Metall., 1967, 15, 401–405.
12. C. A. Apple and G. Krauss: ‘The effect of heating rate on the
martensite to austenite transformation in Fe–Ni–C alloys’, Acta
Metall., 1972, 20, 849–856.
13. S. S. M. Tavares, D. Fruchart and S. Miraglia: ‘A magnetic study
of the reversion of martensite a9 in a 304 stainless steel’, J. Alloys
Compd, 2000, 307, 311–317.
14. H. Smith and D. R. F. West: ‘The reversion of martensite to
austenite in certain stainless steels’, J. Mater. Sci., 1973, 8, 1413–
1420.
15. H. I. Aaronson, J. M. Howe, M. G. Hall, T. Furuhara and J. P.
Hirth: ‘Mobility of structural ledges’, Scr. Mater., 1997, 37, 1301–
1307.
16. J. M. Howe: ‘Comparison of the atomic structure, composition,
kinetics and mechanisms of interfacial motion in martensitic,
bainitic, massive and precipitation face-centered cubic–hexagonal
close-packed phase transformations’, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2006,
A438–A440, 35–42.

1006 Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9


17. J. Wu, J. M. Howe and W. Z. Zhang: ‘An in situ transmission electron
microscopy study of interface growth during martensitic transforma-
tion in an Fe–Ni–Mn alloy’, Acta Mater., 2011, 59, 3297–3303.
18. X. Ma and R. C. Pond: ‘Parent–martensite interface structure in
ferrous systems’, J. Nucl. Mater., 2007, 361, 313–321.
19. ‘Retained austenite and its measurement by X-ray diffraction’,
Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, USA, 1980, 12.
20. M. J. J. Santofimia, L. Zhao, R. Petrov, C. Kwakernaak, W. G. G.
Sloof and J. Sietsma: ‘Microstructural development during the
quenching and partitioning process in a newly designed low-carbon
steel’, Acta Mater., 2011, 59, 6059–6068.
21. D. J. Dyson and B. Holmes: ‘Effect of alloy additions on the lattice
parameter of austenite’, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1970, 208, 469–474.
22. N. H. van Dijk: ‘Thermal stability of retained austenite in TRIP
steels studied by synchrotron X-ray diffraction during cooling’,
Acta Mater., 2005, 53, 5439–5447.
23. G. Thomas, J. Speer, D. Matlock and J. Michael: ‘Application of
electron backscatter diffraction techniques to quenched and
partitioned steels’, Microsc. Microanal., 2011, 17, 368–373.
24. M. J. Santofimia, L. Zhao, R. Petrov and J. Sietsma: ‘Characterization
of the microstructure obtained by the quenching and partitioning
process in a low-carbon steel’, Mater. Charact., 2008, 59, 1758–1764.
25. G. A. Thomas: ‘A study of partitioning mechanisms operating
during Q&P heat treatment of steel’, PhD thesis, Colorado School
of Mines, Golden, CO, USA, 2012.
26. K. H. K. Cheol, H. Lee, K.-K. Um, J.-K. Choi and N. J. Kim:
‘Microstructural development in Fe–12Mn steel’, Proc. Int. Conf.
on ‘Advanced steel’, 78, Guilin, China, November 2010, CSM.
27. G. Krauss: ‘Processing, structure, and performance’, 613; 2005,
Materials Park, OH, ASM International.
Thomas and Speer Interface migration during partitioning of Q&P steel
28. Y. He, S. Godet and J. J. Jonas: ‘Representation of misorientations
in Rodrigues–Frank space: application to the Bain, Kurdjumov–
Sachs, Nishiyama–Wassermann and Pitsch orientation relation-
ships in the Gibeon meteorite’, Acta Mater., 2005, 53, 1179–
1190.
29. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: ‘Worked examples in the geometry of
crystals’, 2nd edn; 1987, London, Maney Publishing.
30. S. Kajiwara: ‘Velocity of the austenite-martensite interface in
reverse martensitic transformation in FeNiC alloys’, Mater.
Charact., 1995, 34, 105–119.
31. S. Kajiwara and W. S. Owen: ‘The martensite–austenite interface
and the thickness of twins in martensite in Fe 3Pt’, Scr. Metall.,
1977, 11, 137–142.
32. P. L. Mangonon and G. Thomas: ‘Structure and properties of
thermal-mechanically treated 304 stainless steel’, Metall. Trans.,
1970, 1, 1587–1594.
33. S. Kajiwara and T. Kikuchi: ‘Reversible movement of the
austenite–martensite interface and dislocation structures in
reverse-transformed austenite in Fe–Ni–C alloys’, Philos. Mag. A
1983, 48A, 509–526.
34. P. Mangonon and G. Thomas: ‘The martensite phases in 304
stainless steel’, Metall. Trans., 1970, 1, 1577–1586.
35. F. Gauzzi and R. Montanari: ‘Martensite reversion in an Fe–
21%Mn–0?1%C alloy’, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1999, A273–A275, 524–
527,.
36. R. Montanari: ‘AISI 304 steel: effects of slow heating rates on
a9Rc reversion’, Mater. Lett., 1989, 8, 297–300.
37. A. Zararsiz, A. Gedikoğlu and T. N. Durlu: ‘Mössbauer study of
martensite to austenite reverse transformations in Fe 17?1% Ni O.
81% C alloy’, Scr. Metall., 1981, 15, 999–1001.
Materials Science and Technology 2014 VOL 30 NO 9 1007