Scripta mater.

43 (2000) 831– 833

www.elsevier.com/locate/scriptamat

ON THE MISUSE OF THE TERM BAINITE

M. Hillert
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, KTH, SE-10044 Stockholm, Sweden

G.R. Purdy
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7
(Received May 5, 2000)
(Accepted May 23, 2000)

Keywords: Bainite; Steel; Diffusion; Phase transformation

Introduction

In steels one finds two different types of eutectoid structures, i.e. mixtures of ferrite and cementite. They
are called pearlite and bainite and are both formed by decomposition of the high-temperature phase
austenite. There is now general agreement that pearlite forms by the edgewise growth of a stack of
alternating lamellae of ferrite and cementite. An early proposal that sidewise growth by repeated
nucleation of a new lamellae at the side of the stack would also be an important growth mechanism [1],
was long accepted but was finally proven incorrect [2]. For bainite there has been a more long-lived
controversy. Based upon microscopic observations, Hultgren [3] proposed that bainite forms by the
edgewise growth of a set of parallel Widmanstätten plates of ferrite, followed by the transformation of
the interjacent spaces to a mixture of cementite and ferrite.
On the other hand, long ago it was generally believed that all the transformation products of austenite
were formed by a primary reaction to martensite and, as described in a recent review [4], that idea in
some way survived longer for bainite than for pearlite. In an attempt to rationalize the various
transformation products of austenite, Zener [5] developed the idea in scientific terms and thus proposed
without any proof and without giving any reason that bainite forms in an manner similar to martensite.
Evidently, his hypothesis cannot cover the case described by Hultgren, who focused on so-called upper
bainite. Of course, Zener’s hypothesis should not be dismissed without experimental test, at least for
so-called lower bainite which may form with a shape reminiscent of plate martensite. However, it
should immediately be mentioned that by the addition of silicon one can prevent the formation of
cementite in the interjacent spaces for some time and can thus form stacks of Widmanstätten plates
separated by plates of austenite. This austenite is often retained after cooling to room temperature,
probably because the carbon content of austenite in equilibrium with ferrite is very high at low
temperatures. The resulting structure of ferrite ⫹ austenite bears no resemblence to martensite. For
some reason, this structure is today often called bainite although without cementite it is not a eutectoid
structure. It should also be emphasized that the use of electron microscopy has now allowed the
observation of ferrite as the leading phase in the growth of bainite, in the form of tips of Widmanstätten
ferrite plates, even for many cases of lower bainite.

1359-6462/00/$–see front matter. © 2000 Acta Metallurgica Inc. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S1359-6462(00)00484-X
832 ON THE MISUSE OF THE TERM BAINITE Vol. 43, No. 9

Discussion

Support for Zener’s hypothesis came through the observation by Ko and Cottrell [6] that lower bainite
gives rise to a surface relief, similar to that resulting from martensite. However, it was soon shown that
Widmanstätten ferrite also gives a surface relief [7] and today there seems to be wide agreement
[8,9,10] that a martensitic type of growth by shear cannot be proven by studying the surface relief.
An argument against Zener’s hypothesis came through measurements of the edgewise growth rate
of Widmanstätten ferrite and bainite in low alloy steels [11,12]. Information from a wide range of
temperatures gave a single curve and it was possible to explain the growth rates as controlled by carbon
diffusion. Hehemann [13] tried to keep Zener’s hypothesis alive by maintaining that the tip of
Widmanstätten ferrite advances in very quick but short steps. However, in a discussion with Kinsman
and Aaronson [14] he was finally forced to admit that he found it “difficult to argue against these
diffusion controlled models.” For a long time after him there did not seem to be any serious proponent
for Zener’s hypothesis until it was again taken up by Bhadeshia [15,16].
It is not the purpose of the present note to discuss Bhadeshia’s arguments for Zener’s hypothesis.
However, his many publications on bainite, arguing for Zener’s hypothesis, seem to have spread the
idea that there are two types of acicular growth of ferrite, Widmanstätten growth and “bainitic” growth,
which can be applied to acicular growth in other systems as well. Actually, that idea had been expressed
before Bhadeshia, e.g. in attempts to distinguish between two types of acicular precipitation of the fcc
phase from the bcc phase in Cu-Zn alloys [17]. However, it seems that both types are now regarded as
Widmanstätten precipitation, and that bainite is no longer used as the name for a decomposition product
of ␤ brass.
In a recent paper on the formation of austenite by heating a mixture of ferrite and cementite, Kaluba,
Taillard and Foct [18] mentioned “bainitic mechanism” in the title. This was naturally interpreted by
Aaronson and Nie to imply that acicular austenite could form in the same manner as bainite according
to Zener’s hypothesis as advocated by Bhadeshia. In discussion [19] they questioned a number of
arguments by Kaluba et al. but in a reply [20] those authors declared that they “neither tried to prove
a particular mechanism of bainite formation (from austenite), nor to propose a martensitic model for the
growth of austenite.” They further mentioned “that both bainitic and Widmanstätten terms are often
confused, even with regard to ferrite, due to the apparent similarity in both morphologies and in spite
of existing classifications and definitions.” However, there seems to be no room for confusion if it is
remembered that bainite is a eutectoid (two-phase) structure and a Widmanstätten plate consists of a
single phase. It is now proposed that, if there really are two types of acicular precipitation of a single
phase with a change in composition already at the moment of growth, they should be called Widman-
stätten I and II. Before introducing such names, it is necessary (1) to prove how the growth mechanisms
differ, (2) to show how they can be distinguished by physical measurement techniques and (3) that they
are two distinct types and not members of a continuous series. According to the present authors, it is
quite conceivable that the atomic structure of the phase interface of a Widmanstätten precipitate changes
with the temperature of formation and the driving force [21]. In that case it would not seem reasonable
to single out a particular interfacial structure and relate it to a particular name. In any case, the authors
of the present note propose that the term “bainite” should only be used for eutectoid (two-phase)
structures. If an acicular precipitation occurs without diffusion and with a glissile interface, it should
grow with a high rate and should be regarded as martensite. If there is diffusion soon after its formation,
the product should be called tempered martensite.
Vol. 43, No. 9 ON THE MISUSE OF THE TERM BAINITE 833

References

1. R. F. Mehl and W. C. Hagel, Progr. Metal Phys. 6, 74 (1956).

2. M. Hillert, in Decompositon of Austenite by Diffusional Processes, ed. V. F. Zackay and H. I. Aaronson, p. 197,
Interscience Publishers, New York (1962).
3. A. Hultgren, Trans. ASM. 39, 815 (1947).
4. M. Hillert, ISIJ Int. 35, 1134 (1995).
5. C. Zener, Trans. AIME. 167, 550 (1946).
6. T. Ko and A. H. Cottrell, J. Iron Steel Inst. 172, 307 (1952).
7. A. P. Miodownik, in The Mechanism of Phase Transformations in Metals, Inst. Metals Monograph and Report Series, No.
18, p. 319 (1956).
8. W.-Z Zhang and G. C. Weatherly, Acta Mater. 46, 1837 (1998).
9. J. P. Hirth, G. Spanos, M. G. Hall, and H. I. Aaronson, Acta Mater. 48, 1047 (1997).
10. R. C. Pond, P. Shang, T. T. Cheng, and M. Aindow, Acta Mater. 48, 1047 (2000).
11. M. Hillert, Report, Swedish Institute of Metal Research (1960).
12. L. Kaufman, S. V. Radcliffe, and M. Cohen, in Decompositon of Austenite by Diffusional Processes, eds. V. F. Zackay and
H. I. Aaronson, p. 313, Interscience Publishers, New York (1962).
13. J. M. Oblak and R. F. Hehemann, Transformation and Hardenability in Steels, p. 15, Climax Molybdenum Co., Ann Arbor,
MI (1967).
14. R. F. Hehemann, K. R. Kinsman, and H. I. Aaronson, Trans. AIME. 3, 1077 (1972).
15. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, J. Phys. IV Fr. 7(C5), C5–367 (1997).
16. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, Bainite in Steels, Institute of Materials, London (1992).
17. R. D. Garwood, J. Inst. Metals. 83, 64 (1954).
18. W. J. Kaluba, R. Taillard, and J. Foct, Acta Mater. 46, 5917 (1998).
19. H. I. Aaronson and J. F. Nie, Scripta Mater. 42, 505 (2000).
20. W. J. Kaluba, R. Taillard, and J. Foct, Scripta Mater. 42, 509 (2000).
21. M. Hillert and G. R. Purdy, Acta Metal. 32, 823 (1984).