Deformation-Induced Transformation of Retained Austenite

in Transformation Induced Plasticity-Aided Steels:

A Thermodynamic Model
MONIDEEPA MUKHERJEE, SHIV BRAT SINGH, and OMKAR NATH MOHANTY

A model based on thermodynamics of deformation-induced transformation of retained aus-

tenite to martensite has been developed, so that the amount of martensite or the amount of
austenite left untransformed after a certain amount of strain can be predicted. The model takes
into account the mechanical driving force or the energy contribution of the deformation strain,
which has been determined empirically from reported experimental data. The model was used to
predict the volume fraction of untransformed austenite as a function of strain for a wide range
of alloys. The predictions were reasonably accurate in most of the cases.

DOI: 10.1007/s11661-008-9599-x

The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2008

I. INTRODUCTION isothermal bainitic transformation. As a result, the

LOW-ALLOY transformation induced plasticity
(TRIP)[1]–aided steels offer an excellent combination of
high strength and ductility at affordable cost.[2] These
unique properties can be attributed to the complex
microstructure of these steels. Conventional polygonal
ferrite (PF) matrix TRIP-aided steel (PF steel) consists
of polygonal ferrite, carbide free bainite, retained
austenite, and in some cases, a small fraction of
martensite. These steels are produced by a two-step
heat-treatment process that involves intercritical anneal-
ing followed by isothermal bainitic transformation
treatment.[2,3]
Two more varieties of TRIP-aided steels have been
developed in recent years in response to the complex
formability requirements of the present day autobody
manufacturers.[4,5] These steels are based on bainitic
ferrite (BF) and annealed martensite (AM) matrices and
are termed as BF steel and AM steel, respectively.[4–6]
The TRIP-aided steels with bainitic ferrite as the matrix
phase and retained austenite as the second phase (BF
steels) can be produced by a two-step heat-treatment
process, where complete austenitization is followed by
an isothermal bainitic transformation treatment.[4] The
third variety of TRIP-aided steels called AM steels
consists of ‘‘annealed martensite’’ as the matrix phase
and carbide free bainite and retained austenite as the
other phases.[5] In this case, the steel is subjected to an
additional austenitizing and oil quenching step prior to
the conventional treatment of intercritical annealing and
MONIDEEPA MUKHERJEE, Researcher, is with Research and
Development, Tata Steel, Jamshedpur-831001, India. Contact e-mail:
monideepa13a@gmail.com SHIV BRAT SINGH, Associate Professor,
is with Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur-721302, India. OMKAR NATH
MOHANTY, Vice Chancellor, is with Biju Patnaik University of
Technology, Orissa, Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar -751 003, India.
Manuscript submitted September 19, 2007.
Article published online July 15, 2008
microstructure at the beginning of intercritical annealing
is martensite, which is different from that in the
conventional treatment where the starting microstruc-
ture before intercritical annealing is ferrite + pearlite.
The resultant lath type of matrix microstructure has
been named annealed martensite by Sugimoto et al.[5]
They found that intercritical annealing for 1200 seconds
resulted only in recovery and decrease in the dislocation
density of the martensite formed during prior heat
treatment but did not result in the nucleation of
polygonal ferrite.
The most important constituent of the complex
microstructure of the TRIP-aided steels is 10 to
20 vol pct of retained austenite. Deformation causes
progressive transformation of retained austenite to
martenite, which increases the strain hardening rate
and delays the onset of necking.
A large amount of work has been dedicated to study
the deformation-induced transformation of austenite to
martensite. As a result, a number of emperical as well as
semiemperical models have been formulated to predict
the kinetics of this transformation.[3,7–14]
The aim of the present work was to develop a
thermodynamic-based model for the deformation-
induced transformation of austenite to martensite so
that the amount of martensite or the amount of
austenite left untransformed after a certain amount of
strain can be predicted.
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Martensitic transformation is a first order phase
transformation and occurs by nucleation and
growth.[15,16] For the transformation to occur it is
necessary that (1) the free energy of the system decreases
and (2) heterogeneous nucleation sites are present.[9] The
energetics of transformation can be understood from
Figure 1.[8] At the T0 temperature, the chemical free

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008—2319

Fig. 1—Schematic representation of the energetics of martensite
transformation.[8]
energy of austenite is equal to that of martensite and
they are in thermodynamic equilibrium. To bring about
the transformation of austenite to martensite, it is
essential that the free energy change of the system be
large enough to compensate for the surface energy and
the elastic strain energy associated with martensite.
Thus, martensite cannot form spontaneously at T0.
Transformation is possible only after a certain amount
of undercooling to a temperature designated as Ms
(<T0) at which a critical chemical driving force, DGcrit
becomes available for initiating the transformation.[17]
In the absence of any other energy, the magnitude of the
chemical free energy difference must be greater than or
equal to |DGcrit| for the transformation to take place.
Martensite transformation involves an invariant-
plane strain shape deformation with a large shear
component. The transformation can therefore be
regarded as a mode of deformation with a change in
crystal structure also. It follows that the transformation
can be influenced by external deformation.[16] The
deformation or strain energy can be regarded as an
additional mechanical driving force, which can aid the
chemical driving force in accomplishing the transforma-
tion.[8,18,19] External deformation and the associated
mechanical driving force can thus trigger martensite
transformation above the Ms temperature, even though
chemical driving force is not large enough to initiate the
transformation at such temperatures (>Ms). In other
words, deformation-induced martensitic transformation
can be viewed as dissipation of strain energy accumu-
lated during deformation.[8]
The magnitude of chemical driving force decreases
linearly with an increase in temperature above Ms
(Figure 1).[8] Therefore, a proportionally higher
mechanical driving force is required to trigger martens-
ite transformation as the temperature is increased
beyond Ms. The critical stress required to cause trans-
formation then increases linearly with temperature
(Figure 2)[20] in the temperature range of Ms to Mrs .
2320—VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008
Fig. 2—Schematic illustration of the influence of temperature and
applied stress on martensite transformation mechanisms.[20] Solid
line indicates the critical stress required to initiate martensite trans-
formation at temperatures above Ms.
The critical stress in this temperature region is lower
than the yield stress (for slip) of stable austenite and the
transformation occurs by heterogeneous nucleation on
the same nucleation sites that are responsible for
transformation on cooling below the Ms temperature.
This mode of transformation is called stress-assisted
transformation.[21] The yield stress for slip in austenite
decreases with increasing temperature and above MrS,
the stress needed to initiate martensite transformation is
large enough to cause plastic deformation (by slip) in
austenite.[22] At temperatures higher than MrS, martens-
ite transformation takes places in a plastically deformed
austenite on new nucleation sites generated by plastic
deformation and at stresses that are considerably lower
than is expected from a simple extrapolation of the
critical stress–temperature line between MS and MrS
(Figure 2).[20] This mode of transformation is termed
strain-induced transformation.[21] At temperatures above
Md (>Mrs ), the chemical driving force is so small that
deformation is unable to trigger martensite transforma-
tion and the transformation is not possible at all.
III. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Considering the initial volume of austenite to be Vc0 , a
volume Va¢ of martensite is assumed to be formed when
a true strain e is applied at a constant temperature T.
The volume of austenite remaining untransformed is
(Vc0
Va0 ) and the free energy of the system is given by



G ¼ Vc0
Va0 gc þ Va0 ga0 þ Va0 A0 þ Vc0
Va0 Ffeg
½1
where gc is chemical free energy of austenite per unit
volume at temperature T, ga¢ is chemical free energy of
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
martensite per unit volume at temperature T, A¢ is Equation [6] can therefore be rewritten as
elastic strain energy per unit volume of martensite due
to shape deformation, and F{e} is the energy contribu- df
dFfeg
¼ ½8
tion of applied strain e per unit volume of austenite or 1
f ðDGc!a0 þ A0
FfegÞ
the mechanical driving force.
The surface energy term has been neglected in Eq. [1], When the temperature is maintained constant, at true
because it is quite small compared with the elastic strain strain e = 0, f = 0 and at any true strain e = e, f = f.
energy term.[16] Integrating Eq. [8] between e = 0 to e = e and consid-
When the strain increases by an infinitesimal amount ering F{e} = 0 at e = 0
De, the amount of martensite increases by DVa¢ and the
 c!a0 
volume of austenite decreases by DVa¢. The correspond- 1 DG þ A0
Ffeg
ing free energy change between the two strains (e and ln ¼ ln ½9
1
f DGc!a0 þ A0
e + De) is given by



DG ¼DVa0 ga0
gc þ A0 þ Vc0
Va0 DFfeg The term f can be expressed in terms of the initial

DVa0 Ffe þ Deg ½2 volume fraction of retained austenite at zero strain, say
fc0 , and the volume fraction of retained austenite that
where DF(e) is the increase in strain energy from strain e remains untransformed at a strain e, say fce , in the
to e + De. following way
Adding and subtracting D Va¢F{e}, Eq. [2] can be
rewritten as Va0 Vc0
Vce fc0
fce
f¼ ¼ ¼ ½10


Vc0 V c0 fc0
DG ¼DVa0 ga0
gc þ A0
Ffeg þ Vc0
Va0 DFfeg

DVa0 DFfeg ½3 where Vce is the volume of retained austenite that
remains untransformed at a strain e (all other terms have
been defined earlier).
Ignoring DVa0 DFfeg, as it is a very small quantity, and Hence, Eq. [9] can be rewritten in terms of the
simplifying we have measured retained austenite volume fraction as follows
 
 0 
0
DG ¼ DVa0 DGc!a þ A0
Ffeg þ Vc0
Va0 DFfeg DGc!a þ A0
fce ¼ fc0 ½11
DGc!a0 þ A0
Ffeg
½4
where DGcfia¢ is the chemical free energy change per unit The term F{e} can be expressed in terms of e as
volume associated with the transformation of austenite
to martensite at temperature T. F fe g ¼ k 0 e q ½12
Dividing throughout by Vc0 , we have
where q is the strain exponent and k¢ is a constant of


DG DVa0  c!a0  Vc0
Va0 proportionality.
¼ DG þ A0
Ffeg þ DFfeg Equation [11] can thus be rewritten as
V c0 V c0 V c0
 0 
½5 DGc!a þ A0
fce ¼ fc0 ½13
DGc!a0 þ A0
k0 eq
Considering that DG = 0 at equilibrium, and approx-
imating DV to dV and DF to dF we have The two empirical constants (k¢ and q) can be

estimated by fitting Eq. [13] to the experimental data
dVa0  c!a0 0
 Vc0
Va0 (Appendix).
DG þ A
Ffeg þ dFfeg ¼ 0
V c0 Vc0
½6
IV. MODEL APPLICATION
Va0
The term Vc0 ,
represented here by f, is the fraction of Mukherjee et al.[6] have carried out a systematic study
the initial volume of austenite that transforms to of the deformation-induced transformation behavior of
martensite. It can also be interpreted as the ratio of retained austenite in PF, BF, and AM steels at different
the volume fraction of martensite to the initial volume strain rates and temperatures. The details of heat treat-
fraction of austenite in the microstructure. If the starting ment and microstructure can be found in Reference 6.
microstructure is completely austenitic then f is simply Their experimental results are shown in Figure 3.
the volume fraction of martensite. From the preceding Figure 3 also shows the values of fce as a function of
definition of f deformation strain, calculated from Eq. [13] for the best
fit values of ln (k¢) and q, as continuous solid lines. For
dVa0
¼ df ½7 each dataset, DGcfia¢ was calculated as the difference
Vc0 between the chemical free energies of ferrite and

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008—2321


Fig. 3—Variation of untransformed retained austenite fraction fce
with e in PF, BF, and AM steels tested under different conditions.[6]
The solid continuous lines correspond to the calculated value of fce
using Eq. [13] and the best-fit values of ln (k¢) and q (RT: room tem-
perature).
austenite phases of the same composition, using the
Thermo-Calc computational thermodynamics pro-
gram[23] and taking the chemical composition of
retained austenite and the deformation temperature as
inputs. It is generally assumed that paraequilibrium
conditions exist during the prior heat treatments (inter-
critical annealing and isothermal bainite transforma-
tion) used to produce TRIP-aided steels.[24–26]
Therefore, only carbon atoms were assumed to partition
between austenite and ferrite. The carbon concentration
of austenite as estimated by X-ray diffraction measure-
ments was used in all calculations. In certain cases where
the intercritical annealing treatment was carried out for
very long durations (‡1000 seconds), manganese content
of austenite was assumed to be 1.5 times that of the bulk
manganese concentration. This is in accordance with
earlier work.[3,4,6,27] Accordingly, depending on the
processing conditions, the austenite chemical composi-
tion was adjusted before making free energy calcula-
tions.
The term A¢, which represents the elastic strain energy
per unit volume due to shape deformation, was calcu-
lated using the relationship[15]
 c
A0 ¼ A ½14
r
where cr is the aspect ratio of martensitic plates with plate
thickness equal to 2c and plate length equal to 2r.
Typically cr is taken to be equal to 0.05.[15]
The term A in Eq. [14] is given by[16]
2322—VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008
 
p 2
m p
A¼ ls2 þ ld2 ½15
8 1
m 4
where s and d are the shear and dilatational components
of the invariant plane strain shape deformation, m is the
Poisson’s ratio, and l is the shear modulus. With values
typical of martensite transformation in ferrous alloys,
A = 2.4 9 103 MJ m-3.[16]
Similar fce – e data were collected from various
published literature[3,4,6,25,27–31] and analyzed exactly as
described previously with the value of A¢ quoted
previously and DGcfia¢ calculated using the Thermo-
Calc program.[23] Table I lists the type of matrix
microstructure, deformation conditions like deforma-
tion temperature (T) and strain rate and retained
austenite characteristics like fc0 (the initial volume
fraction of retained austenite at e = 0 and measured
at room temperature), Cc0 (carbon concentration of
retained austenite at e = 0), and Ms temperature of
retained austenite for each experimental dataset consid-
ered. The Ms temperature of the retained austenite was
calculated using Andrews’s formula,[32] taking the
chemical composition of the retained austenite into
account (as was done in the case of DGcfia¢ calculations).
The best-fit values of ln (k¢) and q along with the R2
value for the individual experiments are listed in
Table II. In most of the cases R2 is close to 1 indicating
a good fit.
To formulate a general equation for F{e}, the average
of the individual best-fit values of q and ln (k¢) was
calculated and found to be 1.03 and 8.99, respectively.
All the data were then analyzed together and fce was
calculated for each dataset using these average values of
q and ln (k¢). Figure 4 shows the agreement between the
calculated values of fce and the corresponding experi-
mental/measured values. Considering the range of alloys
analyzed, the agreement appears reasonably good with
most of the points lying within ±0.05.
However, there are certain cases where the calculated
values of fce do not agree with the measured values. For
example, Figure 5 compares the calculated and mea-
sured fce for experiment numbers 1, 8 through 13, and 17
of Table I. For all of these experiments, the deformation
temperature (i.e., room temperature) is less than the Ms
temperature of the corresponding retained austenite.
Majority of the measured fce values are £0.06 and the
calculated values of fce are higher than the correspond-
ing measured values. The difference between the calcu-
lated and actual fce is greater than 0.05 for experiments 1
and 17 and therefore, they have been shown separately
in Figure 5(a). On re-examining the data, it is found that
experiments 1 and 17 correspond to PF steel samples
subjected to tensile tests at room temperature.[6] In these
cases, stress-assisted transformation is reported to have
taken place; even the shoulder section of the tensile
tested samples showed martensite transformation.[6]
Similarly, for experiments 8 through 13,[28] the defor-
mation temperature T < Ms and the difference between
calculated and measured values of fce are in general
directly related to the difference between the Ms tem-
perature and the deformation temperature (Figure 5(b)
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
 Table I. Experimental Details

Experiment Number Matrix Morphology T (C) Strain Rate (s-1) fc0 Cc0 Ms (C) Reference
-5
1 PF 20 3.3 9 10 0.25 0.77 138.4 6
2 PF 20 2.8 9 10-4 0.12 1.15 -54.2 27
3 PF 20 2.8 9 10-4 0.19 1.40 -138.1 4
4 PF 20 5.6 9 10-4 0.12 1.60 -189.3 25
5 PF 20 5.6 9 10-4 0.19 1.58 -179.8 29
6 PF 20 5.6 9 10-4 0.13 1.48 -142.2 29
7 PF 20 5.6 9 10-4 0.16 1.45 -128.8 29
8 PF 20 6.7 9 10-4 0.09 0.61 237.3 28
9 PF 20 6.7 9 10-4 0.08 0.68 207.7 28
10 PF 20 6.7 9 10-4 0.06 0.73 186.5 28
11 PF 20 6.7 9 10-4 0.08 0.85 119.8 28
12 PF 20 6.7 9 10-4 0.09 0.93 85.9 28
13 PF 20 6.7 9 10-4 0.08 0.97 69.0 28
14 PF 20 1.6 9 10-3 0.20 1.59 -182.6 30
15 PF 20 1.6 9 10-3 0.26 1.41 -117.9 30
16 PF 20 1.6 9 10-3 0.22 1.27 -59.3 30
17 PF 20 3.3 9 10-2 0.25 0.77 138.4 6
18 PF 25 1.0 9 10-3 0.14 1.08 -35.3 31
19 PF 27 2.8 9 10-4 0.15 1.47 -168.9 3
20 AM 20 3.3 9 10-5 0.20 1.08 10.5 6
21 AM 20 2.8 9 10-4 0.13 1.26 -100.7 27
22 AM 20 3.3 9 10-2 0.20 1.08 10.5 6
23 BF 20 3.3 9 10-5 0.15 1.12 15.6 6
24 BF 20 2.8 9 10-4 0.07 1.34 -134.5 27
25 BF 20 2.8 9 10-4 0.13 1.36 -121.2 4
26 BF 20 3.3 9 10-2 0.15 1.12 15.6 6
27 PF 55 1.0 9 10-3 0.14 1.08 -35.3 31
28 PF 75 1.0 9 10-3 0.14 1.08 -35.3 31
29 PF 100 2.8 9 10-4 0.12 1.15 -54.16 27
30 PF 150 3.3 9 10-5 0.25 0.77 138.4 6
31 PF 150 3.3 9 10-3 0.25 0.77 138.4 6
32 PF 150 3.3 9 10-2 0.25 0.77 138.4 6
33 AM 100 2.8 9 10-4 0.13 1.26 -100.7 27
34 AM 150 3.3 9 10-5 0.20 1.08 10.5 6
35 AM 150 3.3 9 10-4 0.20 1.08 10.5 6
36 AM 150 3.3 9 10-2 0.20 1.08 10.5 6
37 BF 100 2.8 9 10-4 0.07 1.34 -134.5 27
38 BF 150 3.3 9 10-5 0.15 1.12 15.6 6
39 BF 150 3.3 9 10-2 0.15 1.12 15.6 6
Note: T = deformation temperature; fc0 = initial volume fraction of retained austenite measured at room temperature; Cc0 = carbon con-
centration of retained austenite at e = 0; and Ms = temperature of retained austenite calculated using Andrews’s formula.[32]

and Table I), with the difference being larger for higher
Ms temperatures.
The nature of the critical stress-temperature plot with
a discontinuity at Mrs in the schematic illustration shown
in Figure 2 implies that the stress and hence deforma-
tion energy or mechanical driving force required for the
stress-assisted and strain-induced modes of transforma-
tion are different. As discussed earlier, the mechanical
driving force required for strain-induced transformation
is smaller when austenite undergoes plastic deformation
by slip. Considering that most of the experiments listed
in Table I were conducted at temperatures well above
the Ms temperature of the corresponding retained
austenite, it is possible that the average values of ln
(k¢) and q calculated are biased toward the strain-
induced mechanism of martensite transformation.
Therefore, for experiments 1, 8 through 13, and 17,
where stress-assisted martensite transformation appears
to be the dominant mode of transformation, F{e}
estimated from the average values of ln (k¢) and q may
not be accurate. Referring once again to Figure 2, the
average values of F{e} calculated previously is an
underestimation when applied to stress-assisted trans-
formation. This results in over prediction in the values
of fce (Figure 5). If F{e} values appropriate to stress-
assisted transformation mechanism is used, the predic-
tions would improve. Indeed Figures 3(a) and (b)
representing experiments 17 and 1, respectively, confirm
the same. Even for experiments 8 through 13, the
agreement between the calculated and actual fce
improves when the Ms temperature is closer to the
deformation temperature. The possible reason for this
could be that as the Ms temperature reduces, the
retained austenite becomes more stable and, hence, the

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008—2323

 Table II. Fitting Parameters for Experiments Listed
in Table I

Experiment
Number q Ln (k¢) R2 Reference
1 0.67 10.29 0.99 6
2 0.59 10.19 0.97 27
3 0.86 7.74 0.96 4
4 1.64 8.16 0.96 25
5 1.22 9.51 0.98 29
6 1.34 9.22 0.99 29
7 1.55 10.16 0.97 29
8 0.85 10.97 0.96 28
9 1.46 12.20 0.95 28
10 0.68 10.52 0.92 28
11 0.60 8.94 0.97 28
12 0.97 9.45 0.98 28
13 0.94 8.85 0.98 28
14 1.03 8.03 0.99 30
15 0.95 8.71 0.97 30
16 1.15 9.89 0.99 30
17 0.89 11.11 0.86 6 Fig. 4—Comparison of calculated and actual values of fce for experi-
18 0.99 9.29 0.99 31 ments listed in Table I. Solid line represents complete agreement be-
19 1.34 9.46 0.99 3 tween calculated and actual fce , whereas the dotted lines represent a
deviation by ±0.05.
20 1.16 9.43 0.99 6
21 1.29 13.11 0.96 27
22 0.79 8.36 0.98 6
23 1.39 9.97 0.99 6
24 0.92 9.76 0.90 27
25 0.57 7.14 0.88 4
26 1.29 9.83 0.99 6
27 0.84 8.18 0.99 31
28 0.81 7.46 0.99 31
29 0.71 7.02 0.96 27
30 1.47 9.89 0.88 6
31 1.07 8.49 0.82 6
32 0.47 6.75 0.76 6
33 0.80 7.12 0.89 27
34 1.43 8.82 0.92 6
35 1.11 7.79 0.89 6
36 0.31 5.43 0.94 6
37 1.07 6.51 0.94 27 Fig. 5—Comparison of calculated and actual values of fce for experi-
38 1.68 9.33 0.96 6 ments (a) 1, 17 and (b) 8 through 13 of Table I. Solid line represents
complete agreement between calculated and actual fce , whereas dot-
39 1.19 7.48 0.94 6
ted lines represent a deviation by ±0.05.

available for triggering martensitic transformation is

extent of stress-assisted transformation is lower. There-
fore, the F{e} calculated using the average values for ln
(k¢) and q could better represent the actual transforma-
tion mechanism leading to higher accuracy of predic-
tion. This is clear from experiment 13, for which the
calculated fce matches the measured values.
Figure 6 compares the calculated and measured
values of fce for experiments carried out at temperatures
greater than room temperature (experiments 27 through
39 of Table I). The calculation seems to generally
underestimate the value of fce . This effect is most
prominent for tests carried out at relatively high strain
rates (open circles). The chemical free energy difference
between austenite and martensite is lower at high
deformation temperatures (Figure 1), and it decreases
further if adiabatic heating takes place during high
strain rate experiments. Because slip is easier at higher
temperatures, a large proportion of the deformation
energy is consumed by slip.[9] As a result, the energy
low. The magnitude of mechanical driving force F{e}
should thus depend on the deformation temperature
also. Because this factor has not been taken into account
in calculating fce at high temperatures, the calculated fce
values are lower than the actual values.
The agreement between calculated and measured
values of fce for room temperature deformation (exper-
iments 2 through 7, 14 through 16, and 18 through 26 of
Table I) is shown in Figure 7. The Ms temperature of
the retained austenite in these cases is lower than the
deformation temperature. Barring a few exceptions,
particularly when the measured fce is small, the estima-
tions of the model are reasonably accurate, considering
the inherent experimental error expected in the mea-
surement of fce using X-ray diffraction, and the simpli-
fying assumptions discussed subsequently. It should also
be noted that measurement of the volume fraction of
retained austenite using X-ray diffraction is particularly
unreliable when volume fraction is less than 0.05.[33]

2324—VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A


Fig. 6—Comparison of calculated and actual values of fce for experi-
ments 27 through 39 of Table I, carried out at temperatures greater
than room temperature. Open circles correspond to experiments 32,
36, and 39, carried out at a strain rate of 3.3 9 10-2 s-1. Solid line
represents complete agreement between calculated and actual fce ,
whereas dotted lines represent a deviation by ±0.05.
Fig. 7—Comparison of calculated and actual values of fce for experi-
ments 2 through 7; 14 through 16; and 18 through 26 of Table I,
where deformation was done at room temperature (20 C). The Ms
temperature was less than the room temperature in all these cases so
that deformation was carried out at temperatures higher than the Ms
temperature. Solid line represents complete agreement between calcu-
lated and actual fce , whereas dotted lines represent a deviation by
±0.05.
V. SOURCES OF ERROR
The deviation of the calculated values of fce from the
measured values can be attributed to the simplifying
assumptions of the model.
The parameter A¢ = A(c/r) has been assumed to be
constant for all the cases. However, the aspect ratio of
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
martensite c/r is known to vary with temperature,
driving force, austenite strength, extent of transforma-
tion, etc.[34] Strain hardening of austenite during defor-
mation can also lower the aspect ratio. Similarly, plastic
accommodation of martensite plates or formation of
self-accommodating variants alters the value of the
constant A¢ used in the model.[34]
The accuracy of the calculations depends on the
correct estimation of the chemical driving force for
martensite transformation, which in turn depends on the
thermodynamic database used. In the present work, the
chemical driving force for retained austenite to mar-
tensite transformation (DGcfia¢) for all the cases was
calculated using Thermo-Calc. For some alloys,
MTDATA was also used to cross-check the values
obtained by Thermo-Calc and the difference was not
significant. Moreover, the chemical driving force for
martensite transformation has been calculated using the
average concentration of the alloying elements in the
carbon enriched retained austenite. This need not be
strictly correct in all the alloys analyzed because
elements like C and Mn are known to segregate.[2,24,35]
Thus, regions with lower concentration of alloying
elements would transform rather easily whereas rela-
tively enriched regions would be more resistant to
transformation.[36] Further complications arise if defor-
mation of a complex microstructure like the one in
TRIP-aided steel is considered. Stress and strain are not
expected to be uniform in all phases, and their distri-
bution amongst the various phases would depend on the
relative mechanical properties of the individual
phases.[37] Thus, estimation of a general value of F{e}
for all the steels based on the average macroscopic strain
may not be strictly accurate.
The surface energy term has not been considered here
as it is quite small compared with the elastic strain
energy term.[16] But when the austenite grain size is very
small (typically <1 lm), the surface/interfacial energy
term becomes significant.[38] In such cases, including this
term may improve the predictions.
VI. STRESS-ASSISTED vs STRAIN-INDUCED
TRANSFORMATION
The thermodynamics of stress-assisted martensitic
transformation was studied for the first time by Patel
and Cohen.[18] Considering an invariant plane strain
shape deformation, the thermodynamic contribution of
applied stress (F{r}) was estimated by calculating the
interaction work of the resolved stress acting through
the shape strain of the most favorably oriented mar-
tensite variant. For uniaxial tension, the magnitude of
the driving force contribution per unit value of applied
stress was calculated to be 0.86 J mol-1 MPa-1.[18,19]
When this quantity is multiplied by the applied stress,
the value of F{r} (in J mol-1) is obtained.
Figures 8, 9, and 10 compare F{r} with F{e} for PF,
AM, and BF steels tested under different deformation
conditions described in Reference 6. The F{e} was
calculated empirically using Eq. [13] with experimental
values of fce and fc0 (estimated using X-ray diffraction);
VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008—2325

Fig. 8—Comparison of F{r} and F{e} for PF steels tested at (a) RT
and (b) 150 C.
Fig. 9—Comparison of F{r} and F{e} for AM steels tested at (a)
RT and (b) 150 C.
Fig. 10—Comparison of F{r} and F{e} for BF steels tested at (a)
RT and (b) 150 C.
DGcfia¢ and A¢ were calculated as in Section IV. The F{e}
so calculated thus represents the free energy contribu-
tion of strain required to bring about the observed
transformation. For each strain level at which fce was
measured, the corresponding true stress value was
estimated from the respective flow curve[6] and used to
calculate the value of F{r} as discussed previously.
These F{r} values correspond to the driving force
contribution of applied stress to bring about transfor-
mation of the most favorably oriented variant by the
2326—VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008
stress-assisted mechanism. Though stress-assisted trans-
formation is usually defined in the elastic regime, F{r}
has been calculated here for the entire strain range for
the sake of comparison, which may not be valid for
higher strains (beyond the elastic limit). Moreover, the
calculations by Patel and Cohen[18] were made for the
most favorably oriented nuclei, which surely get con-
sumed by the time higher strains are reached.
The plots for PF steel tested at 150 C (Figure 8(b))
and AM and BF steels tested at either temperature
(Figures 9 and 10), show that F{e} is lower than the
corresponding F{r} at low strains (0 to 0.1 or 0.2). In
other words, the driving force contribution of strain
required for bringing about martensite transformation
estimated empirically using Eq. [13] is lower than the
free energy contribution of applied stress as calculated
from Patel and Cohen’s formulation.[18] This is typical
of the strain-induced mechanism of transformation and
implies that the transformation of austenite is easier and
requires lower mechanical driving force when plastic
deformation of austenite by slip takes place first. The
observation is consistent with the schematics of mar-
tensite transformation shown in Figure 2; it is clear that
at temperatures greater than Mrs , strain-induced mar-
tensite transformation can be triggered at stresses that
are lower than is expected from a simple extrapolation
of the critical stress required to initiate stress-assisted
transformation at temperatures below Mrs . This is
because plastic deformation (by slip) introduces new
nucleation sites for martensite and thus makes the
transformation easier.[17]
However, in the case of PF steel tested at room
temperature (Figure 8(a)), F{r} is much lower than
F{e} indicating stress-assisted transformation. Results
reported in Reference 6 indeed show stress-assisted
transformation in this case.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
A model based on thermodynamics has been devel-
oped for the deformation-induced transformation of
retained austenite in TRIP-aided steels. The model takes
into account the mechanical driving force or the energy
contribution of the deformation strain, which has been
determined empirically from reported experimental
data. The predictions of the model are generally in
good agreement with the experimental measurements. It
has been argued that strain-induced transformation of
austenite to martensite takes place in the case of AM
and BF steels deformed at room temperature and at
150 C and PF steel tested at 150 C. In all of these
cases, it has been shown that the mechanical driving
force required to trigger strain-induced martensite
transformation is much smaller than expected from the
theory of stress-assisted transformation. This can be
attributed to new nucleation sites introduced by plastic
deformation, which makes the transformation easier.
For PF steel tested at room temperature, stress-assisted
mode appears to be the dominant mechanism of
martensite transformation, which corroborates the
experimental results presented in Reference 6.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
 APPENDIX k¢ constant of proportionality relating the free
energy contribution of deformation to true
This appendix explains how the best fit values of the
strain
two empirical constants (k¢ and q) in Eq. [13] were
Ms martensite start temperature
obtained. Equation [13] is as shown
Mrs maximum temperature up to which austenite
 0  can transform to martensite by the stress-
DGc!a þ A0
fce ¼ fc0 ½A1 assisted mechanism
DGc!a0 þ A0
k0 eq
Md highest temperature at which deformation is
able to trigger austenite to martensite
The preceding equation was rearranged as transformation
 0
 fc
 q strain exponent
DGc!a þ A0  1
0 ¼ k0 eq ½A2 r semilength of martensite plates
f ce R2 coefficient of determination
s shear component of invariant plane strain
The preceding equation was linearized as shape deformation associated with martensite
 formation
0
 fc

T temperature
ln DGc!a þ A0  1
0 ¼ lnðk0 Þ þ q lnðeÞ ½A3 T0 temperature at which austenite and ferrite of
fce
the same composition have the same free
energy
The left hand side (LHS) of Eq. [A3] was calculated as Umech driving force contribution of mechanical
a function of ln (e), and using least-squares analysis, the deformation
best-fit values of ln (k¢) and q were obtained. Va¢ volume of martensite formed after strain e
Vc0 volume of austenite at zero strain
Vce volume of austenite that remains
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS untransformed at strain e
a¢ martensite
SYMBOLS d normal component of the invariant plane
strain shape deformation associated with
A parameter associated with the strain energy martensite formation
for the formation of martensite e true strain
A¢ elastic strain energy per unit volume of c austenite
martensite due to shape deformation l shear modulus
c semithickness of martensite plates m Poisson’s ratio
C c0 carbon content of retained austenite at zero r true stress
strain
f fraction of the initial volume of austenite that
transforms to martensite
f c0 initial volume fraction of retained austenite ABBREVIATIONS
(measured at room temperature and at zero AM annealed martensite
strain) BF bainitic ferrite
f ce volume fraction of retained austenite that LHS left-hand side
remains untransformed after true strain e PF polygonal ferrite
F{e} free energy contribution of applied strain e RT room temperature
per unit volume of austenite TRIP transformation induced plasticity
F{r} free energy contribution of applied stress per
unit volume
ga¢ chemical free energy of martensite per unit
volume at temperature T REFERENCES
gc chemical free energy of austenite per unit 1. V.F. Zackay, E.R. Parker, D. Fahr, and R. Busch: Trans. ASM,
volume at temperature T 1967, vol. 60, pp. 252–59.
2. O. Matsumura, Y. Sakuma, and H. Takechi: Trans. ISIJ, 1987,
G free energy of the system vol. 21, pp. 570–79.
DGch chemical free energy difference of austenite 3. K. Sugimoto, M. Kobayashi, and S. Hashimoto: Metall. Trans. A,
and martensite or chemical driving force 1992, vol. 23A, pp. 3085–91.
DGcrit critical chemical driving force required for 4. K. Sugimoto, T. Iida, J. Sakaguchi, and T. Kashima: ISIJ Int.,
initiating the transformation of austenite to 2000, vol. 40, pp. 902–08.
5. K. Sugimoto, A. Kanda, R. Kikuchi, S. Hashimoto, T. Kashima,
martensite and S. Ikeda: ISIJ Int. 2002, vol. 42, pp. 910–15.
DGcfia¢ driving force for austenite to martensite 6. M. Mukherjee, O.N. Mohanty, S. Hashimoto, T. Hojo
transformation, calculated as the free energy K. Sugimoto: ISIJ Int., 2006, vol. 46, pp. 316–24.
difference between austenite and ferrite of the 7. G.B. Olson and M. Cohen: Metall. Trans. A, 1975, vol. 6A,
pp. 791–95.
same composition

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008—2327

 8. H.C. Shin, T.K. Ha, and Y.W. Chang: Scripta Mater., 2001,
vol. 45, pp. 823–29.
9. T. Angel: JISI, 1954, vol. 177, pp. 165–74.
10. D.C. Ludwigson and J.A. Berger: JISI, 1969, vol. 192, pp. 63–69.
11. O. Matsumura, Y. Sakuma, and H. Takechi: Scripta Mater., 1987,
vol. 21, pp. 1301–06.
12. M.Y. Sherif, C. Garcia-Mateo, T. Sourmail, and H.K.D.H.
Bhadeshia: Mater. Sci Technol., 2004, vol. 20, pp. 319–22.
13. M. Mukherjee, S.B. Singh, and O.N. Mohanty: Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, 2006, vol. 434, pp. 237–45.
14. M. Mukherjee, S.B. Singh, and O.N. Mohanty: Mater. Sci.
Technol., 2007, vol. 23, pp. 338–46.
15. J.W. Christian: ICOMAT 79, Int. Conf. Martensitic Transfor-
mations, Cambridge, MA, 1979, pp. 220–34.
16. C.M. Wayman and H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia: in Physical Metallurgy,
R.W. Cahn and P. Hassen, eds., Elsevier Science Publishers,
Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 1507–54.
17. M. Cohen, E.S. Machlin, and V.G. Paranjpe: Thermodyamics in
Physical Metallurgy, ASM, Cleveland, OH, 1950, pp. 242–70.
18. J.R. Patel and M. Cohen: Acta Metall., 1953, vol. 1, pp. 531–38.
19. G.B. Olson and M. Cohen: Metall. Trans. A, 1982, vol. 13A,
pp. 1907–14.
20. G.B. Olson and M. Azrin: Metall. Trans. A, 1978, vol. 9A,
pp. 713–21.
21. G.B. Olson and M. Cohen: J. Less Common Met., 1972, vol. 28,
pp. 107–18.
22. G.F. Bolling and R.H. Richman: Acta Metall., 1970, vol. 18,
pp. 673–81.
23. B. Sundman, B. Jansson, and J.O. Andersson: Calphad, 1985,
vol. 9, pp. 153–90.
24. G.R. Speich, V.A. Demarest, and R.L. Miller: Metall. Trans. A,
1981, vol. 12A, pp. 1419–28.
2328—VOLUME 39A, OCTOBER 2008
25. M. De Meyer, D. Vanderschueren, and B.C. De Cooman: Proc.
41st Mechanical Working and Steel Processing Conf., Iron and
Steel Society, Baltimore, MD, 1999, pp. 265–76.
26. M. Takahashi and H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia: Trans. Jpn. Inst. Met.,
1991, vol. 32, pp. 689–96.
27. K. Sugimoto, M. Misu, M. Kobayashi, and H. Shirasawa: ISIJ
Int., 1993, vol. 33, pp. 775–82.
28. P.J. Jacques, J. Ladrière, and F. Delannay: Metall. Mater. Trans.
A, 2001, vol. 32A, pp. 2759–68.
29. D. Krizan, B.C. De Cooman, and J. Antonissen: Proc. Int. Conf.
on Advanced High Strength Sheet Steels for Automotive Applica-
tions, AIST, Winter Park, CO, 2004, pp. 205–16.
30. A.K. De, R.S. Kircher, J.G. Speer, and D.K. Matlock: Proc. Int.
Conf. on Advanced High Strength Sheet Steels for Automotive
Applications, AIST, Winter Park, CO, 2004, pp. 337–47.
31. M. Radu, J. Valy, A.F. Gourgues, F. Le Strat, and A. Pineau:
Scripta Mater., 2005, vol. 52, pp. 525–30.
32. K.W. Andrews: JISI, 1965, vol. 203, pp. 721–27.
33. B.D. Cullity: Elements of X-Ray Diffraction, 2nd ed., Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, MA, 1978, pp. 411–15.
34. G. Ghosh and V. Raghavan: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1986, vol. 79,
pp. 223–31.
35. J. Mahieu, D. Van Dooren, and B.C. De Cooman: in Proc. Int.
Symp. on Transformation and Deformation Mechanisms in
Advanced High Strength Steels, M. Militzer, W.J. Poole, and
E. Essadiqi, eds., CIM, Montreal, 2003, pp. 21–35.
36. A. Itami, M. Takahashi, and K. Ushioda: ISIJ Int., 1995, vol. 35,
pp. 1121–27.
37. P.J. Jacques: Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci., 2004, vol. 8,
pp. 259–65.
38. J. Wang and S. van der Zwaag: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2001,
vol. 32A, pp. 1527–39.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A