See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309166723

Internal Stress and Elastic Strain Energy in Pearlite and Their Accommodation
by Misfit Dislocations

Article  in  ISIJ International · October 2016

DOI: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2016-256

CITATIONS READS

6 83

2 authors:

Nobuo Nakada Masaharu Kato

Tokyo Institute of Technology Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal
77 PUBLICATIONS   1,196 CITATIONS    222 PUBLICATIONS   2,829 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nobuo Nakada on 26 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISIJ International,
ISIJ International, Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10 Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10, pp. 1866–1873

Internal Stress and Elastic Strain Energy in Pearlite and Their

Accommodation by Misfit Dislocations

Nobuo NAKADA1)* and Masaharu KATO2)

1) Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Tech-
nology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 226-8503 Japan.
2) Formerly Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology. Now at Nippon Steel & Sumitomo
Metal Corporation, 20-1 Shintomi, Futtsu, Chiba, 293-8511 Japan.
(Received on April 27, 2016; accepted on June 28, 2016)

Internal stress and elastic strain energy in pearlite caused by misfit between ferrite and lamellar cement-
ite were theoretically analyzed based on micromechanics while taking into account an accommodation
mechanism of the misfit strain between ferrite and cementite on pearlitic transformation. Two-dimensional
large deformation analysis reveals that the Pitsch-Petch orientation relationship is most appropriate among
already reported crystal orientation relationships under the condition that the interface contains a lattice
invariant direction. However, the micromechanics analysis using a periodic function proves that the misfit
strain generates very large elastic strain energy in pearlite even when the Pitsch-Petch orientation relation-
ship is satisfied, which is almost comparable to the chemical driving force for pearlitic transformation.
Assuming that an interval of misfit dislocations dynamically introduced at ferrite/cementite interface upon
pearlitic transformation depends on the growth rate of pearlite, the total elastic strain energy reduces
more effectively as the growth rate becomes lower. As a result, the elastic strain energy in pearlite
changes widely depending on interlamellar spacing.

KEY WORDS: pearlite; elastic theory; misfit strain; internal stress; misfit dislocation.

Using electron backscattered diffraction (EBSD) and

1. Introduction
Pearlite, defined as eutectoid structure in the Fe–C sys-
tem, is characterized by fine lamellar structure composed of
ferrite and cementite. It is well known that the two-phase
fine lamellar structure contributes to high strength of pearl-
itic steel. Many studies have been performed for a long
time in order to understand the various aspects of pearlite
and its transformation. For instance, the growth rate and the
interlamellar spacing of pearlite have been evaluated for
demonstrating the rate-controlling process of the pearlitic
transformation in terms of thermodynamics and kinetics.1–7)
In addition to the interlamellar spacing, morphologic and
crystallographic features of substructures, i.e. pearlite colony
and block (nodule), have been analyzed for understanding
how the hierarchical substructures form.8–21) Furthermore,
many researchers have investigated the relation between
mechanical properties and the unique microstructure with
great interest.12–14,22) From these researches, it is commonly
recognized as a basic guideline on microstructural control of
pearlitic steel that the lower the transformation temperature
is, the finer the interlamellar spacing becomes, thereby lead-
ing to the improvement of strength. However, there have
been few studies paying attention to transformation strains,
since pearlite is a diffusional transformation product.
* Corresponding author: E-mail: nakada.n.aa@m.titech.ac.jp
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2016-256
X-ray diffraction (XRD) techniques, one of the present
authors and his colleagues have discovered that a significant
amount of lattice strain remains in pearlite.23) They have
demonstrated that the lattice strain originates from the mis-
fit between ferrite and cementite.24) In addition, the lattice
strain increases with decreasing the interlamellar spacing.
As a result, it is interesting to find that the strength of
pearlitic steel has a good linear relationship with the lattice
strain in pearlitic ferrite rather than with the interlamellar
spacing.25) These results strongly suggest that the elastic
strain and internal stress are very important factors affect-
ing the microstructure and the mechanical properties of
pearlitic steel. It seems that the internal stress in pearlite is
inhomogeneously distributed among pearlite colonies, and
each colony possesses different anisotropic internal stress.24)
Therefore, a technique with a high spatial resolution much
finer than the colony size (normally less than 5 μm) is
required to analyze the internal stress distribution in pearlite.
For example, convergent-beam electron diffraction in trans-
mission electron microscopy (TEM) may be most appro-
priate for this purpose. However, it is always argued that
thinning process for TEM samples causes significant stress
relaxation.26) In summary, it is very difficult to evaluate the
internal stress in pearlite experimentally so far.
In this study, the internal stress and elastic strain energy
in pearlite caused by misfit between ferrite and lamellar
cementite will be analyzed theoretically based on microme-

© 2016 ISIJ 1866

 ISIJ International, Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10

chanics. In addition, the interlamellar spacing dependency
of elastic accommodation will be discussed by taking into
account the arrays of misfit dislocations which are dynami-
cally introduced on pearlitic transformation.
2. Calculation of Misfit Strain by Two-dimensional
Large Deformation Theory
Let us first evaluate the elastic state of pearlite by
assuming that coherency is maintained between ferrite and
cementite in pearlite. For this purpose, we must know the
interface orientation composed of crystal planes of the two
phases.
Figure 1 displays unit cells of (a) cementite (orthorhom-
bic crystal,) and (b) ferrite (body-centered cubic crystal)
graphically-represented by a software Crystal Maker. To
evaluate misfit strains at pearlitic transformation tem-
perature, the lattice constants of cementite (C) and ferrite
(F) at 873 K (600°C) (aC = 0.45235 nm, bC = 0.50895 nm,
cC = 0.67433 nm and aF = 0.28665 nm, respectively) will
be used.27) Figure 2 shows iron atom configurations of
(a) (001) and (b) (101) in cementite and (c) (11 2) and (d)
( 2 1 5) in ferrite.18) This figure reveals intuitively that both
phases have good lattice correspondence on these planes.
Indeed, each set of them corresponds to the following crys-
tal orientation relationships (OR).
a–c; Bagaryatsky OR (001)C//(11 2 )F, [100]C//[1 10]F,
[010]C//[111]F28)
b–c; Isaichev OR (101)C//(11 2)F, [10 1]C//[1 10]F,
[010]C//[111]F29)
a–d; Pitsch-Petch OR (001)C//( 2 15)F, [100]C2–3°[ 31 1]F,
[010]C2–3°[131]F30,31)
b–d; Unknown OR (101)C//(2 15)F, [10-1]C2–3°[311]F,
[010]C2–3°[131]F
Except for the set of b–d, they had been actually identified
in the previous researches.
As an example and for reasons mentioned below, we
will consider the Pitsch-Petch OR and misfit strains at the
interface will be evaluated using two-dimensional large
deformation analysis.
To change the iron rectangular lattice of cementite (Fig.
2(a)) into that of ferrite (Fig. 2(d)) under the Pitsch-Petch
OR, the lattice transformation matrix T is expressed as the
product of a simple tensile and compressive deformation
matrix A and a simple shear deformation matrix B, as shown
in Fig. 3. When mutually perpendicular x1 and x2 axes are
fixed along [010]C and [100]C, respectively together with
the x3 axis being normal to the ferrite/cementite interface,
T is written as

 1 tan θ   11aF (2bc ) 0 

T = BA =    
0 1  0 11aF cos θ (2 ac ) 
 11aF (2bc ) 11aF sin θ (2 ac )   T11 T12 
= = .
 0 11aF cos θ (2 ac )   0 T22 

.......................................... (1)

Fig. 1. Unit cells of (a) cementite and (b) ferrite. from the plane correspondence in Fig. 2, where θ = 5.2°

Fig. 2. Fe atomic configurations of (a) (001) and (b) (101) planes of cementite and (c) (11 2) and (d) (21 5) planes of fer-
rite.18)

1867 © 2016 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10

Fig. 3. Lattice deformation from cementite to ferrite in Pitsch-Petch orientation relationship.

from Fig. 2(d). Table 1. Principal strains of lattice transformation and M value
Our next task is to find the principal distortions of the for respective orientation relationships.
transformation T. Since T is non-symmetric, it does not principal strain
Orientation
have mutually perpendicular principal axes of distortion. Combination M value
relationship ε11* ε22*
However, a regular matrix T is known to be decomposed
into a rotation (orthogonal) matrix R and a distortion (sym- Bagaryatsky a–c 0.02508 0.11585 0.01599
metric) matrix D as32) Isaichev b–c 0.00151 0.02508 0.00066
Pitsch-Petch a–d −0.06114 0.08968 0.00813
T = RD. ................................... (2)
Unknown b–d −0.15126 0.08188 0.02133
The symmetric distortion D can now be diagonalized to
find its principal axes and principal strains. From Eq. (2),
we have
explained above is defined by setting cementite as a start-
T tr T = (RD)tr (RD) = D tr R tr RD = D tr D .......... (3)
ing reference state (see again in Fig. 3). This is due to
where Ttr is the transposed matrix of T. Equation (3) indi- the simplification of deformation matrices, since the iron
cates that the principal strains of D, and, thus, those of T, rectangular lattice in cementite can be described by the
are obtained as square roots of the diagonal components of orthogonal coordinate system. On the other hand, when fer-
the matrix (TtrT)dia, the diagonalized matrix of TtrT. There- rite is regarded as a reference phase, the principal distortions
fore, we write η1, η2 from ferrite to cementite is obtained as the inverse
of those from cementite to ferrite (η1 = 1/η1C, η2 = 1/η2C).
 T11 0   T11 T12   T112 T11T12  Principal misfit strains at the interface are now obtained as
S = T tr T =   =  ... (4) ε11* = η1 − 1 and ε22* = η2 − 1.
 T12 T22   0 T22   T11T12 T122 + T222 
By considering the similar analysis for other ORs, the
Then, the rotation of the matrix Sdia with respect to the x3 principal strains were obtained as listed in Table 1. Here,
axes results in the parameter M is nearly proportional to the elastic strain
energy and is defined as
 cos α sin α   T112 T11T12   cos α − sin α 
Sdia =    
 − sin α cos α   T11T12 T122 + T222   sin α cos α  M = (ε11
* 2
) + (ε 22
* 2
) + 2 ε11ε 22 . ................. (8)
* *
3
 T112 cos2 α + 2T11T12 sin α cos α + (T122 + T222 )sin 2 α
= 2 From the energy point of view, ORs with smaller M values
 (T12 + T22 − T11 )sin α cos α + T11T12 (cos α − sin α )
2 2 2 2
are more favorable than those with larger M values.33,34)
(T122 + T222 − T112 )sin α cos α + T11T12 (cos2 α − sin 2 α )  Then, it appears from Table 1 that the Isaichev OR is most
. favorable followed in order by the Pitsch-Petch and Baga-
T112 sin 2 α − 2T11T12 sin α cos α + (T122 + T222 ) cos2 α 
ryatsky ORs. Another factor often discussed for interface
.......................................... (5)
crystallography and energetics is that whether the interface
where α is the angle of rotation. In order for Sdia to be a contains the invariant-line direction.33–35) It is known that the
diagonal matrix, the following equation must be satisfied. necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the
invariant line is ε11* < 0 < ε22*.32) As can be seen in Table
(T122 + T222 − T112 )sin α cos α + T11T12 (cos2 α − sin 2 α ) = 0. ... (6) 1, only the Pitsch-Petch OR satisfies this condition among
Solving Eq. (6) by substituting T11, T22 and T12 obtained in reported ORs.
Eq. (1) with lattice parameters of cementite and ferrite and As a result, it is concluded that the Pitsch-Petch orienta-
θ = 5.2 degree, α is either 71.26 or − 18.74 degrees, both tion relationship is the most appropriate one to optimize the
being crystallographically equivalent. Furthermore, substi- plane matching at the interface between ferrite and cement-
tuting these values into (5), the detail Sdia is ite among already reported crystal orientation relationships.
In fact, the Pitsch-Petch OR has been observed most fre-
 1.1345 0 
Sdia =   . ..................... (7) quently in pearlitic steels.15,18,23,24) In the following session,
 0 0.8422  the principal strains for the Pitsch-Petch OR is used as the
The square root of the diagonal components in (7) indicates misfit strains and the eigenstrains in the lamellar cementite.
principal distortions η1C = 1.06512 and η2C = 0.91769.
Here, it should be noted that the lattice deformation

© 2016 ISIJ 1868

 ISIJ International, Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10

By adopting the method of finding elastic states for peri-

3. Unaccommodated Internal Stress and Elastic Strain
odically distributed eigenstrains36) together with isotropic
Energy in Pearlite
elasticity, the stresses in cementite (C) and ferrite (F) caused
3.1. Analysis of Internal Stress by Solving of Periodic by the above eigenstrain distribution are obtained as
Function
Pearlite is regarded as a periodic lamellar structure of  2µ  *
σ 11 (C) = −(1 − f )   (ε11 + νε 22 )
*

period L along the interface normal x3, as shown in Fig.  1 − ν 

... (11)
4(a). When the thickness and the volume fraction of cement-  2µ  *
σ 22 (C) = −(1 − f )   (νε11 + ε 22 ) in cementite
*
ite are 2a (L > a) and f, respectively, the distribution of  1 −ν 
eigenstrains as a function of x3 εij*(x3) illustrated in Fig.
σ 33 (C) = 0
4(b) can be expressed as a step function by the following
Fourier series.
 2µ  *
σ 11 (F) = f   (ε11 + νε 22 )
*

 ∞
2    nπ    1 − ν 
ε ij* ( x3 ) = ε ij*  f +   ∑ sin  n π f  cos  x3   .... (9) .................. (12)
 π
  n =1    L   2µ  *
σ 22 (F) = f   (νε 11 + ε *
2 2 ) in ferrite
 1 −ν 
Here, εij* are given as follows.
σ 33 (F) = 0
 ε11
*
0 0  ....................... (10) where μ is the shear modulus and ν is the Poisson ratio.
 
ε ij =  0 ε 22
* *
0 
 0 0 * 
ε 33 3.2. Elastic Strain Energy Caused by Misfit Strain in
  Pearlite
where ε11* and ε22* are the same misfit strains as mentioned Now that eigenstrains and internal stresses in the two
above and given in Table 1. ε33* is unknown at this moment phases are found, elastic strain energy per unit volume of
but will soon be found immaterial for the present analysis. pearlite E0 can be calculated according to the following
equation.37)
L
1
2 L ∫0
E0 = − σ ij ε ij* dx3 ....................... (13)

Considering that eigenstrains and internal stresses in

cementite are given by Table 1 and Eq. (11), respectively,
E0 in pearlite is

2a
E0 = −
2L
{
σ 11 (C)ε11*
+ σ 22 (C)ε 22
*
} ... (14)
 µ  * 2
= f (1 − f ) 
 1 −ν 
{
 (ε11 ) + (ε 22 ) + 2νε11ε 22 .
* 2 * *
}
Cementite fraction in pearlite is 0.12 in a conventional
eutectoid Fe-0.8mass%C alloy. Therefore, substituting f =
0.12, μ = 80 GPa, ν = 0.3, ε11* = − 0.0611 and ε22* =
0.0897 into Eq. (14), E0 is calculated to be 1.04 × 108 J/m3
(737 J/mol). This value is as high as the free energy change
from austenite to pearlite at 873 K (600°C) in this alloy
(approximately 1 150 J/mol) calculated by a thermody-
namics calculation software Thermo-calc (Ver. 3.0 SSOL
database). This proves that the ideal coherency strain energy
of pearlite is almost comparable to the chemical driving
force of pearlitic transformation, even when the most stable
Pitsch-Petch OR is kept between ferrite and cementite. In
addition to periodic function, another calculation method for
internal stress analysis using Eshelby’s inclusion problems37)
with Mori-Tanaka method38) will be shown in Appendix.

4. Reduction of Elastic Strain Energy in Pearlite by

Introduction of Misfit Dislocations

Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of pearlite with a periodic lamellar

If elastic strain energy generated via phase transformation
structure and distributions of (a) eigenstrains and (b) σ11 is comparable to a chemical driving force, total driving force
stress component. is so low that the phase transformation may not progress

1869 © 2016 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10

spontaneously. Therefore, coherency strain energy should

µ
be reduced through a strain accommodation mechanism E0mis = f (1 − f )
1 −ν
{(ε11 ) + (ε 22
* 2 * 2
) + 2νε11 ε 22 + 2ε11
* * *
∆ε11
*

in pearlite in order to complete pearlitic transformation. In

fact, the group of Shiflet performed microstructural obser- +2ε 2*2 ∆ε 22
*
+ 2νε11
*
∆ε 22
*
+ 2ν∆ε11 ε 22 + (∆ε11
* * * 2
)
vations of pearlitic steels using a high resolution TEM and
reported that a lot of misfit dislocations, direction steps and
+(∆ε 22
* 2
) + 2ν∆ε11
*
∆ε 22
*
}
........................................ (15)
structural ledges are located on ferrite/cementite interfaces
to accommodate lattice misfit between ferrite and cementite. Since the misfit dislocations are introduced on interfaces to
And then, they proposed a model in which these structural accommodate misfit strains, edge dislocations are arranged
accommodations are dynamically introduced at the growing perpendicular to each principal axis. Thus, two kinds of
interface of pearlite.15–18) Therefore, the accommodation edge dislocation arrays are mutually arranged perpendicu-
mechanism of elastic strain energy, especially the introduc- larly on the interface in principle. In the case of the Pitsch-
tion of misfit dislocations, will be discussed in connection Petch OR, because of ε11* < 0 < ε22*, extra half planes for
with interlamellar spacing of pearlite. edge dislocations parallel to the x2 direction are in cementite
The internal stresses and elastic strain energy of plate- while those parallel to the x1 direction are in ferrite, as
shaped second phase like cementite in pearlite are possible schematically illustrated in Fig. 5. In the following section,
to be zero through a complete accommodation.39) However, change in elastic strain energy by the introduction of misfit
since the lattice strain is measurable experimentally, it is dislocations is discussed under two different conditions
now clear that the complete accommodation is not achieved (Fig. 6); one is the condition in which misfit dislocations
in pearlite. Therefore, in the following section, a partial are arranged with a constant interval (Type 1) regardless of
accommodation mechanism that does not accommodate the pearlite growth rate, and the other is that in which the
completely but at least partially accommodates elastic strain interval of misfit dislocations array changes with the growth
energy will be considered. Although the partial accom- rate of pearlitic transformation related with temperature
modation is caused by not only the misfit dislocations but (Type 2).
also the atomic diffusion, it could be important to consider
the accommodation by misfit dislocations in the context of
studies by Shiflet et al.
When the interfaces surrounding inclusions are charac-
terized by semi-coherent interface with misfit dislocations,
the existence of misfit dislocations leads to additional
eigenstrains Δεij* and internal stresses Δσij in inclusions.
According to Eqs. (11)–(14) or Eqs. (24)–(28), elastic strain
energy considering misfit dislocations E0mis are described by
the following equation.39)

Fig. 5. Schematic illustration showing the arrangement of misfit

dislocations on ferrite/cementite lamellar interface.

Fig. 6. Schematic illustration explaining the two difference conditions in the interval of misfit dislocations introduced
upon pearlitic transformation.

© 2016 ISIJ 1870

 ISIJ International, Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10

4.1. Constant Interval of Misfit Dislocations Array; Burgers vector of ferrite (0.25 nm), while d is set to be 20
Type 1 nm by reference to the observation results by Shiflet et al.18)
Assuming that the interval of misfit dislocations array is As can be seen, E1 is smaller than E0, which demonstrates
constant at d, Δε11* and Δε22* are written as b/d and –b/d that the introduction of misfit dislocations accommodates
with Burgers vector b, respectively. Here, we approximate misfit strains. However, most of the elastic strain energy
that b is the same for all the misfit dislocations. Substitut- still remains in pearlite. This agrees well with the results in
ing these values into Eq. (15), elastic strain energy per unit previous researches23–25) and suggests that the misfit disloca-
volume E1mis is modified as tion interval of 20 nm is insufficient to effectively reduce the
coherency strain energy. 2 On the other hands, it is understood
µ  * 2 b that E * increases as  
 binterlamellar spacing becomes finer due
E1 = f (1 − f ) (ε11 ) + (ε 22 ) + 2νε11ε 22 + 2(1 −ν ) (ε11 − ε 22 ) + 2(1 −ν )  dis
mis * 2 * * * 1
.
1 −ν  d to the increase in Ed1 . But, the magnitude value of E1dis
is much lower than that of E1mis, thus the dependency of
 b  
2
b * interlamellar spacing on E1 is very small.
ε11
* 2
) + (ε 22
* 2
) + 2νε11 ε 22 + 2(1 −ν ) (ε11
* *
− ε 22
*
) + 2(1 −ν )    .
d  d  
4.2. Variable Interval of Misfit Dislocations Array;
........................................ (16)
Type 2
If d is changeable depending on the growth rate of pearl-
ε11
*
≤ − b d or ε 22 *
≤b d ite υ, it is reasonable to consider from the kinetics point
In addition to E1mis, elastic strain energy of misfit disloca- of view that d is an increasing function of υ. Here, let us
tions themselves E1dis must be considered. In pearlite with assume for simplicity that d is proportional to υ, as written
interlamellar spacing L, total area of ferrite/cementite inter- by Eq. (19).
face per unit volume is counted as 2/L. Taking into account
dmin
that misfit dislocations are arranged along both directions of d= υ ................................ (19)
x1 and x2 (see Fig. 5), the density of misfit dislocations per υmin
unit volume is 4/(L × d). Thus, E1dis is given as dmin and υmin are the minimum interval of misfit dislocations
and the minimum growth rate to fully accommodate misfit
µb 2
 R  ........................ (17)
E1dis = ln . strains, respectively. From geometry, dmin can be estimated
Ldπ  r0  as either –b/ε11* or b/ε22*. Some researchers including
Here, r0 and R indicate the radius of dislocation core and Ridly investigated the relation between υ and L,3,4,8,11) and
stress field, respectively. Given that r0 = 5b and R = d/2, reported that υL2 is constant (k), which emphasizes that
the total elastic strain energy per unit volume in Type 1 E1 pearlitic transformation is controlled by volume diffusion of
is described as carbon in austenite near the growing interface. According to
this empirical equation, d is 2expressed as a function of L, as
µ  * 2 b * in Eq.
shown * (20).  b   µ b
2
 d 
E1 = E1 + E1 = f (1 − f ) (ε11 ) + (ε 22 ) + 2νε11ε 22 + 2(1 −ν ) (ε11 − ε 22 ) + 2(1 −ν )    +
mis dis * 2 * *
ln  .
1 −ν  d  d   Ldπ  10b 

* 2 * * b *
ε 22 ) + 2νε11ε 22 + 2(1 −ν ) (ε11 − ε 22 ) + 2(1 −ν )    +
*  b   µ b
2 2
 d 
ln  .
d=
k
υmin L
d =
2 min
kb
υmin L2ε *
(
ε * = ε11 *
or ε 22
*
) ... (20)

d  d   Ldπ  10b 
Then, substituting Eq. (20) into (18) with ε22* leads to the
........................................ (18)
total elastic strain energy per unit volume in Type 2 E2.
Figure 7 shows the change in E1 as a function of interla-
E2 = E2mis + E2dis =
mellar spacing, with f = 0.12, μ = 80 GPa, ν = 0.3, ε11* =
− 0.0611 and ε22* = 0.0897. In addition, b is treated as the µ  * 2 υmin L2
f (1 − f ) (ε11 ) + (ε 22 ) + 2νε11ε 22 + 2
* 2 * *
(1 −ν ) ε11 ε 22 − (ε 22
* * * 2
) 
1 −ν  k
E2 = E2 + E 2 =
mis dis

µ υmin L2  υmin L2ε 22 *
  µ bυmin Lε 22
2 *
 k
f (1 − f ) (ε
 11
* 2
) + (ε * 2
) + 2νε ε
* *
+ 2 (1 − ν ) ε ε
* *
− (ε * 2
)  + 2( 1 − ν )   + ln 
1 −ν
22 11 22
k  11 22 22
 k kπ 10υ
     min L

  µ bυmin Lε 22
2
υmin L2  υmin L2ε 22
* *
 k 
)2 + (ε 22
* 2
) + 2νε11ε 22 + 2
* *
(1 −ν ) ε11ε 22 − (ε 22
* * * 2
)  + 2(1 −ν )   + ln  2 * 
k  k   k π  10 υ min L ε 22 
........................................ (21)
Figure 8 displays the change in E2 as a function of interla-
mellar spacing using the same numerical values as above.
Although k and υmin are varied depending on composition of
steels, they could be considered as constant values in a steel.
Thus, k and υmin were determined to be 1.0 × 10 − 19 m3/s and
50 nm/s, respectively, by adopting the experimental data
Fig. 7. Relation between elastic strain energy and interlamellar reported by Bolling & Richmann using a low alloy eutectoid
spacing. Elastic strain energies E1 is given by Eq. (18). steel.3) E2 is lower than E0 within all region of interlamellar

1871 © 2016 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10

pearlite, the internal stress and the elastic strain energy in

pearlite change widely depending on interlamellar spacing.

REFERENCES
1) F. C. Hull and R. F. Mehl: Trans ASM, 30 (1942), 381.
2) J. W. Cahn and W. C. Hagel: Acta Metall., 11 (1963), 561.
3) G. F. Bolling and R. H. Richmann: Metall. Trans., 1 (1970), 2095.
4) M. P. Puls and J. S. Kirkaldy: Metall. Trans., 3 (1972), 2777.
5) S. D. Kulkarni: Acta Metall., 21 (1973), 1539.
6) C. Zener: Trans. AIME, 47 (1946), 550.
7) G. Zhang and M. Enomoto: ISIJ Int., 49 (2009), 921.
8) G. E. Pellissier, M. F. Hawkes, W. A. Johnson and R. F. Mehl: Trans
ASM, 30 (1942), 1049.
9) J. W. Cahn and W. C. Hagel: Decomposition of Austenite by Dif-
fusional Processes, eds. by V. F. Zackay and H. I. Aaronson, John
Wiley, New Nork, (1962), 131.
10) M. Hillert: Decomposition of Austenite by Diffusional Processes, eds.
Fig. 8. Relation between elastic strain energy and interlamellar by V. F. Zackay and H. I. Aaronson, John Wiley, New Nork, (1962),
spacing. Elastic strain energies E2 is given by Eq. (21). 197.
11) N. Ridley: Metall. Trans. A, 15A (1984), 1019.
12) A. R. Marder and B. L. Bramfitt: Metall. Trans. A, 24 (1975), 365.
13) T. Takahashi, M. Nagumo and Y. Asano: Trans. Jpn. Inst. Met., 42
spacing, however, the lowering behavior is completely dif- (1978), 708.
14) T. Takahashi, M. Nagumo and Y. Asano: Trans. Jpn. Inst. Met., 42
ferent from E1 in Fig. 7. It is obvious from Eq. (21) that the (1978), 716.
first term E2mis depends more heavily on L than the second 15) M. A. Mangan and G. J. Shiflet: Metall. Trans. A, 30A (1999), 2267.
term E2dis since the former contains higher power exponent 16) S. A. Hackney and G. J. Shiflet: Acta Metall., 35 (1987), 1007.
17) S. A. Hackney and G. J. Shiflet: Acta Metall., 35 (1987), 1019.
of L. This means that the accommodation of misfit strains by 18) D. Z. Zhou and G. J. Shiflet: Metall. Trans. A, 23A (1992), 1259.
misfit dislocations is more effective when the interlamellar 19) D. V. Shtansky, K. Nakai and Y. Ohmori: Acta Mater., 47 (1999),
1105.
spacing becomes coarser for slower pearlite growth rate. In 20) S. Zaefferer, S. I. Wright and D. Raabe: Metal. Mater. Tans. A, 39A
this calculation, E2 significantly decreases when interlamel- (2008), 374.
lar spacing is larger than 200 nm. As a result, E2 varies more 21) Y. T. Wang, Y. Adachi, K. Nakajima and Y. Sugimoto: Acta Mater.,
58 (2010), 4849.
significantly than E1 depending on interlamellar spacing. 22) Y. Tomota, O. Watanabe, A. Kanie, A. Moriai, N. Minakawa and Y.
This means that Type 2 accommodation is more reason- Moriai: Mater. Sci. Technol., 19 (2003), 1715.
23) N. Nakada, N. Koga, T. Tsuchiyama and S. Takaki: Scr. Mater., 61
able to explain the fact that ferrite lattice strain in pearlite (2009), 133.
clearly decreases with increasing interlamellar spacing.25) 24) N. Koga, N. Nakada, T. Tscuhiyama, S. Takaki, M. Ojima and Y.
E2 is concave down function of L and becomes almost con- Adachi: Scr. Mater., 67 (2012), 400.
25) N. Nakada, N. Koga, Y. Tanaka, T. Tsuchiyama, S. Takaki and M.
stant when interlamellar spacing is finer than 200 nm. This Ueda: ISIJ Int., 55 (2015), 2036.
is because we have assumed for simplicity that the interval 26) A. Benedetti, H. Bender, A. Lauwers, C. Torregiani and K. Maex: J.
Microsc., 223 (2006), 249.
of misfit dislocations is simply proportional to the pearlite 27) M. Umemoto and K. Tsuchiya: Tetsu-to-Hagané, 88 (2002), 117.
growth rate, as expressed by Eq. (19). In practice, the rela- 28) Y. A. Bagaryatsky: Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR., 73 (1950), 1161.
29) I. V. Isaichev: Zh. Tekh. Fiz., 17 (1947), 835.
tion between them should be more complicated. 30) W. Pitsch: Acta Metall., 10 (1962), 79.
31) N. J. Petch: T Acta Crystallogr., 6 (1953), 96.
32) M. S. Wechsler, D. S. Lieberman and T. A. Read: Trans. AIME, 197
5. Conclusions (1953), 1503.
33) M. Kato, M. Wada, A. Sato and T. Mori: Acta Metall., 37 (1989),
For theoretical analysis of internal stress and elastic 749.
34) M. Kato: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, A146 (1991), 205.
strain energy in pearlite caused by misfit between ferrite 35) U. Dahmen: Acta Metall., 30 (1982), 63.
and lamellar cementite, micromechanics was applied. The 36) T. Mura: Micromechanics of Defects in Solids, 2nd ed., Martinus
obtained results are as follows. Nijhoff Publ., The Hague, (1987), 7.
37) J. D. Eshelby: Proc. R. Soc., Lond., A241 (1957), 376.
(1) Two-dimensional large deformation analysis reveals 38) T. Mori and K. Tanaka: Acta Metall., 21 (1973), 571.
that the Pitsch-Petch orientation relationship is the most 39) M. Kato and T. Fujii: Acta Metal. Mater., 42 (1994), 2929.
appropriate one to optimize the plane matching at the inter-
face between ferrite and cementite among already reported Appendix
crystal orientation relationships in pearlite.
(2) Micromechanics analysis using a periodic function Analysis of internal stress by Eshelby’s ellipsoidal inclu-
demonstrates that the misfit strain generates very large elas- sion problems37) with the Mori-Tanaka method.38)
tic strain energy in pearlite even when the Pitsch-Petch ori- When a penny-shaped ellipsoidal single inclusion Ω
entation relationship is satisfied, which is almost comparable perpendicular to the x3 axis with uniform eigenstrains εij*
to the chemical driving force for pearlitic transformation. of Eq. (10) is within an isotropic infinite body (Fig. 9(a)),
Therefore, the coherency strain energy should be reduced internal stresses in the inclusion σijΩ can be expressed by the
through the strain accommodation mechanism, such as the following equation, as reported by Eshelby.
introduction of misfit dislocations.
σ ijΩ = Cijkl (Sklmnε mn
*
− ε kl* ) .................... (22)
(3) When misfit dislocations are dynamically intro-
duced at ferrite/cementite lamellar interface upon pearlitic Here, Cijkl and Sklmn are the elastic constants and Eshelby’s
transformation, the elastic strain energy is surely reduced, tensors, respectively. For a penny-shaped inclusion, Sklmn
although most of that still remains. Especially, given that the are given as follows.
interval of misfit dislocations depends on the growth rate of

© 2016 ISIJ 1872

 ISIJ International, Vol. 56 (2016), No. 10

ume fraction of inclusions is f and average internal stresses

of ferrite matrix and cementite are < σij > M and < σij > Ω,
respectively, the following equation is realized.
(1 − f ) < σ ij > M + f < σ ij >Ω = 0 ............... (25)
This is because internal stress averaged over the entire vol-
ume is always zero.
Suppose a single cementite plate is newly added within
Fig. 9. Schematic illustration of penny-shaped inclusion(s) within the body. Since there are already many cementite plates,
an isotropic infinite body. changes in < σij > M and < σij > Ω by this cementite addi-
tion must be negligibly small. Therefore, < σij > Ω can be
expressed as the sum of < σij > M and the generating internal
stress in a newly added cementite plate, as written in Eq.
S1111 = S2222 = 0, S3333 = 1, S1122 = S2211 = 0, S1133 = S2233 = 0,
(26).
S3311 = S3322 = ν , S = 0, S1313 = S2323 = 1
(1 −ν ) 1212 2 < σ ij >Ω =< σ ij > M +σ ijΩ . .................... (26)
........................................ (23)
From Eqs. (25) and (26), Eq. (27) can be obtained.
(22) through (23) gives
< σ ij >Ω = (1 − f )σ ijΩ ........................ (27)
 2µ  *  2µ  * By using eigenstrains given by Table 1 and average internal
σ 11Ω = −   (ε11 + νε 22
*
), σ 22Ω
= −  (νε11 + ε 22 ),
*

 1 −ν   1 −ν  stresses in cementite obtained by Eqs. (25) and (27) with

Ω
σ 33 = 0. f = 0.12, μ = 80 GPa, ν = 0.3, elastic strain energy in a
body with infinite number of cementite plate < E0 > can be
........................................ (24)
described as
Here, μ and ν are the shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio,
respectively. In this study, we assume for simplicity that 1 1
2 ∫Ω
< E0 >= − < σ ij > ε ij* dx = − ∫ (1 − f )σ ijΩε ij* dx
both the matrix and inclusion have the same isotropic elastic Ω 2 Ω ...... (28)
constants. This assumption may be justified since Young’s  µ  * 2
modulus of cementite27) is almost the same as that of ferrite
= f (1 − f ) 
 1 −ν 
{
 (ε11 ) + (ε 22 ) + 2νε11ε 22 .
* 2 * *
}
(approximately 200 GPa).
As the next step, many penny-shaped cementite plate are This is the same as the elastic strain energy given by solving
considered in the ferrite matrix (Fig. 9(b)). When the vol- the periodic function (Eq. (14)).

1873 © 2016 ISIJ

View publication stats