Materials Science and Technology

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

Effect of prior austenite grain size and pearlite

interlamellar spacing on strength and fracture
toughness of a eutectoid rail steel

F. P. L. Kavishe & T. J. Baker

To cite this article: F. P. L. Kavishe & T. J. Baker (1986) Effect of prior austenite grain size and
pearlite interlamellar spacing on strength and fracture toughness of a eutectoid rail steel,
Materials Science and Technology, 2:8, 816-822

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/mst.1986.2.8.816

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 66

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

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

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

Download by: [Monash University Library] Date: 18 March 2016, At: 04:52
 Effect of prior The influence of prior austenite grain size dy, and true interlamellar spacing of
pearlite St on the strength and fracture toughness of a eutectoid rail steel has been
austenite grain investigated. Specimens were machined from rail sections and heat treated to
produce a wide variation in dy and St. Mechanical properties studied included
size and pearlite 0·2% proof stress (Jo']Iultimate tensile strength (Ju, tensile ductility <5, cleavage
interlamellar fracture stress (Jf' and plane strain fracture toughness K1c' All tests were
performed at a temperature of -80aC. The values of (JO'2and (Ju increase as St
spacing on decreases. The proof stress is related to the mean free distance A in the pearlitic
ferrite by a Hall-Petch equation. A microstructural dependence similar to that of
strength and (JO'2is shown by (Jf' and for all but the finest pearlites (Jf is interpreted as a shear
stress controlled cleavage nucleation stress. The value of K1c first decreases with
fracture decreasing St and then increases for the finest spacings. This behaviour is
toughness of a attributed to a change in the micromechanism of cleavage nucleation as the
pearlite spacing changes from coarse to fine. The value of dy has very little effect
eutectoid rail on K1c' but {) decreases progressively. as dy increases. The effect of dy on K1c is
negligible because the fracture process zone is much smaller than the grain size
steel and therefore the grain boundaries cannot influence the fracture processes
occurring at the crack tip. The tensile ductility is interpreted as the strain
necessary to develop an internal microcrack which then propagates as a
quasibrittle fracture. The size of the microcrack is shown to be related to the
pearlite nodule size which in turn is related to dy' MSTj396
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 04:52 18 March 2016

© 1986 The Institute of Metals. Manuscript received 3 December 1985. The

F. P. L. Kavishe authors are in the Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Imperial
T. J. Baker College of Science and Technology, London.

have recently obtained a similar relationship between proof

Introduction
Eutectoid steels have a fully pearlitic microstructure. The
transformation of austenite to pearlite occurs by nucleation
on austenite grain boundaries. 1,2 The pearlite develops as
alternate layers of ferrite and cementite. The neighbouring
ferrite and cementite lamellae that grow parallel to each
other constitute a colony. As the colony grows, new
lamellae may nucleate from its sides and take a different
growth direction. In this way, new colonies are created,
and eventually a larger reacted volume known as a pearlite
nodule is formed.1 The ferrite and cementite lamellae in
those colonies which constitute a single nodule tend to
have a distinct crystallographic orientation which is usually
not shared by the lamellae in the neighbouring· nodules.
When a growing nodule impinges on another nodule, a
boundary is created. Although pearlite colonies nucleate at
austenite grain boundaries, the ferrite and cementite
lamellae can grow across an austenite boundary without
difficulty. The lamellae cease to grow only when
impingement occurs. Since the prior austenite grain size is
one of the features that control the nucleation rate of
pearlite, it is expected that the pearlite. nodule size should
be related to the prior austenite grain size. This has been
shown to be the case. 3
The dominant microstructural parameter controlling the
yield stress (J y of eutectoid steels is the pearlite interlamellar
spacing S.3-6 It has been shown that (J y f<?Jlows a
relationship of the Hall- Petch type with respect to s
(J y = (J i + ky s - 1/2 •••••.•••.•
where (Ji is the friction stress and ky is the Hall- Petch
constant. An unsatisfactory feature of this equation is that
it leads to a contradiction in the definition of (Ji, since,
when extrapolated to S-1/2 = 0, it gives a negative value
for (Ji'
Takahashi and Nagumo 7 have argued that the flow
stress of pearlite is controlled by the mean free distance in
the pearlitic ferrite. When the flow stress was plotted
against the inverse square root of the mean free distance
they obtained a Hall-Petch relationship in which
(Ji'" 170 MN m-
2
at room temperature. O'Donnelly et al.s
stress and ferrite mean free distance. They used steels
having microstructures which ranged from a medium-
carbon mixture of ferrite and pearlite to a fully pearlitic
condition. Separate expressions were proposed for the yield
stress of proeutectoid ferrite and pearlite, namely,
(J~=(Jf+k~d;1/2 (2)
(J~ = (Jr+ k~d; 1/2 •••• (3)
where (X refers to ferrite and p refyrs to pearlite, da is the
proeutectoid ferrite grain size, and here dp is the mean free
distance in pearlitic ferrite. It is interesting to note that
these equations utilize the same value of (Ji for ferrite in
both microstructures, although the Hall- Petch constants
ky are different.
The effects of microstructural variables on the fracture
properties of eutectoid steels are not yet clearly established.
Previous studies have suggested that the fracture toughness
value, as measured by the Charpy impact transition
temperature or the dynamic fracture toughness KId is
inversely related to the prior austenite grain size.3,9,10
These observations imply that in eutectoid steels,
toughness and strength are controlled by different
microstructural parameters and, as such, should be capable
of being varied independently. However, the potential
beneficial effects of a fine prior austenite grain size have yet
to be demonstrated in the usual toughness parameter KIc'
Recent studies of the micromechanism of cleavage fracture
in pearlitic steels have shown that the cleavage fracture
stress increases progressively with decreasing inter-
lamellar spacing.11,12 Preliminary measurements of KIc
(1)
in pearlitic steels revealed a more complicated influence of
interlamellar spacing.13 For coarse pearlite, KIc decreased
with decreasing interlamellar spacing. At an intermediate
value of the interlamellar spacing, KIc attained a minimum
value. It then increased with further reduction in spacing.
Table 1 Chemical composition of eutectoid steel
under investigation, wt-%
c Si Mn p S
0-75
0·23 1·12 0·023 0·026

816 Materials Science and Technology August 1986 Vol. 2

 Kavishe and Baker Strength and fracture'toughness of eutectoid rail steel 817

6
Table 2 Heat treatment sequences RADIUS 0·25
ANGLE 45° \\ I

~-.2-3-----71
I

Micro-
Austenitizing Transformation structural
Specimen condition ' condition· variable

A1 750°C for 30 min 510°C, FB

A2 gOOoe for 1 h 510°C, FB I.. _1_2_.7 ._1,_~
A3 0
1000 e for 1 h
0
510°C, FB
'
63.5 V....
'1--
A4 1200 e for 1 h 510°C, FB
A5 1200 e for 2 h
0
510°C, FB 1 Dimensions (mm) of SN B specimen
B1 800°C for 15 min 510°C, SB Fine dy
B2 850°C for 15 min 510°C, SB
B3 gOOoe for 15 min 510°C, SB different temperatures in salt baths, or furnace cooled, to
B4 gOOoe for 1 h 510°C, SB produce a variation in St for a constant value of dye
SO gOOoe for 1 h 510°C, SB The prior austenite grains were revealed using a method
S1 gOOoe for 1 h 580°C, SB
S2 gOOoe for 1 h 650°C, SB
described by Hyzak and Bernstein4 in which sample
S3 gOOoe for 1 h 1·6 K min-', Fe specimens are austenitized, quenched in oil, and then
tempered at 510°C for 16 h. Microsections prepared from
• FB fluidized bed; SB salt bath; Fe furnace cooled. these samples were etched in boiling saturated aqueous
picric acid and the linear intercept method used to
determine the value of dye A linear intercept technique was
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 04:52 18 March 2016

The present paper is based on a study of the influence of

prior austenite grain size dy and true pearlite interlamellar
spacing St on the proof stress 0"0'2' ultimate tensile strength
0" u' cleavage fracture stress 0" f, and plane strain fracture
toughness KIc of a fully pearlitic steel. The objective of the
work has been to obtain a better understanding of the
effect of microstructural variables on the behaviour of these
steels and thereby to identify the heat treatment conditions
associated with optimum performance.
Experimental procedures
The material used in the investigation was a fully pearlitic
rail steel conforming to BSII grade A. The chemical
composition is given in Table 1.
Test specimens having a longitudinal. orientation were
extracted from the web of rail sections. For all the notched
testpieces described below, the direction of crack
propagation was parallel to the vertical direction in the
web. Oversized blanks were heat treated to produce a wide
variation in values of dy and St. The heat treatment
sequences are given in Table 2. The series A specimens
were designed to produce a wide variation in dye They were
austenitized in argon in a muffle furnace, and then
isothermally transformed in a fluidized bed. The series B
specimens were austenitized and transformed in salt baths.
These specimens were designed to produce fine austenite
grains, while maintaining a nearly constant value of St.
The series S specimens were isothermally transformed at
also used to determine the pearlite colony size c from
scanning electron micrographs (SEMs). Optical micro-
scopy was used to estimate the pearlite nodule size n which
was based on ASTM grain size numbers.
The values of St and ferrite mean free distance A were
determined by a linear intercept method described by
Underwood.14 Microsections were prepared from the
broken halves of test specimens, etched in 2% nital and
examined by SEM. A test line was applied randomly to the
SEM screen, thus intersecting a large number of lamellae at
all possible angles in the plane of polish. A mean random
spacing Sr was obtained by dividing the total length of test
lines by the total number of alternate lamellae intersected.
This random spacing represents the mean free distance in
the pearlitic ferrite when the thickness of cementite lam-
ellae t is subtracted from it. 8,15 The mean true inter-
lamellar spacing St has been shown to be half the mean
random spacing.14-16 Values of St were calculated and then
used to determine values of t from the relationship8
t = O'15CEst (4)
where CE is the carbon content of the steel in wt-%.
The cleavage fracture stress was determined from single
notched bend (SNB) specimens using the specimen
geometry and finite. element analysis described by Griffiths
and Owen 1 7 (Fig. 1). The plane strain fracture toughness
KIc was determined from single edge notched bend
specimens having dimensions of 13 x 26 x 165 mm. All
specimens were fatigue precracked and then broken at
- 80°C. All the determinations of KIc satisfied the validity
criteria of BS 5447 (1977). Tensile tests were carried out on

Table 3 Microstructural parameters, Jim·

Prior Mean true Random Pearlite Pearlite Ferrite Thickness

austenite interlamellar interlamellar colony nodule mean free of cementite
Specimen grain size dy spacing St spacing sr size c size n distance A. lamellae t

AR· 48 0·21 0·42 10·0 40 0·38 0·024

A1 15 NO NO NO NO NO NO
A2 45 0·16 0·32 10·0 48 0·28 0·018
A3 84 0·18 0·36 11·0 80 0·32 0·020
A4 350 0·15 0·30 9·5 135 0·26 0·017
A5 400 0·16 0·32 10·5 160 0·28 0·018
B1 15 0·13 0·26 4·1 14 0·24 0·015
B2 22 0·12 0·24 4·8 20 0·22 0·014
B3 31 0·12 0·24 4·9 28 0·22 0·014
B4 45 0·10 0·20 4·6 40 0·18 0·011
SO 45 0·10 0·20 4·6 40 0·18 0·011
S1 45 0·19 0·38 8·0 40 0·34 0·021
S2 45 0·26 0·52 12·5 56 0·46 0·029
S3 45 0·33 0·66 14·0 80 0·58 0·037

• AR as received; NO not determined.

M;ltp.ri;ll~ ~r.ip.nr.p';lncf Tp.r.hnoloav Auau~t 1986 Vol. 2

 818 Kavishe and Baker Strength and fracture toughness of eutectoid rail steel

1600
crf
~(a)J
C\l
I ~(b~

~:?(Cl
~ 1200
~
en
CJ)
w 1000
c:
I-
CJ)

20 30 40 50
800
AU$TENITE GRAIN SIZE, ~m

a O'f versus dy; b O'u versus dy: C 0'0.2 versus dy

600
3 Influence of prior austenite grain size dy on tensile
strength 0'0'2. O'u and cleavage fracture stress for fine
400 grained regime
o 100 200 300
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 04:52 18 March 2016

400

AUSTENITE GRAIN SIZE, ~m
2 Influence of prior austenite grain size dy on tensile
strength 0'0'2. O'u and
cleavage fracture stress O'f
Hounsfield no. 13 specimens. All tests were performed in
duplicate on an Instron screw driven machine operated at
a cross-head speed of 0·2 mm min -1 for the tensile and
cleavage fracture tests, and 0·1 mm min -1 for the fracture
toughness tests. The test temperature of - 80°C, main-
tained to ± 2°C, was selected to ensure that the blunt
notched specimens failed before general yield. Specimens
were immersed in the coolant for at least 15 min before
testing.
Results
The effects of the various heat treatment conditions on the
microstructural parameters are given in Table 3. For the
series A specimens, it is of note that the progressive
increase in the value of dy is accompanied by a similar
increase in the value of n. The other pearlite parameters
remained nearly constant. In the series S specimens, the
increase in St was accompanied by progressive increases in
the values of c and n as well as the associated increases in
the values of A and t. The mechanical properties for each
heat treatment condition are given in Table 4. Each of the
values quoted is the mean of at least two tests.
The effects of the value of dy on the values of 0'0'2' O'u,
and.O'f are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The data in the fine
grain regime (Fig. 3) were obtained from the series B
specimens, whereas the rest of the data were obtained from
the series A specimens. Because the series B specimens were
isothermally transformed in molten salt rather than the
fluidized bed used for the series A, they developed a finer
interlamellar spacing, and this is reflected in the higher
stre]1gth values.
An interesting feature of the results shown in Figs. 2 and
3 is that the tensile strength parameters 0'0'2 and O'u and the
cleavage fracture stress show very similar behaviour.
Strength initially increases with increasing austenite grain
size until maximum values are attained at an austenitizing
temperature of 900°C which corresponds to dy""'" 45 Jlffi.
Thedata in Fig. 2 imply a rapid increase in strength as the
grain size is increased from 15 to 45 Jlm. The more detailed
investigation of this regime shown in Fig. 3 confirms that
there is an increase in strength, but it is more gradual than
is implied by Fig. 2. This suggests that the strength values
obtained from specimen A1·which was austenitized at only
750°C are anomalously low. This was supported by
microstructural examination, which revealed a structure
consistent. with incomplete· transformation to austenite
during the heat treatment. For dy > 45 flm, that is for
austenitizing temperatures above 900°C, the strength
parameters first decrease, then increase, and finally
decrease again at the highest austenitizing temperatures.
The effect· of austenite grain ..size on elongation at
fracture J (tensile ductility) and fracture toughness is
shown in Fig. 4.. The proof stress data from Fig. 2 have

Table 4 Mechanical properties determined at -80°C

0·2% proof Ultimate tensile Cleavage fracture Elongation at Fracture

stress 0'02' stress O'u, stress O'f, fracture J, toughness K1c'
Specimen Condition MN m-2 MN m-2 MN m-2 % MN m-3/2

AR As received 573 994 1406 7·2 26·5

A1 Variation of dy 494 924 1205 20·0 27·9
A2 (FB specimens) 676 1176 1575 15·7 27·7
A3 618 1061 1480 12·0 30·3
A4 717 1081 1658 4·7 30·6
A5 694 982 1527 3·6 30·4
B1 Variation of dy 721 1194 1803 17'4 29·1
B2 (SB specimens) 748 1200 1907 16·4 27·6
B3 754 1174 1885 17·6 34·9
B4 818 1259 1955 15·0 28·9
SO Variation of St 818 1259 1955 15·0 28·9
S1 (SB specimens) 630 1096 1488 17·1 25·1
S2 546 991 1325 15·9 29·8
S3 519 979 1249 10·1 34·5

Materials Science and Technology August 1986 Vol. 2

 Kavishe and Baker Strength and fracture toughness of eutectoid rail steel 819

20 (c)
900
?fi (c)
z~ 16
(J)~
o (J)
i= 12
« ~C\J 700
"
o
Z 8 1-1
(J)
u.Z
E
-.J 4
W O~
o ~ 500
a.
o 100 200 300 400
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 04:52 18 March 2016

0'10 0'20 0'30

AUSTENITE GRAIN SIZE, )Jm

INTERLAMELLAR SPACING, J.lm

a 0'0'2 versus dy; b K1c versus dy;
dy C {) versus
4 Influence of prior austenite grain size dy on proof a K1c versus St; b {)versus St; C 0'0-2 versus St

stress 0'0'2' plane strain fracture toughness K,c' and 6 Influence of true pearlite interlamellar spacing 5t on
percentage elongation at fracture () plane strain fracture toughness K,c and percentage
elongation at fracture ()

been included for the purpose of comparison. Considering

the spread in the values of KIc, there appears to be little decreasing interlamellar spacing and then an increase for
effect of austenite grain size on the value of KIc' By the finest pearlite. The tensile elongation values have a
comparison, the value of l5 exhibited a continuous and modest variation with interlamellar spacing which shows
pronounced decrease as the value of dy increased. the opposite trend to that exhibited by the values of KIc'
The effect of interlamellar spacing on the strength
properties is shown in Fig. 5. The tensile and cleavage
strength parameters again show very similar behaviour,
Discussion
increasing progressively with decreasing interlamellar
spacing. The effect of interlamellar spacing on fracture
toughness and tensile ductility is shown in Fig. 6. The PROOF STRESS AND TENSILE STRENGTH
proof stress data are the same as those shown in Fig. 5. The dominant microstructural feature which influences the
The fracture toughness data again exhibit a considerable tensile strength of pearlitic steels is the interlamellar
spread, but there appears to be an initial decrease with spacing. As observed by previous workers,3-5 a linear
relationship is obtained when the proof stress is plotted
against either 8-1/2 or 8- 1, where 8 is the interlamellar
spacing. As noted above, the 8 - 1/2 relationship produces a
1900 negative intercept on the stress axis which is difficult to
reconcile with the usual Hall-Petch interpretation of this
quantity as the dislocation friction stress. For this reason it
1700 has been suggested that the 8 - 1 relationship is more
O't meaningful. 3 The proof stress data obtained in the present
work are shown plotted against the inverse of the true
1500 interlamellar spacing 8t- 1 in Fig. 7. It can be seen that a
,
C\J good linear relationship is obtained with a positive
E
intercept of about 400 MN m - 2.
Z
~ 1300 While the relationship shown in Fig. 7 is adequate for
(J)~
predicting the effect of changes in interlamellar spacing on
(J)
w
0: 1100
I- C\J
(J) I
E
z 800
900 ~
gw 600
0:
700 0'0'2
t; 400
L1.

500
g
0:
200
a. 0
0-10 0·20 0'30
o 2 4 6 8 10 12
INTERLAMELLAR SPACING, pm -1 -1
(INTERLAMELLAR SPACING) ,pm
5 Influence of true pearlite interlamellar spacing on
tensile strength O'O'2'O'u and cleavage fracture 7 Dependence of proof stress on inverse of inter-
stress O'f lamellar spacing
 820 Kavishe and Baker Strength and fracture toughness of eutectoid rail steel
C\I 800
IE
Z
~ boundaries. As the grain size increases, the number of
en
en
600
w transformation to be delayed. In the present series of
c:
~
C/) 400
l.L.
o the heat treatments were carried out in fluidized beds,
o the transformation commenced before the isothermal
c:
CL
200
o increasing austenite grain size. This is reflected in the ob-
o 20 40 60 80
-112 -1/2
(MEAN FREE DISTANCE) , mm
8 Dependence of proof stress on inverse square root
of ferrite mean free distance
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 04:52 18 March 2016
tensile strength, it still presents difficulties in physical
interpretation. First, the value of the friction stress of
400 MN m - 2 is more than double the value that would be
expected from a low-carbon steel at a testing temperature
of - 80°C. Second, while the mechanism of yielding in
pearlite is obviously different from that in most poly-
crystalline materials, there is no obvious physical model for
an 8t- 1 dependence of the proof stress.
In the Hall-Petch equation, the grain size d is in fact
the mean free slip distance. It follows that if the
applicability of th"istype of relationship is to be explored in
relation to fully pearlitic steels, then the appropriate
microstructural dimension should be the mean free
distance in the ferrite. In Fig. 8, the measured values of
0"0.2 are shown plotted against A -1/2. As with the 8t-1 plot,
a good linear relationship is obtained and the friction stress
at -80°C is about 100 MN m -2. This value is now in
good agreement with measurements of the friction stress in
low-carbon steels at a similar temperature.
The value of the Hall- Petch constant ky in Fig. 8, is
about 0·30 MN m - 3/2. A value of 0·38 MN m - 3/2 has
previously been reported by Bouse et al.9 By comparison,
a typical value for a low-carbon. ferritic steel would be
0·75MNm-3/2 (Ref. 18). The physical interpretation of
the quantity ky is that it is a measure of the local stress
intensity which must be attained at the tip of an arrested
slip band to nucleate slip in the adjacent grain. In a low-
carbon steel, the secondary slip process· involves the
generation of a dislocation in the· grain boundary region.
In a fully pearlitic structure, shear-induced fracture of the
cementite lamellae must precede the spread of yield from
one ferrite lamella to another. Because the cementite is
inherently brittle, it is reasonable that it should crack at a
lower local stress intensity than that necessary to spread
yield in polycrystalline ferrite. This would be reflected in a
lower value of the constant ky•
Having established that a Hall-Petch relation provides a
satisfactory explanation for the effect of interlamellar
spacing on strength, it is appropriate to examine the
observed effect of austenitizing conditions. on strength. As
shown in Fig. 2, the proof stress was found to increase
steadily as the austenite grain size increased from 15 to
45 J..lm.This corresponded to an increase in the austen-
itizing temperature from 800 to 900°C. Examination of the
microstructural parameters given in Table 3 for the series B
specimens shows that the increase in the value of dy was
accompanied by a decrease in the value of 8t from 0·13 to
0·10 J..lm.The corresponding reduction in the ferrite mean
free distance accounts for about 50% of the observed
increase in the proof stress. The anomalously low strength
values for the 750°C austenitizing conditiofi'ifatifibuted to
Materials Science and Technology August 1986 Vol. 2
inadequate homogenization of the austenite at this low
temperature.
The pearlite transformation nucleates on austenite grain
nucleating sites per unit volume decreases, and causes the
experiments, the pearlite transformations were intended
to take place under isothermal conditions. However, as
temperature was attained. Consequently, .for a given
nominal transformation temperature, the actual trans-
formation temperature decreased progressively with
served decrease. in the value of interlamellar spacing.
Accompanying· the reduction. in· transformation tempera-
ture, there would be expected to be an increase in the
dislocation density in the ferrite and some increase in solid
solution hardening. These effects may account for that part
of the. observed increase in strength which cannot be
attributed. to grain refinement.
CLEAVAGE FRACTURE STRESS
Three fracture parameters have been measured in the
present work; these are the cleavage fracture stress, the
plane strain fracture toughness, and the tensile ductility.
For pearlitic steel, all three parameters are concerned with
the same mode of fracture, namely cleavage. It must be
remembered, however, that the different parameters
characterize different features of the fracture process. The
cleavage fracture stress is a measure of the local stress
required to trigger unstable cleavage fracture at a
particular fracture sensitive location in the microstructure.
The plane strain fracture toughness is a macroscopic
criterion for the unstable propagation of a pre-existing
crack in an elastically loaded testpiece. The tensile ductility
is a measure of the susceptibility to fracture in an initially
defect-free testpiece which fails after general yielding. The
three parameters may be related to each other. However,
as in the present work, the relationship can be complex.
For example, in the series S heat treatment conditions, the
plane strain fracture toughness increases as the tensile
ductility decreases. For this reason it is important when
considering the significance of the various parameters to
consider the end-use application of the material. For
example, the tensile ductility may be relevant to the bend
formability of a crack -free piece of steel, but would be of no
significance as far as assessing the ~usceptibility of the steel
to the presence of crack-like defects.
The significance of the cleavage fracture stress in
pearlitic steels and the effect of microstructural variables
and testing temperature on thi~ ",parameter have been
discussed in detail elsewhere.12Th~most notable feature of
the results presented in Table 4 alld Figs. 2, 3, and 5 is that
for all of the conditions tested, the cleavage fracture stress
and the 0·2% proof stress exhibit similar behaviour. It is
not obvious that these two properties of the steel should be
interrelated because they would appear to be concerned
with quite separate processes. For lower strength steels
having ferrite-pearlite microstructures, O"f and 0"0.2 often
appear to be related even though it is now generally
recognized that they are controlled by different micro-
structural features.19 That interrelationship arises because
the carbide size which controls O"f is usually directly related
to the ferrite grain size which controls 0"0.2 (Ref. 20). The
difference between the two properties in low-carbon
ferrite-pearlite steels emerges when tests are carried out
over a range of temperatures. The shear stress controlled
proof stress increases with decreasing temperature because
of the temperature dependence of the friction stress, while
the tensile stress controlled cleavage fracture stress rem·ains
nearly constant. In these circumstances, the cleavage
 Kavishe and Baker
fracture stress is interpreted as a Griffith fracture stress, the
initiating crack being located within a carbide particle.
Although the carbide crack is formed by a shear
mechanism, the cleavage fracture process is controlled by
the unstable propagation of the crack, which is determined
by the magnitude of the tensile stress.
In the pearlitic steels, the relationship between (Jr and
(JO'2 is different from that observed in lower strength steels.
For the heat treatment conditions giving pearlite spacings
greater than about 0·15 Jlm, the cleavage fracture stress is
found to increase with decreasing temperature in a manner
similar to that shown by the 0·2% proof stress. As a result,
it is found that (Jf is related to (JO'2 by a factor of about 2·4
for a wide range of temperatures and microstructural
conditions. It has been suggested that this behaviour is
consistent with a cleavage fracture process in which the
critical event is the formation of a shear stress controlled
crack nucleus.12 Microstructural evidence suggests that the
crack nucleus develops by a process of planar slip within a
pearlite colony.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 04:52 18 March 2016
For the heat treatment conditions giving very fine
pearlite spacings, and for tests carried out on somewhat
coarser conditions at very low temperatures, (Jf is
temperature independent. This implies that for these
conditions, cleavage is a tensile stress controlled prop-
agation event. This change in the micromechanism of
cleavage fracture is associated with a change in the
micro mechanism of plastic deformation from planar slip in
the coarser pearlite to uniform deformation in the finer
structures.5 The latter encourages cracking of the cementite
lamellae by a fibre-loading mechanism, whereas for planar
slip, microcracks develop by the shear stress controlled
linkage of an array of cracked carbides.
PLANE STRAIN FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
The plane strain fracture toughness shows very little
variation with prior austenite grain size over the range
from 15 to 400 Jlm. The present observations are contrary
to previous reports of a significant effect of austenite grain
size on Charpy impact toughness and dynamic fracture
toughness.9•1o However, consideration of the extent of the
crack tip stress field demonstrates that it is unlikely that
the austenite grain boundaries could influence the fracture
process. For the series A specimens, the radius of the crack
tip plastic zone varied from a minimum of about 100 Jlm to
a maximum of about 170 Jlm. The fracture process would
take place in a much smaller process zone which would
extend to about one-tenth of the plastic zone size, i.e.
10-17 Jlm. This dimension should be compared with the
austenite grain size which had a minimum value of 15 Jlm
and a maximum value of 400 Jlm. It follows that, in
general, the austenite grain boundaries cannot interact
with the crack tip process zone, and as such they can have
no direct effect on fracture toughness.
The effect of interlamellar spacing on fracture toughness
is shown in Fig. 6, and it is interesting to note that with
decreasing spacing, the toughness first decreases and then
increases for the finest spacing. This variation in toughness
behaviour reflects the effect of interlamellar spacing on slip
behaviour and cleavage fracture stress, and must be related
to the change in the micromechanism of cleavage nucleation.
Table 5 Estimated values of 2ac for cleavage fracture
Proof stress Minimum K1c, Fracture
Specimen MN m-2
0'0.2, MN m-3/2 strain ef
A2 676 26·9 0·146
A3 618 25·7 0·113
A4 717 30·0 0·046
A5 694 27·6 0·035
* The critical defect size is taken as double the tolerable defect size calculated
Strength and fracture toughness of eutectoid rail steel 821
TENSILE DUCTILITY
By comparison with the negligible effect of prior austenite
grain size on fracture toughness, there is a very
pronounced effect on tensile ductility as shown in Fig. 4.
At first sight this is a somewhat surprising observation,
because fracture toughness and tensile ductility exhibit
usually a similar microstructural dependence. The fact that
the cleavage fracture stress shows only a small variation
with austenite grain size demonstrates that the micro-
mechanism of cleavage nucleation is little affected.
Similarly, the near constancy of the values of KIc
demonstrates that the macroscopic fracture instability
condition is not affected by the austenite grain size. The
only feature of the fracture tests which showed any
correspondence with the tensile ductility behaviour was an
inverse relationship with the size of the cleavage facets on
the fracture surface. .
Close examination of the behaviour of a test specimen
during a tensile test on a sample of eutectoid steel reveals
that the fracture instability is different from that in a
normal tensile test. Necking instability is the exception
rather than the rule. The uniform plastic strain regime is
instead interrupted by a sudden cleavage propagation. This
suggests that in the tensile test the steel undergoes a post-
yield quasi brittle instability. As discussed earlier, in all but
the finest pearlites slip occurs in localized bands and causes
multiple shear cracking of the cementite lamellae in a
pearlite colony. It has been shown previously that with
continued plastic strain in the tensile test, these arrays of
carbide cracks join by a ductile coalescence mechanism to
form larger cracks which then act as cleavage nuclei.6
To obtain some indication of the size of internal cracks
which would be necessary to initiate a brittle fracture in the
tensile test, it is appropriate to follow the crack opening
displacement (COD) approach to post-yield brittle
fracture.21 Where, as in the present case, the fracture strain
exceeds the yield strain By, the following relationship has
been proposed to relate the COD toughness ~eoD and the
nominal fracture strain Br to the maximum 'tolerable' defect
size a
beoD = ~ -0.25 (4)
2nBya By
For the tensile tests on pearlitic steel, the fracture strain is
much larger than the··yield strain, and consequently the
quantity 0·25 on the right-hand side of equation (4) may be
ignored. It should be noted, however, that the high strains
being considered here exceed the bounds of the data upon
which equation (4) was based, and hence the application of
this approach should be treated with caution. The value of
~eoD may be estimated from the measurements of KIc using
the relationship
Kfc = E(JybeoD (5)
where E is Young's modulus. The tolerable defect size is
then given by
2a= Kfc (6)
nE(JyBr
The quantity a relates to the half-width of an idealized
through-crack in an infinite plate. Assuming that the
in tensile specimens*
Critical defect Colony size c, . Austenite grain Nodule size n,
size 2ac' J1m J1m size dy, J1m J1m
52 10·0 45 48
72 11·0 84 80
204 9·5 350 135
232 10·5 400 160
from equation (7).
 822 Kavishe and Baker Strength and fracture toughness of eutectoid rail steel

internal crack in the tensile specimen can be considered as
a penny-shaped crack, the appropriate linear elastic
fracture mechanics shape factor can be incorporated to
give the following expression for the actual tolerable defect
size 2a:
2a = nKfc (7)
4EG'yGf
It should be noted that equation (4) was devised primarily
for the purpose of design and defect assessment in steel
structures. It must be emphasized that it is a lower bound
to the experimental data, and the calculated tolerable
defect size is deliberately conservative. The actual 'critical'
defect size at failure is found to be 2 to 3 times greater than
the tolerable value calculated.21
For tensile specimens, values of critical defect size 2ac
have been estimated as double the tolerable defect size
calculated from equation (7). Because a large volume of
material is sampled during the tensile test, the minimum
measured value of KIc has been used for these calculations.
In Table 5, values of critical defect size are shown for the
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 04:52 18 March 2016
6. The tensile ductility decreases progressively as prior
austenite grain size increases. The tensile ductility
represents the strain necessary to develop a nodule-size
microcrack which initiates unstable cleavage fracture
propagation in the tensile test. The nodule size is related to
the prior austenite grain size.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the British Steel
Corporation who supplied the test material, and to thank
Dr R. R. Preston of BSC Swinden Laboratories for his
interest in the project. Many thanks are also due to the
Swiss Development Cooperation, Berne, Switzerland, for
their financial support of one of the authors (FPLK), and
to Professor D. W. Pashley, FRS for providing the
research facilities. Useful discussions with Dr F. B.
Pickering and Dr D. R. F. West are also acknowledged.

series A specimens, together with measurements of the

prior austenite grain size, pearlite nodule size, and pearlite
colony size. It can be seen that there is broad agreement
between the pearlite nodule size and the size of defect References
necessary to initiate a quasibrittle fracture in the tensile
test, i.e. 2ac•
By comparison, the pearlite colony size is much too 1. R. F. MEHL and w. C. HAGEL: Prog. Met. fhys., 1956, 6, 74.
small to contain the initial defect and does not show a 2. R. J. DIPPENAAR and R. w. K. HONEYCOMBE: Proc. R. Soc., 1973,

systematic variation with tensile ductility. As discussed A333,455.

3. A. R. MARDER and B. L. BRAMFITT: Metall. Trans., 1976, 7A,
earlier, all the pearlite colonies within a single nodule have 365.
the same crystallographic orientation and hence it is 4. J. M. HYZAK and I. M. BERNSTEIN: Metall. Trans., 1976, 7A,
reasonable that a slip-nucleated microcrack should extend 1217.
through the full width of the nodule rather than being 5. G. LANGFORD: Me tall. Trans., 1977, SA, 861.
restricted to a single colony. This is borne out by the 6. D. PORTER, K. EASTERLING, and G. SMITH: Acta Metall., 1978,
fracture appearance where the cleavage facet size is found 26, 1405.
to be similar to the pearlite nodule size.22 It is concluded 7. T. TAKAHASHI and M. NAGUMO: Trans. Jpn Inst. Met., 1970, 11,
that the ductility in the tensile test can be interpreted as the 113.
strain necessary to develop a nodule-size microcrack and 8. B. E. O'DONNELLY, R. L. REUBEN, and T. N. BAKER: Met.
Techno!., 1984, 11, 45.
cause it to propagate as an unstable cleavage crack. 9. G. K. BOUSE, I. M. BERNSTEIN, and D. H. STONE: in 'Rail steels-
development, processing and use', STP 644, (ed. D. H. Stone
and G. G. Knupp), 145-166; 1978, Philadelphia, Pa.,
Conclusions American Society for Testing and Materials.
10. Y. J. PARK and I. M. BERNSTEIN: Metall. Trans., 1976, lOA,
1653.
1. The proof stress, ultimate tensile strength, and 11. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI and A. W. THOMPSON: in Proc. 6th Int.
cleavage fracture stress of fully pearlitic steels increase with Conf. on 'Fracture', (ed. S. R. Valluri et a!.), Vol. 2, 1515;
decreasing interlamellar spacing. The proof stress is related 1984, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
to the mean free distance in the pearlitic ferrite by a 12. F. P. L. KAVISHE and T. J. BAKER: Mater. Sci. Techno!., 1986, 2,
583-588.
Hall-Petch equation. 13. R. R. PRESTON: Me tall. Mater. Techno!., Dec. 1980, 687.
2. No simple relationship exists between the prior 14. E. E. UNDERWOOD: 'Quantitative stereology', 73; 1970,
austenite grain size and either tensile strength or cleavage Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.
fracture stress. 15. M. GENSAMER, E. B. PEARSALL, W. S. PELLINE, and J. R. LOW Jr:
3. The proof stress and cleavage fracture stress show Trans. ASM, 1942,30,983.
similar microstructural dependence. 16. N. RIDLEY: Me tall. Trans., 1984, 15A, 1019.
4. As the interlamellar spacing decreases, the plane 17. J. R. GRIFFITHS and D. R. J. OWEN: J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1971,
strain fracture toughness first decreases and then increases 19, 419.
for the finest interlamellar spacing. 18. R. w. K. HONEYCOMBE: 'Steels, microstructure, and properties',
23; 1981, London, Edward Arnold.
5. The prior austenite grain size has very little effect on 19. J. F. KNOTT: 'Fundamentals of fracture mechanics'; 1973,
plane strain fracture toughness. The fracture process zone London, But1erworths.
is much smaller than the austenite grain size, and as such 20. D. A. CURRY and J. F. KNOTT: Met. Sci., 1978, 12, 511.
austenite grain boundaries cannot influence the fracture 21. J. D. HARRISON: Met. Constr., Nov. 1980, 600.
process. 22. F. P. L. KAVISHE: PhD thesis, University of London, 1986.

Materials Science and Technology August 1986 Vol. 2