Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288

www.actamat-journals.com

Crystallographic features of lath martensite in low-carbon steel

Hiromoto Kitahara a, Rintaro Ueji b, Nobuhiro Tsuji a,*
, Yoritoshi Minamino a

a
Department of Adaptive Machine Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
b
Department of Advanced Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kagawa University, 2217-20 Hayashi-cho, Takamatsu 761-0396, Japan

Received 14 January 2005; received in revised form 1 November 2005; accepted 1 November 2005
Available online 6 January 2006

Abstract

Electron backscattering diffraction with field-emission scanning electron microscopy was used to analyze crystallographically the lath
martensite structure in a 0.20% carbon steel. The crystallographic features of the lath martensite structure, of the order of the prior aus-
tenite grain size or larger, were clarified. Although the orientations of the martensite crystals were scattered around the ideal variant
orientations, the martensite in this steel maintained the Kurdjumov–Sachs (K–S) orientation relationship. The procedures of the crys-
tallographic analysis of the martensite (ferrite) phase with the K–S orientation relationship were explained in detail. Variant analysis
showed that all 24 possible variants did not necessarily appear within a single prior austenite grain and that all six variants did not nec-
essarily appear within each packet. Specific combinations of two variants appeared within local regions (sub-blocks), indicating a strict
rule for variant selection. Prior austenite grain boundaries and most of the packet boundaries were clearly recognized. However, it was
difficult to determine the block boundaries within the sub-blocks.

2005 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Martensitic phase transformation; Packet; Block; Misorientation; Orientation relationship

1. Introduction
When the austenite (c) phase with a face-centered cubic
(fcc) structure in steels is quickly quenched to low temper-
ature, a displacive transformation forms a new phase with
body-centered cubic (bcc) or body-centered tetragonal
structure. The transformation and the resulting phase are
called the martensitic transformation and martensite,
respectively [1–3]. Numerous studies have been conducted
on the martensitic transformation and martensite in steels.
Furthermore, martensite in steels is of practical impor-
tance, especially for high-strength applications. When aus-
tenite transforms into martensite, the crystallographic
orientation relationships are maintained [1–4]. The orienta-
tion relationship leads to a characteristic lath or lenticular
morphology [1,2]. For example, the lath martensite in low-
carbon steels has a three-level hierarchy in its morphology,
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 6 6879 7434/7502; fax: +81 6 6879
7434/7500.
E-mail address: tsuji@ams.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp (N. Tsuji).
i.e., laths, blocks, and packets [2]. The mechanical proper-
ties of martensitic steels are greatly affected by the micro-
structures. For example, the strength of low-carbon steels
with lath martensite structure increases as the packet size
decreases [2]. The packet size has also been reported to
affect the toughness of martensitic steels [5,6]. Therefore,
studying the morphological and crystallographic character-
istics of martensite in steels is important.
Nevertheless, the crystallographic features of martensite
of the order of the austenite grain size or larger have not
yet been clarified due to the limitations in experimental
techniques. Electron diffraction methods in transmission
electron microscopy (TEM) are conventionally used to
analyze the crystallography of martensite [1–3]. However,
TEM can only observe limited areas and it is difficult to
determine accurately the orientation from electron diffrac-
tion analysis, except when using Kikuchi-line diffraction
[7]. Consequently, crystallographic data for martensite
structures have not yet been clarified for sizes of the order
of the prior austenite grains (several tens to about a hun-
dred micrometers).

1359-6454/$30.00
2005 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2005.11.001
1280 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288

Orientation imaging microscopy (OIM) [8] using elec- a FE-SEM instrument (Philips XL30S-FEG) equipped
tron backscattering diffraction (EBSD) with scanning elec- with a FE-type gun operated at 20 kV. Orientation map-
tron microscopy (SEM) is a potential method for ping for the FE-SEM/EBSD data was performed with a
overcoming these problems. Recently, several investiga- 100 nm step size. TSL-OIM software was used for the ori-
tions have analyzed the martensite microstructures using entation measurement and analysis.
SEM/EBSD [9–11]. Ueda et al. [9] used EBSD to analyze Thin foils were prepared for TEM analysis by twin-jet
the crystallographic variants of the large martensite crys- electropolishing in the same solution described above.
tals with plate (or lenticular) morphology transformed The TEM observations were conducted using a Hitachi
from bicrystals of austenite in a Fe–32 at.% Ni alloy. Wil- H-800 microscope operated at 200 kV.
son et al. [10] applied EBSD to 0.12% C–3.28% Ni and
HSLA steels to determine the volume fraction of lath mar- 3. Procedure for crystallographic analysis
tensite, another common morphology of martensite in
steels [1–4], using a lower pattern quality from martensite Lath martensite appears in carbon steels with a carbon
due to the high density of lattice defects. Morito et al. content less than 0.6 wt.% [2]. The Kurdjumov–Sachs
[11] systematically studied the crystallography of martens- (K–S) orientation relationship between lath martensite
ite in various carbon steels. However, these studies are just and austenite is known in plain carbon steels [1–3],
the beginning and the complete crystallographic view of although other orientation relationships have also been
martensite in steels is still unclear. reported [3,11]. It has been shown that the K–S orientation
We recently studied the crystallography of plate (or len- relationship is true for 0.18 wt.% C –0.006 wt.% Si –
ticular) martensite with the Nishiyama–Wassermann (N– 0.02 wt.% Mn steel, which has a similar carbon content
W) orientation relationship in a 28.5 at.% Ni steel using to the steel used in the present investigation [11]. Therefore,
field-emission SEM (FE-SEM) with EBSD. The morphol- the 0.20 wt.% C steel under investigation is expected to
ogy and crystallography of the plate martensite crystals have a lath martensite structure with a K–S orientation
were successfully obtained for a large area [12]. The present relationship. The K–S orientation relationship between
investigation involves the crystallographic analysis of typi- austenite (c) and martensite (a 0 ) is expressed as
cal lath martensite in a low-carbon steel using FE-SEM/
ð1 1 1Þ ==ð0 1 1Þ 0 ½1 0 1
==½1 1 1
0 .
c a c a
EBSD. Lath martensite in steels is of practical importance
since nearly all martensitic steels have the lath-type mor- Because of symmetry, cubic systems have 24 equivalent
phology. However, lath martensite includes a high density crystallographic variants in martensite, which evolve from
of lattice defects, especially dislocations [1–3,11], which a single crystal (grain) of austenite if the K–S orienta-
makes EBSD analysis difficult. The present study aims tion relationship is maintained. Table 2 summarizes the
firstly to confirm the applicability of EBSD for the study
of the crystallography of lath martensite, secondly to Table 2
describe the detailed procedure for crystallographic analysis The 24 crystallographic variants for the K–S orientation relationship
of the lath martensite from the EBSD data, and thirdly to Variant Plane parallel Direction parallel
clarify the crystallographic and morphological characteris- V1 ð1 1 1Þc ==ð0 1 1Þa0 ½1 0 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
tics of the lath martensite crystals on a relatively large scale. V2 ½1 0 1
c //½1 1 1

 0
a
V3 ½0 1 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
V4  //½1 1 1

½0 1 1
 0
2. Experimental c a
V5 ½1 1 0
c //½1 1 1
a0
V6 ½1 1 0
//½1 1 1

c
 0
a
A plain low-carbon steel (0.20 wt.% C steel), whose
V7 ð1 1 1Þc ==ð0 1 1Þa0 ½1 0 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
chemical composition is shown in Table 1, was used. Steel V8 ½1 0 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
sheets (2 mm thick) were austenitized at 1473 K for 1.8 ks V9 ½1 1 0
c //½1 1 1
a0
and subsequently quenched in ice brine (258–263 K) to V10 ½1 1 0
c //½1 1 1
a0
cause the martensite transformation. This procedure V11 [0 1 1]c//½1 1 1
a0
resulted in sheets having a martensite structure, which were V12 [0 1 1]c//½1 1 1
a0
used for the EBSD measurements. The observed section of V13 ð1 1 1Þc ==ð0 1 1Þa0 ½0 1 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
the specimen was mechanically polished and then electro- V14 ½0 1 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
polished. The electropolishing was conducted using a V15 ½1 0 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
V16 ½1 0 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
900 ml CH3COOH + 100 ml HClO4 solution at 284 K V17 [1 1 0]c//½1 1 1
a0
and 20 V. The EBSD measurements were conducted using V18 [1 1 0]c//½1 1 1
a0
V19 ð1 1 1Þc ==ð0 1 1Þa0 ½1 1 0
c //½1 1 1
a0
Table 1 V20 ½1 1 0
c //½1 1 1
a0
Chemical composition (wt.%) of the 0.20 wt.% carbon steel studied V21 ½0 1 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
V22 ½0 1 1
c //½1 1 1
a0
C Si Mn P S sol. Al Fe V23 [1 0 1]c//½1 1 1
a0
0.195 0.19 0.35 0.016 0.01 0.021 Bal. V24 [1 0 1]c//½1 1 1
a0
 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288 1281

crystallographic variants. The variants are denoted as V1– in the K–S orientation relationship can be calculated and
V24. Fig. 1 illustrates the six variants (V1–V6) that form on are given in Table 3.
an identical (1 1 1) austenite plane. The triangle and rectan- Using the orientation transformation matrices T1–T24,
gles indicate the (1 1 1) plane of austenite (fcc) and the the orientations of the 24 different variants of martensite
(0 1 1) plane of martensite (bcc), respectively. There are 24 (M1–M24) that are transformed from a single crystal
variants since austenite has four different {1 1 1} planes. (grain) austenite with any orientation can be calculated.
The change in the crystallographic orientation through Fig. 2 plots the 24 martensite variants assuming that the
the martensite transformation is expressed by a matrix orientation of the prior austenite grain is (0 0 1)[1 0 0]. Each
equation: number in Fig. 2 indicates the particular martensite
M ¼ TA; ð1Þ variant.
The misorientation angle and rotation axis between two
where T is the orientation transformation matrix, and M different variants are determined using the orientations for
and A are the orientation matrices composed of three the 24 martensite variants (M1–M24) calculated from Eq.
orthogonal unit vectors that show crystallographic orienta- (1). The rotation matrix (R) between the different variants
tions for the austenite and martensite phases, respectively is calculated from the following:
[12].
M2 ¼ RM1 . ð3Þ
As an example, Table 2 shows that for V1 the directions
[1 1 1]c and ½1 0 1
c in austenite are transformed into ½0 1 1
a0 The misorientation angle and rotation axis are calculated
and ½ 1
1 1
a0 in martensite, respectively, which can be from the elements of the rotation matrix, R [12,13]. Table
expressed as 4 summarizes the axis/angle relationships between V1
0 1 0 1
0:707 0:408 0:577 0:577 0:816 0:000
B C T1 B C Table 3
@ 0:000 0:816 0:577 A ! @ 0:577 0:408 0:707 A
The 24 orientation transformation matrices for the K–S orientation
0:707 0:408 0:577 c 0:577 0:402 0:707 a0 relationship
0 1 0 1
0:742 0:667 0:075 0:667 0:742 0:075
Therefore, the orientation transformation matrix, T1, is T 1 ¼ @ 0:650 0:742 0:167 A T 13 ¼ @ 0:742 0:650 0:167 A
calculated by 0:167 0:075 0:983 0:075 0:167 0:983
0 1 0 1
0:075 0:667 0:742 0:667 0:075 0:742
T1 ¼ M1 A1
1 . ð2Þ T 2 ¼ @ 0:167 0:742 0:650 A T 14 ¼ @ 0:742 0:167 0:650 A
0:983 0:075 0:167 0:075 0:983 0:167
Similarly, the 24 different orientation transformation 0 1 0 1
0:667 0:075 0:742 0:075 0:667 0:742
matrices that correspond to the crystallographic variants @
T3 ¼ 0:742 0:167 0:650 A T 15 ¼ @ 0:167 0:742 0:650 A
0:075 0:983 0:167 0:983 0:075 0:167
0 1 0 1
0:667 0:742 0:075 0:742 0:667 0:075
T 4 ¼ 0:742 0:650 0:167 A
@ T 16 ¼ 0:650 0:742 0:167 A
@
0:075 0:167 0:983 0:167 0:075 0:983
0 1 0 1
0:075 0:742 0:667 0742 0:075 0:667
T 5 ¼ 0:167 0:650 0:742 A
@ T 17 ¼ 0:650 0:167 0:742 A
@
0:983 0:167 0:075 0:167 0:983 0:075
0 1 0 1
0:742 0:075 0:667 0:075 0:742 0:667
T 6 ¼ @ 0:650 0:167 0:742 A T 18 ¼ @ 0:167 0:650 0:742 A
0:167 0:983 0:075 0:983 0:167 0:075
0 1 0 1
0:075 0:667 0:742 0:742 0:075 0:667
T 7 ¼ @ 0:167 0:742 0:650 A T 19 ¼ @ 0:650 0:167 0:742 A
0:983 0:075 0:167 0:167 0:983 0:075
0 1 0 1
0:742 0:667 0:075 0:075 0:742 0:667
T 8 ¼ @ 0:650 0:742 0:167 A T 20 ¼ @ 0:167 0:650 0:742 A
0:167 0:075 0:983 0:983 0:167 0:075
0 1 0 1
0:742 0:075 0:667 0:667 0:742 0:075
@
T 9 ¼ 0:650 0:167 0:742 A T 21 ¼ @ 0:742 0:650 0:167 A
0:167 0:983 0:075 0:075 0:167 0:983
0 1 0 1
0:075 0:742 0:667 0:667 0:075 0:742
T 10 ¼ 0:167 0:650 0:742 A
@ T 22 ¼ 0:742 0:167 0:650 A
@
0:983 0:167 0:075 0:075 0:983 0:167
0 1 0 1
0:667 0:742 0:075 0:075 0:667 0:742
T 11 ¼ @ 0:742 0:650 0:167 A T 23 ¼ 0:167 0:742 0:650 A
@
0:075 0:167 0:983 0:983 0:075 0:167
Fig. 1. Six crystallographic variants (V1–V6) for the K–S orientation 0 1 0 1
0:667 0:075 0:742 0:742 0:667 0:075
relationship that evolves on a (1 1 1) austenite plane. The triangle and T 12 ¼ @ 0:742 0:167 0:650 A T 24 ¼ @ 0:650 0:742 0:167 A
rectangles indicate the (1 1 1) plane of austenite (c: fcc) and the (0 1 1) plane 0:075 0:983 0:167 0:167 0:075 0:983
of martensite (a 0 : bcc), respectively.
1282 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288

Morito et al. [11] reported the axis/angle pairs between

different variants of the K–S orientation relationship,
which are consistent with the present results. In the K–S
relationship, there are certain combinations of the variants
that show special coincidence site lattice (CSL) relation-
ships, such as R3 and R11. Table 4 also indicates the
CSL relationships when BrandonÕs criterion is satisfied
[14]. There are 10 possible misorientation angles, i.e.,
10.53, 14.88, 20.61, 21.06, 47.11, 49.47, 50.51,
51.73, 57.21, and 60.00, between the variants that satisfy
the K–S relationship. Most of the angles exceed 15, which
is typically the criterion between low- and high-angle
boundaries. Even the minimum misorientation, 10.53, is
relatively large, which indicates that the neighboring mar-
tensite variants have large-angle boundaries in the K–S ori-
entation relationship.

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 3 shows a TEM image of the lath martensite struc-

Fig. 2. {0 0 1} Pole figure showings the orientations of the 24 martensite
variants transformed from a single crystal austenite with a (0 0 1)[1 0 0]
orientation that maintain the K–S orientation relationship. The numbers
indicate the martensite variants.
and other variants in the K–S orientation relationship
using the procedure previously described for the N–W ori-
entation relationship [12].
ture in the 0.20 wt.% C steel. Typically, the widths of the
martensite laths are less than 1 lm. The TEM image con-
firms that the lath martensite structure has a high density
of dislocations. Fig. 4 illustrates a typical lath martensite
structure with a three-level hierarchy in its morphology
[2]: martensite lath, block, and packet. The martensite lath
is a single crystal of martensite with a high density of lattice
defects. The block is aggregations of the laths with the

Table 4
Crystal orientations of 24 martensite variants transformed from a (0 0 1)[1 0 0] oriented austenite maintaining the K–S orientation relationship, and
crystallographic relationships between V1 and other variants
Variant no. Crystal orientations of martensite variants Misorientation Misorientation axis between V1 CSL*
( h k l ) [ u v w ] angle from V1 () and other variants

V1 ( 0.075 0.167 0.983 ) [ 0.742 0.650 0.167 ] – [ – – – ] –

V2 ( 0.650 0.167 0.742 ) [ 0.167 0.983 0.074 ] 60.00 [ 0.577 0.577 0.577 ] R3
V3 ( 0.742 0.167 0.650 ) [ 0.667 0.075 0.742 ] 60.00 [ 0.000 0.707 0.707 ] –
V4 ( 0.075 0.167 0.983 ) [ 0.667 0.742 0.075 ] 10.53 [ 0.000 0.707 0.707 ] R1
V5 ( 0.667 0.075 0.742 ) [ 0.075 0.983 0.167 ] 60.00 [ 0.000 0.707 0.707 ] –
V6 ( 0.667 0.075 0.742 ) [ 0.742 0.167 0.650 ] 49.47 [ 0.000 0.707 0.707 ] R11
V7 ( 0.167 0.650 0.742 ) [ 0.983 0.167 0.075 ] 49.47 [ 0.577 0.577 0.577 ] R19b
V8 ( 0.167 0.075 0.983 ) [ 0.650 0.742 0.167 ] 10.53 [ 0.577 0.577 0.577 ] R1
V9 ( 0.075 0.667 0.742 ) [ 0.167 0.742 0.650 ] 50.51 [ 0.615 0.186 0.767 ] –
V10 ( 0.075 0.742 0.667 ) [ 0.983 0.167 0.075 ] 50.51 [ 0.739 0.462 0.490 ] –
V11 ( 0.167 0.075 0.983 ) [ 0.742 0.667 0.075 ] 14.88 [ 0.933 0.354 0.065 ] R1
V12 ( 0.742 0.167 0.650 ) [ 0.667 0.075 0.742 ] 57.21 [ 0.357 0.603 0.714 ] –
V13 ( 0.167 0.075 0.983 ) [ 0.742 0.667 0.075 ] 14.88 [ 0.354 0.933 0.065 ] R1
V14 ( 0.167 0.650 0.742 ) [ 0.075 0.742 0.667 ] 50.51 [ 0.490 0.462 0.739 ] –
V15 ( 0.167 0.742 0.650 ) [ 0.983 0.075 0.167 ] 57.21 [ 0.738 0.246 0.628 ] –
V16 ( 0.167 0.075 0.983 ) [ 0.650 0.742 0.167 ] 20.61 [ 0.659 0.659 0.363 ] –
V17 ( 0.075 0.742 0.667 ) [ 0.167 0.650 0.742 ] 51.73 [ 0.659 0.363 0.659 ] –
V18 ( 0.075 0.667 0.742 ) [ 0.983 0.075 0.167 ] 47.11 [ 0.719 0.302 0.626 ] –
V19 ( 0.742 0.075 0.667 ) [ 0.650 0.167 0.742 ] 50.51 [ 0.186 0.767 0.615 ] –
V20 ( 0.667 0.075 0.742 ) [ 0.075 0.983 0.167 ] 57.21 [ 0.357 0.714 0.603 ] –
V21 ( 0.075 0.167 0.983 ) [ 0.667 0.742 0.075 ] 20.61 [ 0.955 0.000 0.296 ] –
V22 ( 0.650 0.167 0.742 ) [ 0.742 0.075 0.667 ] 47.11 [ 0.302 0.626 0.719 ] –
V23 ( 0.650 0.167 0.742 ) [ 0.167 0.983 0.075 ] 57.21 [ 0.246 0.628 0.738 ] –
V24 ( 0.075 0.167 0.983 ) [ 0.742 0.650 0.167 ] 21.06 [ 0.912 0.410 0.000 ] –
*
Coincidence site lattice is indicated when BrandonÕs criterion [14] is satisfied.
 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288
Fig. 3. TEM image of the lath martensite in the 0.20 wt.% C steel.
Fig. 4. Microstructural hierarchy of the lath martensite structure.
same crystallographic orientation (variant). The packet is
aggregations of the blocks with the same {1 1 1}c plane in
austenite. Several packets can appear within a single prior
austenite grain since there are four different {1 1 1}c planes.
Each packet includes several blocks that are composed of
the martensite laths with different variants, but the same
{1 1 1}c planes. According to Fig. 1 and Table 2, a maxi-
mum of six different variants (blocks) can appear within
an identical packet. The misorientation of the packet
boundaries and block boundaries should be larger than
10.53, the minimum misorientation angle between the dif-
ferent variants (Table 4). Briefly, the lath martensite struc-
1283
ture should be a fine-grained structure that is divided by
many large-angle boundaries (packet and block
boundaries).
Fig. 5(a) shows an image quality (IQ) map and Fig. 5(b)
an inverse pole figure (IPF) color map obtained from the
FE-SEM/EBSD measurements over a large area
(55 · 65 lm2) of the 0.20 wt.% C steel after the martensite
transformation. The IQ map (Fig. 5(a)) reflects the quality
of the Kikuchi line for each measurement. For example, the
image quality is low, and thus the gray-scale level is dark at
the grain boundaries, because it is difficult to obtain clear
Kikuchi-line diffraction in these regions. Therefore, the
IQ map looks like a conventional SEM image. The IQ
map (Fig. 5(a)) clearly reveals a typical lath martensite
structure and prior austenite grain boundaries, which
implies that FE-SEM/EBSD provides reliable orientation
mapping despite the high density of dislocations in the lath
martensite structure (Fig. 3). Thus, FE-SEM/EBSD can be
a useful tool for crystallographic analysis even for lath
martensite in low-carbon steels. The colors in Fig. 5(b) cor-
respond to the crystallographic orientation normal to the
observed plane, as indicated by the stereographic triangle
in the inset. Fig. 5(b) clearly shows the detailed morphol-
ogy and crystallographic features of the lath martensite
structure. The boundaries in Fig. 5(b) are drawn for misori-
entation between adjacent points greater than 10 since the
misorientation calculations (Table 4) imply that all the
packets and block boundaries should have misorientations
larger than 10. The figure indicates that martensite has a
fine-grained structure. The mean grain size of the lath mar-
tensite structure is evaluated by the equivalent grain size,
which is calculated by the total length of the high-angle
boundaries, whose misorientations are larger than 15,
per unit area [15]. Consequently, the equivalent grain size
of the lath martensite structure is 2.1 lm, which is similar
to the previous result for 0.13% C steel martensite
(3.2 lm) [15].
Fig. 6(a) shows an IPF color map of the lath martensite
structure for a limited area of Fig. 5(b). The boundaries
(black line) are drawn when the misorientation between
adjacent points is greater than 10. The martensite variants
are accurately analyzed to identify the prior austenite grain
boundaries. The white and red lines in Fig. 6(a) indicate the
prior austenite grain boundaries and packet boundaries,
respectively. Fig. 6(b) shows a {0 0 1} pole figure that
depicts the orientation of the martensite crystals from the
prior austenite grain surrounded by the white line in
Fig. 6(a). The pole figure (Fig. 6(b)) indicates the orienta-
tion spreads, which are consistent with the color gradient
in Fig. 6(a). The orientation spread from the ideal variant
orientations was also observed in the plate martensite
structure with the N–W orientation relationship in an
Fe–28.5 at.% Ni steel [12], but the orientation distribution
in the present lath martensite is much more scattered than
that in the plate martensite. The ideal orientations of the 24
variants (Fig. 2) are rotated to coincide with the actual ori-
entations of the measured martensite and are superimposed
1284 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288

Fig. 5. Typical orientation imaging maps obtained from the FE-SEM/EBSD measurement of the lath martensite structure in the 0.20 wt.% C steel.
(a) Image quality (IQ) map and (b) inverse pole figure (IPF) color map. Colors of the martensite crystals in (b) agree with the orientations perpendicular to
the observed plane, which are indicated in the stereographic triangle. Black lines in (b) show the boundaries with misorientation angles larger than 10.

as the diamond symbols in Fig. 6(b). The concentrations
near the ideal orientations based on the K–S orientation
relationship are obvious, which confirms that the martens-
ite in the 0.20 wt.% C steel under investigation maintains
the K–S orientation relationship. However, the orientation
distribution is not discrete, but has a certain degree of scat-
tering around the ideal orientations. In addition, it is deter-
mined that all 24 variants do not necessarily appear within
the austenite grain. For example, V16 and V18 do not
appear in Fig. 6.
Variant analysis of the lath martensite in Fig. 6(a) was
conducted using Fig. 6(b). For example, for the violet
region (the white arrow) in Fig. 6(a), the orientation is also
drawn in violet in Fig. 6(b). The spread of the orientation is
consistent with V1 and V4 in Fig. 6(b), which indicates that
a combination of different variants (V1 and V4) is included
within this region. The variant number for each region is
shown in Fig. 6(a). Numerous regions include certain com-
binations of two specific variants (V1 and V4, V2 and V5,
V3 and V6, V7 and V10, V8 and V11, V9 and V12, V14 and
V17, V19 and V22, V20 and V23, V21 and V24), but some
areas also have blocks with one variant. There is a specific
rule for combining two variants, which is a rotation axis of
Æ0 1 1æ and an angle of 10.53 (Table 4). Morito et al. [11]
reported the local regions composed of two specific vari-
ants in 0.0026–0.61 wt.% C steels, although their EBSD
observations were limited to a small part of a prior austen-
ite grain with a coarse grain size of 200 lm. They called
them ‘‘two specific K–S variant groups (sub-blocks)’’.
The relationship that they observed in the sub-blocks is
identical to that in the present study described above. Thus,
it is concluded that there is a strict rule (Æ0 1 1æ – 10.53) for
the variant selection within the sub-blocks. Block bound-
aries are not recognized from the 10 boundary criterion
within the sub-blocks, which suggests orientation scattering
within the sub-block region that includes two specific vari-
ants. Although most block boundaries are not indicated
within the sub-blocks, most of the packet boundaries could
be drawn from the variant notations and Table 2. The red
lines in Fig. 6(a) are the packet boundaries. However, the
region between V2 and (V20 and V23) sub-block at the
right corner of the prior austenite that must have a packet
boundary is not drawn in the 10 criterion, which indicates
that the orientation does not suddenly change between the
different packets. Fig. 6(a) also shows that all six possible
variants do not necessarily appear within each packet.
Morito et al. [11] reported that all six variants are present
within each packet in the lath martensite structures of car-
bon steels, which is inconsistent with our results. This dif-
ference may be due to the coarseness of the austenite
grains, since Morito et al. [11] used fairly coarse austenite
grain sizes. It is plausible that the grain size of the prior
austenite grain affects the packet size and that the packet
size determines the appearance of the sub-blocks.
Fig. 7(a) shows a skeleton image of Fig. 6(a), which is
composed of the prior austenite grain boundaries (black
lines), packet boundaries (red lines), and variant notations.
In Fig. 7(b), the boundaries are based on the misorienta-
tion between adjacent points of the EBSD data. Three dif-
ferent criteria are used to draw the boundary: the green
lines indicate a misorientation larger than 10, the blue
lines that between 5 and 10, and the red lines that
between 2 and 5. Fig. 7(a) and (b) clearly shows that most
of the packet boundaries have misorientations larger than
10. However, as previously mentioned, only a blue bound-
ary exists between V2 and the sub-block of (V20 and V23)
 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288 1285

Fig. 6. (a) Inverse pole figure (IPF) color map of the lath martensite structure in the 0.20 wt.% C steel. The white and red lines indicate the prior austenite
grain boundaries and packet boundaries, respectively. (b) {0 0 1} Pole figure shows the orientations of the lath martensite crystals within the prior austenite
that corresponds to the area surrounded by the white line in the IPF map (a). The symbols and numbers indicate the variant numbers.

in the right corner of the prior austenite grain, which is cer-
tainly a packet boundary. The misorientation between the
ideal V2 and V20 or between the ideal V2 and V23 is 50.51
or 47.11, respectively. This disagreement corresponds to a
significant orientation scattering around the ideal variant
orientations in the real lath martensite crystals. Fig. 7 also
clearly shows that there are no large-angle boundaries
within each sub-block. Even if the smallest misorientation
criterion is used, there are no continuous red boundaries
in Fig. 7(b).
Fig. 8(a) shows the point-to-origin (point A) misorien-
tation profile and Fig. 8(b) the point-to-point misorienta-
tion profile between points A and B in Fig. 7(b) in order
to understand the orientation change between and within
1286 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288

Fig. 7. Boundary maps of the lath martensite structure in the same area as Fig. 6(a). (a) Prior austenite grain boundaries (bold black lines) and block
boundaries (red lines). (b) Boundaries using three different criteria.

the sub-blocks. Fig. 8(a) shows discrete changes in the ori-
entation between (V19 and V22) and (V20 and V23) sub-
blocks. Fig. 8(b) shows that the corresponding block
boundaries have a misorientation of approximately 60,
which corresponds to the calculated misorientation
between the sub-blocks and the ideal misorientation of
60.0 for all the combinations between (V19 and V20),
(V19 and V23), (V20 and V22), and (V22 and V23). The
orientation change is small within each sub-block
(Fig. 8(a)). Fig. 8(b) shows some peaks close to 10 within
the sub-blocks. Although the ideal misorientation between
two variants within each block is 10.53, several bound-
 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288 1287

Fig. 8. Misorientations along the black line between A and B in Fig. 7. (a) Point-to-origin misorientation and (b) point-to-point misorientation.

aries within the sub-blocks have misorientations between
5 and 10 (Fig. 8(b)). This characteristic orientation fea-
ture is derived from the formation mechanism and the
nature of martensite. The strict variant selection rule
(10.53 around Æ0 1 1æ) and the change in the orientation
within the sub-blocks will be discussed in the light of
transformation strain in a future study. The present inves-
tigation has clarified the various features of the lath mar-
tensite structure of the order of the austenite grain size or
larger.
5. Conclusions
The lath martensite structure in a 0.20 wt.% C steel was
crystallographically analyzed on a relatively large scale
using EBSD with FE-SEM. The main points are summa-
rized below.
1. FE-SEM/EBSD is a useful tool for microstructure/ori-
entation analysis of lath martensite in low-carbon steels
despite a high density of lattice defects in the martensite
crystal. Detailed crystallographic analysis of the lath
martensite was achieved of the order of the prior austen-
ite grain size or larger, and characteristic features of the
lath martensite structure were determined.
2. EBSD analysis confirmed that the lath martensite in the
steel investigated maintained the K–S orientation rela-
tionship. However, the orientation of the martensite
crystals was broadly distributed around the ideal orien-
tations of the expected variants. Procedures of the crys-
tallographic analysis of the lath martensite with the K–S
orientation relationship have been detailed.
3. Variant analysis of the lath martensite was successfully
conducted from the EBSD data. All 24 variants did
not necessarily appear within an austenite grain. The
1288 H. Kitahara et al. / Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1279–1288
packet/block structures within a prior austenite grain
were accurately determined. In most cases, the packets
were clearly recognized from the orientation analysis.
Within each packet, all six possible variants did not nec-
essarily appear and the number of the variants seems to
depend on the size of the packet. Sub-blocks composed
of two specific variants were observed in the lath mar-
tensite structure. A strict rule for the variant selection
in the sub-blocks, namely 10.53 around Æ1 1 0æ axis,
was confirmed. It was determined that the orientation
profile within each sub-block was not discrete but fairly
scattered. Thus, block boundaries with detectable mis-
orientation were scarce within the sub-blocks.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the TORAY scientific foun-
dation for financial support.
References
[1] Nishiyama Z. Martensite transformation. Tokyo: Maruzen; 1971.
[2] Krauss G. Steels heat treatment and processing principles. Materials
Park (OH): ASM International; 1990.
[3] Honeycombe RWK, Bhadeshia HKDH. Steels microstructure and
properties. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold; 1995.
[4] Bhadeshia HKDH. Worked examples in the geometry of crys-
tals. London: Institute of Metals; 1987.
[5] Inoue T, Matsuda S, Okamura Y, Aoki K. Trans JIM 1970;11:36.
[6] Swarr T, Krauss G. Metall Trans A 1976;7A:41.
[7] Zaefferer S. J Appl Crystallogr 2000;33:10.
[8] Adams BL, Wright SI, Kunze K. Metall Trans 1993;24A:819.
[9] Ueda M, Yasuda HY, Umakoshi Y. Acta Mater 2001;49:3421.
[10] Wilson AW, Madison JD, Spanos G. Scr Mater 2001;45:1335.
[11] Morito S, Tanaka H, Konishi R, Furuhara T, Maki T. Acta Mater
2003;51:1789.
[12] Kitahara H, Ueji R, Ueda M, Tsuji N, Minamino Y. Mater Charact
2005;54:378.
[13] Humphreys FJ, Hatherly M. Recrystallization and related annealing
phenomena. Oxford (NY): Pergamon; 1995.
[14] Brandon DG. Acta Metall 1966;14:1479.
[15] Ueji R, Tsuji N, Minamino Y, Koizumi Y. Acta Mater 2002;50:4177.