You are on page 1of 4

Journal of Alloys and Compounds 628 (2015) 4649

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Alloys and Compounds


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jalcom

Schaefer diagram for high Mn steels


Sukjin Lee, Chan-Young Lee, Young-Kook Lee
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The microstructures of 50 high Mn steels, which were annealed at approximately 1000 C and then water
Received 20 October 2014 quenched, were predicted using the original Schaefer diagram, the modied Schaefer diagram with
Received in revised form 15 December 2014 shifted phase boundaries, and equations for Cr and Ni equivalents. Although the modied Schaefer dia-
Accepted 23 December 2014
gram showed better microstructural predictions compared with the original Schaefer diagram, it still
Available online 30 December 2014
had a lack of accuracy in microstructural prediction, particularly single austenite, austenite + ferrite,
and austenite + ferrite + martensite microstructures. However, the adjustment of the Al coefcient for
Keywords:
the Cr equivalent greatly improved the accuracy of microstructural prediction. As a result, the modied
Metals and alloys
Microstructure
Schaefer diagram, which was plotted with the Cr equivalent, calculated with a new coefcient of Al
Phase diagram (3.5), exhibited the best prediction of the microstructures of high Mn steels, except for a few alloys with
High Mn steels e-martensite.
Schaefer diagram 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction diagram for high Mn steels was not found, although there are some
Schaefer diagrams for stainless steels [914]. Accordingly, the
Recently, high Mn steels have been spotlighted as advanced Schaefer diagrams for wrought stainless steels with high Mn con-
structural steels due to their high strength, good ductility, and centrations were carefully scrutinized to develop the Schaefer
low density. The excellent mechanical properties of the alloys are diagram for high Mn steels.
closely related to their various microstructures consisting of c-aus- Klueh et al. [13] reported that the original Schaefer diagram
tenite, d-ferrite, a-ferrite, j-carbide, and a0 -martensite. Therefore, (dotted lines in Fig. 1 [13]) did not predict well the microstructures
many researches have attempted to predict complex microstruc- of Ni-free high Mn stainless steels, and modied the original
tures of high Mn steels [15]. Schaefer diagram by shifting its phase boundaries (solid lines in
Ishida et al. [6] drew equilibrium phase diagrams of Fe(20 Fig. 1 [13]) to t the microstructures of the high Mn stainless
30)Mn(010)Al(0.53)C (wt.%) alloys at the temperature range steels. Accordingly, it is expected that the modied Schaefer dia-
of 9001200 C, in which the c-austenite region is expanded at gram is better than the original Schaefer diagram for the predic-
the expense of the a region with increasing Mn concentration. tion of microstructures of high Mn steels. Nevertheless, because
The j-carbide was predicted to precipitate as the concentrations the major elements of high Mn stainless steels and high Mn steels,
of Al and C are high. Lee et al. [7] calculated equilibrium phase dia- particularly Cr and Al, are different, it is necessary to conrm that
grams of Fe(312)Mn(46)Al(0.10.7)C (wt.%) alloys using the Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al. is applicable to the
Thermo-Calc software with TCFE2000 database. They reported that microstructural prediction of high Mn steels.
whereas the volume fraction of c-austenite is gradually increased Therefore, the objective of the present study was to propose the
with increasing Mn and C concentrations, those of both d-ferrite Schaefer diagram for the prediction of microstructures of high Mn
and j-carbide are increased with increasing Al concentration. steels including the non-equilibrium martensite phase by optimiz-
However, because aforementioned equilibrium phase diagrams ing the coefcients of alloying elements, such as Mn, Al, and Cr, for
cannot provide the information on a non-equilibrium martensite the calculation of Cr and Ni equivalents.
phase, they have limitations on the prediction of actual microstruc-
tures of thermo-mechanically processed high Mn steels. Therefore,
2. Experimental procedure
in the present study, instead of equilibrium phase diagrams, the
Schaefer diagram [8] was searched. Unfortunately, the Schaefer The 17 ingots of FeMn(Al)C alloys with chemical compositions listed in
Table 1 were fabricated using a vacuum induction melting furnace. Each ingot
weighed approximately 3 kgf. The ingots were homogenized at 1200 C for 12 h
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2123 2831. under an Ar atmosphere, hot-rolled to 3-mm-thick plates at the temperatures rang-
E-mail address: yklee@yonsei.ac.kr (Y.-K. Lee). ing from approximately 900 C to 1000 C and then air-cooled to room temperature.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2014.12.134
0925-8388/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Lee et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 628 (2015) 4649 47

Table 1
Chemical compositions and microstructures of FeMnC(Al) alloys. a0 -M: a0 -martensite, F: d-ferrite, A: c-austenite, OM: observed microstructure, PM1: predicted
microstructure using Schneiders equivalents [9] and the Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al. [13], and PM2: predicted microstructure using chemical equivalents
suggested in the present study and the Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al. [13].

Group Alloy Chemical composition (wt.%) Schneiders equivalents Modied equivalents OM


Mn Al C Nieq Creq PM1 Nieq Creq PM2
M Mn-1 5.0 0.10 5.5 0 M 5.5 0 M a0 -M
Mn-2 6.0 0.05 4.5 0 M 4.5 0 M a0 -M
Mn-3 7.0 0.10 6.5 0 M 6.5 0 M a0 -M
Mn-4 9.0 0.05 6.0 0 M 6.0 0 M a0 -M
AFM Al-1 13.0 4.0 0.20 12.5 22.0 A+F 12.5 14.0 A+F+M A + F + a0 -M
Al-2 10.0 5.0 0.20 11.0 27.5 A+F 11.0 17.5 A+F+M A + F + a0 -M
Al-3 13.0 5.0 0.25 14.0 27.5 A+F 14.0 17.5 A+F A + F + a0 -M
Al-4 10.0 6.0 0.20 11.0 33.0 F 11.0 21.0 A+F+M A + F + a0 -M
A Mn-5 17.0 0.60 26.5 0 A 26.5 0 A A
Mn-6 31.0 0.002 15.5 0 A 15.5 0 A A
Al-5 17.5 1.5 0.60 26.7 8.2 A 26.7 5.25 A A
Al-6 18.0 1.5 0.60 27.0 8.2 A 27.0 5.25 A A
Al-7 18.0 1.5 0.70 30.0 8.2 A 30.0 5.25 A A
Al-8 18.0 1.5 0.80 33.0 8.2 A 33.0 5.25 A A
Al-9 19.0 1.5 0.60 27.5 8.2 A 27.5 5.25 A A
Al-10 22.0 1.5 0.60 29.0 8.2 A 29.0 5.25 A A
Al-11 15.0 4.0 0.20 13.5 22.0 A+F 13.5 14.0 A A

Table 2
Chemical compositions and microstructures of FeMnC(Al)(Cr)(Si) alloys. a0 -M: a0 -martensite, F: d-ferrite, A: c-austenite, OM: observed microstructure, PM1: predicted
microstructure using Schneiders equivalents [9] and the Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al. [13], and PM2: predicted microstructure using chemical equivalents
suggested in the present study and the Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al. [13].

Group Alloy Chemical composition (wt.%) Schneiders equivalents Modied equivalents OM Reference
Mn C Al Cr Si Nieq Creq PM1 Nieq Creq PM2
AFM-R Cr-1 13.0 0.07 15.0 8.6 15.0 A+F+M 8.6 15.0 A+F+M A + F + a0 -M [13]
Cr-2 14.0 0.01 15.0 7.3 15.0 A+F+M 7.3 15.0 A+F+M A + F + a0 -M [13]
Cr-3 17.0 0.06 15.0 10.3 15.0 A+F+M 10.3 15.0 A+F+M A + F + a0 -M [13]
AM-R Mn-7 17.0 0.30 17.5 0 A 17.5 0 A A + e-M [23]
Mn-8 23.0 0.02 12.1 0 A+M 12.1 0 A+M A + e-M [22]
Cr-4 14.0 0.10 10.0 10.0 10.0 A+M 10.0 10.0 A+M A + a0 -M [13]
Cr-5 19.0 0.10 10.0 12.5 10.0 A+M 12.5 10.0 A+M A + a0 -M [13]
Cr-6 20.0 0.10 10.0 13.0 10.0 A+M 13.0 10.0 A+M A + a0 -M [13]
Si-1 23.0 0.02 1.0 12.1 2.0 A+M 12.1 2.0 A+M A + e-M [22]
Si-2 17.0 0.30 2.0 17.5 4.0 A 17.5 4.0 A A + e-M [23]
Si-3 23.0 0.02 2.0 12.1 4.0 A+M 12.1 4.0 A+M A + e-M [22]
Si-4 17.0 0.30 4.0 17.5 8.0 A 17.5 8.0 A A + e-M [23]
AF-R Cr-7 19.0 0.10 14.0 12.5 14.0 A+F 12.5 14.0 A+F A+F [13]
Cr-8 14.0 0.20 15.0 13.0 15.0 A+F 13.0 15.0 A+F A+F [13]
Cr-9 14.0 0.20 16.0 13.0 16.0 A+F 13.0 16.0 A+F A+F [13]
Cr-10 20.0 0.20 16.0 16.0 16.0 A+F 16.0 16.0 A+F A+F [13]
Cr-11 18.0 0.15 20.0 13.5 20.0 A+F 13.5 20.0 A+F A+F [13]
Cr-12 18.0 0.25 20.0 16.5 20.0 A+F 16.5 20.0 A+F A+F [13]
Al-12 23.0 0.03 7.5 12.4 41.2 F 12.4 26.2 A+F A+F [19]
Al-13 20.0 0.60 9.0 28.0 49.5 A+F 28.0 31.5 A+F A+F [20]
Al-14 27.0 0.80 12.0 37.5 66.0 A+F 37.5 42.0 A+F A+F [21]
A-R Mn-9 18.0 0.60 27.0 0 A 27.0 0 A A [16]
Mn-10 20.0 1.20 46.0 0 A 46.0 0 A A [18]
Mn-11 22.0 0.60 29.0 0 A 29.0 0 A A [17]
Al-15 19.0 0.60 1.0 27.5 5.5 A 27.5 3.5 A A [16]
Al-16 19.0 0.60 2.0 27.5 11.0 A 27.5 7.0 A A [16]
Al-17 22.0 0.60 3.0 29.0 16.5 A 29.0 10.5 A A [17]
Cr-13 20.0 0.10 12.0 13.0 12.0 A 13.0 12.0 A A [13]
Cr-14 20.0 0.20 12.0 16.0 12.0 A 16.0 12.0 A A [13]
Cr-15 20.0 0.25 12.0 17.5 12.0 A 17.5 12.0 A A [15]
Cr-16 25.0 0.30 12.0 21.5 12.0 A 21.5 12.0 A A [15]
Cr-17 30.0 0.35 12.0 25.5 12.0 A 25.5 12.0 A A [15]
Cr-18 19.0 0.40 15.0 21.5 15.0 A 21.5 15.0 A A [13]

Small specimens taken from the hot-rolled plates were annealed for 10 min at tem- microscope (OM) and a eld emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM,
peratures between 1000 C and 1100 C, and then water-quenched to prevent model; JSM6700F, Jeol, Japan).
precipitation. To make the Schaefer diagram applicable for predicting the microstructures of
The annealed specimens were mechanically polished with sandpapers, followed more various high Mn steels containing Al, Cr, and Si, both chemical compositions
by electrochemical polishing in a solution of 10% perchloric acid and 90% acetic and microstructures of additional 33 FeMnC(Al)(Cr)(Si) alloys were collected
acid. After etching using a mixed etchant of 4% picric acid and 1.5% HCl, the from literature [1523] and summarized in Table 2. All specimens were annealed at
microstructures of the annealed specimens were observed using a light optical the temperatures between 1000 C and 1100 C, followed by water quenching.
48 S. Lee et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 628 (2015) 4649

Fig. 1. Comparison of phase boundaries on between the original Schaefer diagram


(dotted lines) [8] and the Schaefer diagram (solid lines) modied by Klueh et al.
[13]. A is austenite, F is ferrite, and M is martensite.

Total 50 FeMnC(Al)(Cr)(Si) alloys listed in Tables 1 and 2 can be catego-


rized to ve different groups according to their microstructures; full a0 -martensite
(M), full c-austenite (A), c-austenite and ferrite (AF), c-austenite and a0 - or e-mar-
tensite (AM), and c-austenite, d-ferrite, and a0 -martensite (AFM).

3. Results and discussion

Fig. 2 shows typical microstructures of the alloys fabricated for


the present study (Table 1). For example, the Fe7Mn0.1C alloy
(Mn-3 in Group M) shows a single a0 -martensite phase due to a
low stability of c-austenite caused by low Mn and C concentrations
(Fig. 2a). The Fe17Mn0.6C alloy (Mn-5 in Group A) exhibits a sin-
gle c-austenite phase because of a high stability of c-austenite
(Fig. 2b). The Fe10Mn6Al0.2C alloy (Al-4 in Group AFM) has a
mixed microstructure of c-austenite, d-ferrite, and a0 -martensite
(Fig. 2c).
Meanwhile, regarding the other alloy groups, the Fe27Mn
12Al0.8C alloy (Al-14 in Group AF-R) shows a dual-phase micro-
structure of c-austenite and d-ferrite due to a high concentration of
Al, a ferrite-stabilizer [21]. The Fe17Mn0.3C4Si alloy (Si-4 in
Group AM-R) exhibits a mixed microstructure of c-austenite and
e-martensite due to both a low stability of c-austenite and stacking
Fig. 2. (a) SEM image showing a single a0 -martensite phase of Fe7Mn0.1C alloy
fault energy [23].
belonging to the group M, (b) OM image showing a single c-austenite phase of Fe
Fig. 3 shows Schaefer diagrams of 50 FeMnC(Al)(Cr)(Si) 17Mn0.6C alloy belonging to the group A, and (c) OM image showing a mixed
alloys in Tables 1 and 2. The diagrams were drawn using (a) phase microstructure of c-austenite, r-ferrite and a0 -martensite of Fe10Mn0.2C5Al
boundaries on the original Schaefer diagram [8] and (b) phase alloy belonging to the group AFM.
boundaries on the Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al.
[13]. Both Ni and Cr equivalents of each alloy were calculated by The comparison between Figs. 4a and 3a shows that the predic-
substituting its chemical composition into Eqs. (1) and (2) [9]. tions of microstructures A + F and A + F + M were improved by
Creq wt:% Cr 2Si 1:5Mo 5V 5:5Al 1:75Nb 1:5Ti 0:75W 1
adjusting the coefcients of Al, Cr, and Mn. However, it is not still
good enough to predict microstructures A, A + M, and A + F + M.
Nieq wt:% Ni Co 0:5Mn 0:3Cu 25N 30C 2
Meanwhile, the Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al.
Whereas both diagrams exhibit a relatively good prediction of shows the best prediction of the microstructures of the 50 alloys
single-phase microstructures such as a0 -martensite and c-austen- used when only the coefcient of Al was adjusted from 5.5 to 3.5
ite, they show an unsatisfactory prediction of dual (A + M and (Fig. 4b). Predictions of microstructures A, A + F, and A + F + M
A + F)- and triple (A + F + M)-phase microstructures, particularly became more accurate by adjusting the coefcient of Al and the
when the original Schaefer diagram was used (Fig. 3a). Therefore, microstructural predictions of only 4 alloys, such as Al-3 in Group
to make a better prediction of the microstructures of high Mn AFM and Mn-7, Si-2, and Si-4 in Group AM-R, were still unsatisfac-
steels, we adjusted the coefcients of alloying elements used in tory. Of the 4 alloys, Mn-7, Si-2, and Si-4 alloys possess c-austenite
equations for Ni and Cr equivalents. and e-martensite (yellow open diamonds), not a0 -martensite (yel-
The original Schaefer diagram showing the best prediction of low closed diamonds), indicating that it is difcult to accurately
the microstructures of the 50 alloys was obtained as Fig. 4a when predict e-martensite, although Ni and Cr equivalents were
the coefcients of Al, Cr, and Mn are 4.3, 1.2 and 0.4, respectively. adjusted. However, as a whole, the modied Schaefer diagram
S. Lee et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 628 (2015) 4649 49

Fig. 3. The original [8] and modied [13] Schaefer diagrams of 50 FeMnAlCr
SiC alloys listed in Tables 1 and 2. Red triangles represent a0 -martensite, green
Fig. 4. (a) The original Schaefer diagram redrawn with the optimized coefcients
squares austenite, orange closed diamonds austenite and a0 -martensite, orange
of Al (4.3), Cr (1.2) for the Cr equivalent and Mn (0.4) for the Ni equivalent. (b) The
open diamonds austenite and e-martensite, blue triangles austenite and ferrite, and
Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al. [13] re-plotted with a new coefcient of
black circles ferrite, austenite, and martensite. Dotted lines were extended from
Al (3.5) for the Cr equivalent.
phase boundaries (solid lines) on both original and modied Schaefer diagrams.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
References

(Fig. 4b) with the new coefcient of Al (3.5) makes better predic- [1] D.-W. Suh, S.J. Park, T.H. Lee, C.S. Oh, N.J. Kim, Metal. Mater. Trans. A 41 (2010)
32763281.
tions of the microstructures of many high Mn steels, compared
[2] Y. Sutou, N. Kamiya, R. Umino, I. Ohnuma, K. Ishida, ISIJ Int. 50 (2010) 893899.
with the original Schaefer diagram (Fig. 4a) with the optimized [3] H. Kim, D.-W. Suh, N.J. Kim, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 14 (2013) 111.
coefcients of Al, Cr, and Mn. [4] J.-S. Kim, J.B. Jeon, J.E. Jung, K.-K. Um, Y.W. Chang, Met. Mater. Int. 20 (2014)
4147.
[5] J.E. Jung, J. Park, J.-S. Kim, J.B. Jeon, S.K. Kim, Y.W. Chang, Met. Mater. Int. 20
4. Conclusions (2014) 2734.
[6] K. Ishida, H. Ohtani, N. Satoh, R. Kainuma, T. Nishizawa, ISIJ Int. 30 (1990) 680
686.
1. The microstructures of 50 high Mn steels, which were annealed [7] H.J. Lee, S.S. Sohn, S. Lee, J.H. Kwak, B.J. Lee, Scripta Mater. 68 (2013) 339342.
at the temperatures between 1000 C and 1100 C, followed by [8] A.L. Schaefer, Met. Progr. 56 (1949). 680680b.
water quenching, were predicted by using the original Schaef- [9] H. Schneider, Foundry Trade J. 108 (1960) 562563.
[10] E.A. Schoefer, Weld. J. 53 (1974) 1s10s.
er diagram, the Schaefer diagram modied by Klueh et al., [11] R.H. Espy, Weld. J. 61 (1982) 149s156s.
and Eqs. (1) and (2) for Cr and Ni equivalents. Although the [12] L. Bres, Weld. Res. Suppl. (1998) 273276. July.
modied Schaefer diagram showed a better prediction of the [13] R.L. Klueh, P.J. Maziasz, E.H. Lee, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 102 (1988) 115124.
[14] M. Wendler, J. Mola, L. Krger, A. Wei, Steel Res. Int. 85 (2013) 803810.
microstructures of the alloys than the original Schaefer dia-
[15] L.M. Roncery, S. Weber, W. Theisen, Steel Res. Int. 83 (2012) 307314.
gram, it was still not good enough to predict the microstruc- [16] I.J. Park, K.H. Jeong, J.G. Jung, C.S. Lee, Y.-K. Lee, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37
tures, such as single austenite (A), austenite + ferrite (A + F), (2012) 99259932.
and austenite + ferrite + martensite (A + F + M). [17] K.-T. Park, K.G. Jin, S.H. Han, S.W. Hwang, K. Choi, C.S. Lee, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
527 (2010) 36513661.
2. The modied Schaefer diagram with a new coefcient of Al [18] K. Renard, P.J. Jacques, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 542 (2012) 814.
(3.5) for the Cr equivalent exhibited the best prediction of the [19] W.-C. Cheng, H.-Y. Lin, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 323 (2002) 462466.
microstructures. Particularly, the prediction of microstructures [20] S.W. Hwang, J.H. Ji, E.G. Lee, K.-T. Park, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528 (2011) 5196
5203.
A, A + F, and A + F + M was greatly improved only except four [21] M.C. Ha, J.-M. Koo, J.-K. Lee, S.W. Hwang, K.-T. Park, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 586
alloys. Considering the fact that three of the four alloys did (2013) 276283.
not possess a0 -martensite but e-martensite, the prediction of [22] J.-H. Jun, C.-S. Choi, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 17 (1998) 629631.
[23] M. Koyama, T. Sawaguchi, K. Tsuzaki, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528 (2011) 28822888.
e-martensite should be improved further.