Journal of the Less-Common Metals

Elsevier Sequoia S.A.. Lausanne - Printed

107
in The Netherlands

A MECHANISM FOR THE STRAIN-INDUCED

MARTENSITIC TRANSFORMATIONS*

G. B. OLSON

and MORRIS

Department of Metallurgy
Massachusetts (U.S.A)
(Received

January

NUCLEATION

OF

COHEN
and Materials Science,

Massachusetts

Institute qf Technology, Cumbridge,

18th, 1972)

SUMMARY

The previous work of Professor W. G. Burgers and Dr. A. J. Bogers is used to

develop a mechanism of strain-induced martensitic nucleation, involving two intersecting shear systems. We distinguish between strain-induced nucleation and stressassisted nucleation, the latter involving the same sites and embryos as does the regular
spontaneous transformation. The strain-induced nucleation, on the other hand,
depends on the creation of new sites and embryos by plastic deformation; this
phenomenon may also contribute in a major way to autocatalytic nucleation during
the course of martensitic transformation.
For the case of strain-induced nucleation, it is possible to focus on specific
intersecting-shear systems when the austenitic stacking-fault energy is low and
E (h.c.p.) martensite can form as a part of the shear displacements. It then becomes
feasible to extend the intersecting-shear mechanism from this special case to alloys of
higher stacking-fault energy, where E is no longer stable relative to the austenite.
It should be noted, however, that these events are very early stages in the formation of martensitic plates and relate primarily to the genesis of embryos; the actual
growth start-ups which determine the operational (measured) nucleation rates may be
controlled by subsequent processes.

INTRODUCTION

We are privileged to take part in this international tribute to the distinguished

Professor W. G. Burgers, and take this opportunity to present some ideas about a
subject which has fascinated him for many years, namely the nucleation of martensitic
transformations. Professor Burgers interest in this phenomenon is typified by his
classic paper withA. J. Bogers on Partial dislocations on the {1lo} planes in the b.c.c.
lattice and the transition of the f.c.c. into the b.c.c. lattice. This remarkable piece of
Dedicated to Professor Dr. W. G. Burgers in celebration
of his 75th birthday.
This paper is based on research at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
sponsored
Office of Naval Research
under Contract
No. N00014-67-A-0204-0027
and by the National
Foundation
under Grant No. GK-26631.

J. Less-Common Metals, 28 (1972)

by the
Science

108

G. B. OLSON,

M. COHEN

work has stimulated us to build on it, and we now wish to extend the Bogers-Burgers
model to strain-induced nucleation.
Although most investigations on the kinetics of martensitic reactions have
dealt with the spontaneous transformation unassisted by externally applied stresses,
the fact remains that virtually the total portion of such transformations (at least in
iron-base alloys) involves autocatalytic nucleationzP4. Because of the macroscopic
displacements which accompany martensitic transformations,
the surrounding
parent phase is plastically strained, and it seems reasonable to assume that straininduced nucleation contributes to the autocatalysis.
Still another important aspect of strain-induced nucleation arises from the
circumstance that, when this type of nucleation is systematically studied through
intentionally-imposed
plastic deformation, the nucleation sites and corresponding
embryos can be identified - , at least in special cases, and channeled into specific
models. It should be emphasized, however, that we are concerned here with nucleation
events which do not necessarily determine the observed nucleation rates3. The latter
quantities are operational in the sense that the measurements reflect only the frequency
of growth start-ups which produce martensitic units of a visible size. The rate-controlling steps for triggering-off such growth are treated elsewhereg*. In the present
paper, on the other hand, we consider only the genesis of nucleation sites and embryos
by plastic deformation, this being a precursor to whatever may control the later
growth start-up process.
STRESS-ASSISTED

VS. STRAIN-INDUCED

NUCLEATION

The complex interrelationships among applied stress, plastic strain, and martensitic transformations have been studied extensively by Bolling and Richman - l4
in Fe-Nix
and some Fe-Ni-Cr-C alloys. They were able to define a temperature,
M, (lying above M,), below which yielding under applied stress is initiated by the
onset of martensite formation, and above which yielding under stress is initiated by
regular slip processes in the parent phase. Accordingly, the temperature dependence
of the yield stress is negative (normal) above M,, but is positive below M,. In the latter
regime, the stress to start the martensitic transformation (and hence yielding) approaches zero as the MS temperature is approached.
These relationships are illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. At temperatures
under Mp, the yielding which accompanies the martensitic transformation occurs
below the regular yield stress (oY) of the austenite (as extrapolated from higher to
lower temperatures). Here, the observed yield stress follows a temperature dependence
consistent with the dependence of MS on applied elastic stress16. We regard the
nucleation under these conditions as being stress-assisted.
Above M,, however, the applied stress must reach or exceed @Yin order to
initiate the martensitic transformation. As indicated by Fig. 1, there is evidence
(serrated stress-strain curves)14,15 that the stress at which the transformation is
initiated at temperatures just above Mf follows the regular yield strength o,,. At still
higher temperatures the initiating stress rises above (TVuntil a temperature limit is
reached at Md*. It is important to note that, in the temperature range above M,, the
* The
produced

symbol M, has its usual meaning

by plastic deformation.

J. Less-Common

Metals,

28 (1972)

here, being the temperature

above which martensite

is not

NUCLEATION

OF MARTENSITIC

TRANSFORMATIONS

109

_-

Md
Temperature

--+

Fig. 1. Schematic
representation
of interrelationships
induced(aboveM,)nucleationofamartensiteinFe-Ni-Calloys.After

between

stress-assisted
(below Mp) and strainresultsofBolIingandRichman14,

stress at which transformation is initiated lies significantly below the relatively-steep

stress-assisted transformation line extrapolated up from below M,. Therefore, we
postulate that the nucleation occurring above Mf is different in kind from the stressassisted nucleation manifested below M,. This distinction is easily rationalized on the
supposition that plastic deformation at 0,. and above introduces new, highly-potent
sites which allow nucleation at appreciably lower stresses than in the case of stressassisted nucleation. Hence, we consider the nucleation above M, to be (plastic) straininduced.

We can now summarize this overall situation. At the usual MS, the chemical
driving force is sufficiently large for the pre-existing nucleation sites or embryos in the
parent austenite to become operative without the application of stress. At temperatures
between MS and M,, such nucleation can still occur, but only with the aid of applied
stress. This is the stress-assisted transformation regime. Here, the required initiating
stress is in the elastic range (below gY), but increases with increasing temperature
because of the concommitant decrease in chemical driving force. At M,, the initiating
stress for nucleation, based on the original sites and embryos, reaches o,, and plastic
straining enters the picture. Evidently, the resulting strain-induced nucleation can be
activated at lower stresses than the stress-assisted nucleation, and so the initiating
stress tends to follow gYjust above M,. At still higher temperatures, however, the
further reduction in chemical driving force necessitates additional plastic straining in
order to produce detectable amounts of transformation; this requires the initiating
stress to rise above aY.
The foregoing description applies particularly to paramagnetic austenites.
Bolling and Richman13 have shown that, below M,, the stress-assisted transformation
characteristics are rather similar for both paramagnetic and ferromagnetic austenites.
J. Less-Common

Metals,

28 (1972)

110

G. B. OLSON, M. COHEN

On the other hand, above M, the strain-induced transformation tends to be suppressed

if the austenite is ferromagnetic. Although this curious behavior requires further
elucidation, it appears that the ferromagnetic state has a strong inhibiting effect on
strain-induced nucleation in contrast to its negligible effect on stress-assisted nucleation; this can be taken as additional evidence for the separate nature of the two types
of nucleation.
Neutron irradiation experiments on austenitic stainless steel demonstrate
convincingly that the strain-induced transformation is primarily dependent on plastic
strain rather than on the acting stress. The amount of martensitic transformation as a
function of plastic strain was found to be the same in both the annealed and irradiated
materials, even though the latter was much stronger (due to radiation damage) than
the former.
SPECIAL SITES FOR STRAIN-INDUCED

NUCLEATION

The formation of E (h.c.p.) martensite in y(f.c.c.) austenite of low stacking-fault

energy is well-established5. There are also some instances in which E has been observed
to provide favorable nucleation sites for the formation of a (b.c.c. or b.c.t.) martensite.
Figure 2, taken from a study by Venables, shows ~1formed at the intersection of two
E plates in an austenitic stainless steel (Type 304) deformed at 78 K. This is clearly a
case where a nucleating site has been created by plastic straining. The u.thus generated
may be construed as a strain-induced embryo; it has not triggered-off into a countable
martensitic plate in the sense of operational nucleation, as discussed earlier.
Lagneborg6 has reported that the intersections of active slip systems with .E
plates may also produce favorable sites for a nucleation. Manganon and Thomas
found that a can be nucleated by the intersection of two E plates or by the intersection
of an E plate with a twin or grain boundary in the austenite.
Notwithstanding these instances in which E intersections obviously play a
definite role in the strain-induced nucleation of a martensite, it can be argued that the

Fig. 2. Nucleation of a (b.c.c.) martensite at the intersection of two E (h.c.p.) plates in austenitic (f.c.c.)
stainless steel. Venables.
J. Less-Common Metals, 28 (1972)

NUCLEATION

OF MARTENSITIC

111

TRANSFORMATIONS

E phase is not necessary for this purpose, even in those alloys where E can form.
Lagneborg6 has noted, later confirmed by Goodchild et al.*, that a can be generated
in austenitic grains which are so oriented relative to the tensile-straining axis that E
formation is suppressed. Similarly, Breedis and Kaufman have also concluded that
CIcan nucleate independently of the E, particularly in those cases where the E is not
even thermodynamically stable with respect to either the y or a.
There seems to be a real correlation in Fe-Ni-Cr alloys between decreasing
stacking-fault energy of the f.c.c. austenite and increasing ease of CIformation with
plastic strain OJ~ . In such experiments, E is found in the alloys of lowest stackingfault energy, but there is no accompanying discontinuity in the observed trend of ci
formation with stacking-fault energy. Thus, although strain-induced nucleation is
favored by low stacking-fault energy, the formation of E does not appear to be a
necessary condition.
Despite these limitations, the E intersection mode of strain-induced IXnucleation is worthy of detailed attention because the site and associated crystallography
have been well determined. It is also conceivable that, even in instances where E is not
detected, E or faulted E may actually participate in some transient way, and so the E
case may offer tangible clues concerning other possible intersection mechanisms.
Moreover, there is a dynamic aspect to such intersections which should not be overlooked. When austenitic stainless steel is plastically strained (about 15%) at 60C
some E is formed, and then considerably more appears on cooling under load to
- 30C but the resulting conversion to CIis much smaller than when the austenite is
plastically strained to 15 % directly at - 30C6. Clearly, strain-induced nucleation to
c(takes place more readily during plastic deformation than under applied stress after
the deformation
INTERSECTING-SHEAR

MECHANISMS

FOR AN F.C.C.-B.C.C.

TRANSFORMATION

The observations of CInucleation at the intersections of E plates with other E

plates, with active slip systems, or with twin boundaries, all have a common feature.
The region of intersection defines a lath- or rod-shaped volume which has been doubly
sheared, and further, the elements of both shears are of the type (111\(112),,,. We
shall now examine this double-shear feature as a mechanism for transforming austenite
to martensite. Bogers and Burgers have already built an excellent foundation for this
problem with their ingenious hard-sphere model, reproduced here in Figs. 3 and 4.
Figure 3(a) and (d)* illustrates an f.c.c. packing of spheres lying in {11l}rcc
planes. Before dealing with the transition to a b.c.c. structure, it is instructive to
visualize the configuration of spheres after a regular f.c.c. twinning shear, shown in
Fig. 3(c) and (f), wh erein successive layers parallel to the close-packed plane PVQ
have shifted by a,,,/6( 112) in the direction QT perpendicular to PV. The result of
this twinning shear is that the shear plane PVQ and its conjugate plane PVS remain
as close-packed [ 111 ]rcc planes, whereas the other two close-packed planes QSV and
QSP become {1001_rccp lanes. Thus, the 60 angle denoted in Fig. 3(a) is enlarged to
90 in Fig. 3(c).
* Figure

3(dHf)

are sections

through

the hard-sphere

model

in Fig. 3(aHc),

corresponding

(1 lOif,, planes. Such planes are normal to the shear plane PVQ and contain both the shear direction
and the dilatational
J. Less-Common

direction.

Metals,

28 (1972)

to
QT

112

G. B. OLSON, M. COHEN

Fig. 3. Hard-sphere model illustrating twinning shear a,,/6( 112> in austenite and the intermediate position
corresponding to af,,/18(l12) where the initially close-packed plane QSV takes on the geometry of a
{1lo;,,,, plane in QSV. Bogers and Burgers*.

Fig. 4. Stacking of fllO),,,-type planes in hard-sphere model (a) after the a,,/18(211) shear in Fig. 3(b)
and(e), and(b) after the successive shearing of these {110),,,-type planes to achieve the proper stacking in a
regular b.c.c. structure. Bogers and Burgers.
J. Less-Common Met&, 28 (1972)

NUCLEATION

OF MARTENSITIC

TRANSFORMATIONS

113

If we now trace the paths taken by the hard spheres during the transition from
Fig. 3 (a) and (d) to 3 (c) and (f), each sphere must ride up to a saddle-point position
between the initial and final states. Hence a dilatational component normal to the
shear plane is involved; this expansion amounts to 5.4% at one-third of the twinning
sheur, a,,,/18(112),
as shown in Fig. 3(b) and (e). Figure 3(b) further indicates that
the shear plane PVQ and its conjugate plane PVS are still dimensionally unchanged,
but the planes QSV and QSP are distorted in such a way that the 60 angle in Fig. 3 (a)
is enlarged to 70 32 in Fig. 3 (b), thus attaining the geometry of a ( 110)t,CCplane.
Although the stacking sequence of these planes is not correct for a true b.c.c. structure,
the latter can be obtained if successive planes (parallel to QSV or QSP) are sheared
according to Fig. 4. Referred to the b.c.c. structure, this shear corresponds to a
displacement of a,,,/8( 110) on each plane, whereas referred to the f.c.c. structure,
this corresponds to a displacement of arJl2( 112) or just one-half of a twinning shear.
Again, because of the hard-sphere packing there is a dilatation normal to the shear
plane. Since each of the above shears entails a dilatational component, they are more
accurately described as invariant-plane strains.
According to the Bogers-Burgers model, then, a b.c.c. structure can be
generated from an f.c.c. structure by two invariant-plane strains (either successively or
simultaneously), which can be thought of as one-third and one-half f.c.c. twinning
shears. For convenience, we shall call these the T/3 and T/2 shears.
Bogers and Burgers point out that their first shear (T/3) must involve displacements on each (ill],,,
p lane of ar,,/18( 112), the latter being one-third the
Burgers vector of a Shockley partial dislocation, ur,,/6( 112). They also suggest the
possibility that such partial displacements might occur by the spreading of a
Shockley partial dislocation over a number of successive {ill),,, planes. This idea,
although seemingly strange at first thought, is not difficult to imagine. In the conventional glide motion of an u,,,/6( 112) partial dislocation, the atoms pass through
appropriate positions for the T/3 shear proposed in the Bogers-Burgers model. Under
conditions of sufficient chemical driving force, the atoms may tend to stick in the
b.c.c. positions corresponding to the ar,,/lS( 112) displacement (Fig. 3(b) and (e))
rather than continue through to the full Burgers-vector displacement of a,,,/6( 112)
(Fig. 3(c) and(f)). H owever, the full Burgers vector can be conserved if the atoms in an
adjacent plane are concurrently dragged along to the proper b.c.c. positions. In
this way, the T/3 shear of the Bogers-Burgers model can be achieved by an array of
u,,,/6( 112) partial dislocations, averaging one on every third (111 ).rccplane.
A problem arises in connection with the second (T/2) shear. Bogers and Burgers
suggest that this shear may involve b.c.c. partial dislocations with ut,,,/8( 110)
vectors since these have been previously proposed to explain b.c.c. twinning.
However, the existence of such partial dislocations is not generally accepted. We can
circumvent this difficulty by considering the second shear (T/2) relative to the f.c.c.
instead of the b.c.c. structure. This comes about naturally in the shear-intersection
mechanism to be described below.
A schematic intersection of partial-dislocation arrays for the strain-induced
formation of a b.c.c. embryo in f.c.c. austenite is illustrated in Fig. 5. The plane of this
diagram is parallel to (1 10)rcc,and perpendicular to VQ in Fig. 3. Then, planes (ill) rcc
and (lil),,, correspond to PVQ and QSV, respectively. The T/2 shear (the second of
the Bogers-Burgers shears) can be accomplished (with spreading) by an array of
J. Less-Common

Metals, 28 (1972)

114

G. B. OLSON, M. COHEN

Fig. 5. Schematic illustration of intersecting shears due to two arrays of n&6( 112) partial dislocations in
austenite. One array (T/3) has partial dislocations on every third {11l}rcc plane and averages one-third of a
twinning shear, while the other array (T/2) has partial dislocations on every second {lll}r,, plane and
averages one-half of a twinning shear. The resulting doubly-faulted intersection has an exact b.c.c. structure.

a rCC/6[21i] partial dislocations on every second (lil),,, plane, just as the T/3 shear
(the first of the Bogers-Burgers shears) can be accomplished (with spreading) by an
array of afcc/6 [211] partial dislocations on every third (ill) plane. Each of these
Burgers vectors has a component out of the plane of the diagram. The partial dislocations are shown in their positions (I) after the intersection process, and the stacking
faults left behind outside the intersected region are denoted by heavy lines. (Of course,
these faults will be bounded at their other ends by other partial dislocations.)
The Bogers-Burgers dislocation-spreading
hypothesis is most likely to be
valid within the intersected volume and during the intersection event. Under these
conditions, the atoms can attain their true b.c.c. positions which, as we have seen,
happen to lie intermediate between the full displacements involved in the regular
gliding of a,,,/6( 112) partial dislocations. When referred to the f.c.c. structure, the
J. Less-Common Metals, 28 (1972)

NUCLEATION

OF MARTENSITIC

TRANSFORMATIONS

115

intersected volume is doubly faulted (lighter solid lines in Fig. 5) but this region
now has a true b.c.c. structure.
It is more realistic to picture the intersection event, not as a collision of two
fronts of moving partial dislocations, but as the intersection of one moving array with
a stationary packet of stacking faults left behind by the prior passage of another array
of partial dislocations. This situation is readily visualized from the fact that the
set of stacking faults left behind by the T/2 dislocation array produces exactly an
E (h.c.p.) plate; in other words, the h.c.p. structure can be modeled as a shear of
ar,,/6( 112) on every second ( 111 I.rccplane.
We now examine the intersection of a T/3 array with the coherent interface of
an E plate. One can well imagine that a barrier of this type will cause the T/3 set of
partial dislocations to pile up at the interface. A likely plane in the E for the passage of
these dislocations would be (1Oil). Every second basal plane in the h.c.p. structure is
in the proper position for a T/2 shear (except for the dilatation), and all that is necessary
to generate the exact configuration of a T/2 shear is a shuffle on every second plane
by a displacement of a ,,,/12 [21i]. Moreover, if the atoms behave as hard spheres,
these shuflIes will produce the afore-mentioned dilatation. It can be shown that the
conversion of the E structure to an exact T/2 shear configuration transforms the
(loil),,, plane into a uniformly distorted (ill),,, plane. Returning now to the intersecting T/3 array, we find that the ar,,/6 [211] partial dislocations in the Tj3 packet
can glide on the uniformly distorted (il l)rcc planes. If these T/3 partials can spread on
entering the intersected region, as discussed earlier, their resulting passage through
the intersection will generate b.c.c. martensite. Put in another way, the formation of
the b.c.c. structure allows the blocked dislocations to pass through the intersected
volume.
In accordance with theoretical estimates for the critical size of a nucleus, it is
improbable that a small number of intersecting dislocations could enter the E plate,
since the volume of martensite would then be subcritical. Consequently, we should
expect the blocked dislocations to continue to pile up at the E interface during the
plastic straining until the T/3 shear packet is thick enough to create a supercritical
volume in the intersected region under the conditions at hand. A more general postulate regarding strain-induced nucleation might then be: if the motion of a large enough
array of appropriate partial dislocations in the parent phase is impeded by intersecting
a set of stacking faults (not necessarily E) in which enough of the atomic positions
coincide with the other shear of the Bogers-Burgers model, the required shuffling of
the atomic planes within the set of stacking faults will take place concurrently with the
spreading of the entering partial dislocations, and then the passage of these dislocations
through the intersected region can occur by the formation of b.c.c. martensite.
From an experimental standpoint, the most commonly reported strain-induced
nucleation site is the intersection of two E plates. It is already evident that an E plate
can accomplish the T/2 shear with the aid of shuffles. However, in order for the other e
plate to provide the equivalent of a T/3 shear, it would have to be highly faulted.
Strain-induced E is, indeed, often observed to be highly faulted, and it is conceivable
that local regions exist in such E where the average shear matches that of a T/3 array.An
alternative for the cast of relatively perfect Eplates is that one-third of the dislocations
attempting to pass into the intersection from the second plate may be left at the interface. producing a semicoherent interface. Hence, operation of the proposed inter.f. Less-Common

Metals,

28 (1972)

G. 8. OLSON, M. COHEN

116

setting-shear mechanism is feasible even when only I: plates are involved.

The proposed intersecting-shear mechanism for E plates offers a good explanation for Lagneborgs finding6 that E formed by plastic straining at low temperatures
leads to much more effective b.c.c. nucleation sites than does the same plastic straining
at higher temperatures (also generating E) and then cooling under load to the low
temperature. In the intersection processes described, the b.c.c. structure can only
nucleate ~~~i~gthe intersection event and only if there is a substantial chemical driving
force for the f.c.c.-b.c.c. transformation at play. At the higher temperature, where this
driving force is small or nonexistent, the intersection mechanism may actually
regenerate the f.c.c. phase, as proposed by Sleeswijk23.
A further deviation from the ideal T/3-T/2 shear-intersection case is that of
an E plate penetrating an f.c.c. twin boundary. Consider the leading a rcJ6 [2li]
partial dislocations of an advancing E plate (the T/2 array in Fig. 5) colliding with a
(il l)foc twin boundary (parallel to the plane of the T/3 array in Fig. 5). The twinned
lattice across the (71 l)fcc boundary can be equivalently described by a twinning shear
of a,,,/6(112) on every (ill),,, plane in either of the [211],,,, [El],,,
or [TlZJ,,,
directions. To cross into the twinned region, the partial dislocations should glide on
the planes in the twin that correspond to the glide planes in the untwinned region.
Because of the three equivalent twinning shears, there are three correspondences, but
they do not permit the dislocations to cut straight across the twin. Nevertheless, this
could become feasible for one of the correspondences if the appropriate shuttles
of (illhcc planes in the twin could occur to produce the T/3 shear configuration
during the deformation. However, inasmuch as there are relatively few positions in
the twin which are already T/3 shear positions, it may be anticipated that the intersection of E plates with f.c.c. twin boundaries will be a less potent mechanism for b.c.c.
nucleation than the case of two intersecting E plates and, moreover, a higher chemical
driving force will be required. This is in line with the fact that b.c.c. nucleation at Eplate/twin-interfa~
intersections is less common than at E/Eintersections6,
In alloys of slightly higher stacking-fault energy where the E phase is not stable
relative to the austenite, packets of stacking faults in the f.c.c. structure (with no
evidence of an h.c.p. phase) are sometimes associated with nucleation of b.c.c. martensitez4. Here, it may be presumed that the nucleation takes place when the intersection
of two such packets locally approximates the conditions represented by Fig. 5; for
example, one packet with a stacking-fault probability of l/3 intersecting a second
packet with a stacking-fault probability of l/2. Inasmuch as the length of these packets
(distance between pairs of partial dislocations) will decrease with increasing stackingfault energy, and so might the thickness and number of these packets, the probability
of packet intersections will also decrease with increasing stacking-fault energy. This
relationship could account for the adverse effect of stalking-fault energy on the
propensity to strain-induced nucleation.
Plausibility arguments have now been presented here for mechanisms by
which the two shears of the Bogers-Burgers model can bring about the observed
nucleation sites. l-lowever, an important aspect not yet considered is the problem of
coherency strains. In the idealized shear intersections which can be analyzed in
detail, the b.c.c. phase thus nucleated is fully coherent with its surroundings. The
coherency strains have to be accommodated by a dilatation normal to the stackingfault arrays outside the intersected region. In the case of E intersections, the accomJ. Less-Common

Met&

28 (1972)

NUCLEATION

OF MARTENSITIC

TRANSFORMATIONS

117

modation would distort the h.c.p. structure to a non-ideal c/a ratio. The coherency
strains are further increased because the real b.c.c. structure in iron has a smaller
atomic diameter than provided by the hard-sphere model of f.c.c. iron. It may be
expected, therefore, that at some point in its formation, the b.c.c. region will undergo
plastic deformation to relieve the coherency strains and so create a semicoherent
interface. This deformation process is also likely to cause a rigid-body rotation of the
intersected region, all of which will influence the orientation relationships and interface planes of the embryo thus formed.
CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the separate nature of stress-assisted and strain-induced nucleation of martensitic transformations has been presented. The indications are that
stress-assisted nucleation depends on the same nucleation sites or embryos which are
responsible for the usual spontaneous transformation, whereas the strain-induced
nucleation involves the creation of new sites or embryos by plastic deformation. It is
likely that strain-induced nucleation plays an important role in the autocatalytic
nucleation observed in regular martensitic transformations.
Strain-induced nucleation occurs in austenites with a wide range of stackingfault energies at lower stresses than does stress-assisted nucleation at comparable
temperatures. When the stacking-fault energy is very low and E martensite can form,
the nucleation sites and ci embryos are generated by two intersecting shear systems
in the austenite with the elements {11 l} (112). The proposed mechanism is consistent
with the Bogers-Burgers two-shear model, but is an extension thereof to embrace
plausible dislocation motions.
The strain-induced a embryos generated in this way are initially coherent.
The formation of semicoherent interfaces and the subsequent growth start-ups which
enter into the operational (measured) nucleation rates constitute still later stages in
the formation of the usual martensitic plates.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors deeply appreciate the stimulating interest and critical guidance
offered by Professor J. W. Christian during the development of ideas presented here.
They are also indebted to the Office of Naval Research and the National
Science Foundation for the support of research which provided the general background for this paper.
REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

A. J. Bogers and W. G. Burgers, Acta Met., 12 (1964) 255.

V. Raghavan and A. R. Entwiste, Iron Steel Inst. Spec. Rept. No. 93, 1965, p. 20.
S. R. Pati and M. Cohen, Acta Met., 17 (1969) 189.
S. R. Pati and M. Cohen, Acta Met., 19 (1971) 1327.
J. A. Venables, Phil. Msg., 7 (1962) 35.
R. Lagneborg,
Acta Met., 12 (1964) 823.
D. L. Manganon
and G. Thomas, Met. Trans., 1 (1970) 1577.
M. Cohen. to be published in Met. Trans. as a part of the E. C. Bain Symposium (October
Michigan.

J. Less-Common

Metals, 28 (1972)

1971), Detroit,

118
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24

G. B. OLSON, M. COHEN

V. Raghavan and M. Cohen, to be published in Acta Met. (March 1972).

V. Ragahavan and M. Cohen, submitted to Acta kfet.
G. F. Boiling and R. H. Richman, Scripta Met., 4 (1970) 539.
G. F. Bolling and R. H. Richman, Phil. Mag., 19 (1969) 247.
G. F. Bolling and R. H. Richman, Acta Met., 18 (1970) 673.
R. H. Richman and G. F. Bolling, Met. Trans., 2 (1971) 2451.
R. H. Richman, private communication.
J. R. Pate1 and M. Cohen, Acta Met., 1 (1953) 531.
A. L. Bement, Effects of Residual Elements on Properties of Austenitic Stainless Steels, Am. Sot. Testing
Mater. STP418, 1967, p. 46.
D. Goodchild, W. T. Roberts and D. V. Wilson, Acta Met., 18 (1970) 1137.
J. F. Breedis and L. Kaufman, Met. Trans., 2 (1971) 2359.
J. S. Dunning, Univ. Calif. (Berkeley) Rept. UCRL-19052, 1969.
F. Lecroisey and A. Pineau, to be published; private communication from W. G. Burgers.
J. B. Cohen, R. Hinton, K. Lay and S. Sass, Acta Met., 10 (1962) 894.
A. W. Sleeswijk, Phil. Mug., 7 (1962) 1597.
P. M. Kelly, Acta Met., 13 (1965) 635.

J. Less-Common Metals, 28 (1972)