Prediction of the Maximum Dislocation Density in Lath Martensitic Steel by Elasto-Plastic Phase-Field Method
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Materials Transactions, Vol. 53, No. 9 (2012) pp. 1598 to 1603 ©2012 The Japan Institute of Metals Prediction of the Maximum Dislocation Density in Lath Martensitic Steel by Elasto-Plastic Phase-Field Method Zhenhua Cong1, Yoshinori Murata1,+, Yuhki Tsukada2 and Toshiyuki Koyama2 1Department of Materials, Physics and Energy Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan 2Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya 466-8555, Japan On the basis of the two types of slip deformation (TTSD) model of lath martensite, the martensitic transformation was simulated in Fe 0.1 mass% C steel by an elasto-plastic phase-field method. The TTSD model allowed us to predict the total dislocations for the necessity of the formation of lath martensite, which is taken as the upper limit of dislocation density in lath martensite. The calculated dislocation density by the simulation was reasonable to be higher than the observed dislocations in value but to be the same in order. This consistence indicates that the calculation method based on the TTSD model is credible, together with the calculation of the habit plane predicted by the TTSD model. [doi:10.2320/matertrans.M2012067] (Received February 20, 2012; Accepted June 25, 2012; Published August 8, 2012) Keywords: dislocation density, slip deformation, phase-field method, lath martensite 1. Introduction study, the total dislocations for the necessity of the formation of lath martensite steel is counted by simulation using an The martensite phase in steels exhibits several morphol- elasto-plastic phase-field model based on the TTSD model, ogies such as lath, plate and butterfly, depending on the and the result is compared with the experimental results alloying elements.1,2) Among them, lath martensite exhibits reported until date. high strength, wear resistance, and toughness.37) The martensitic microstructures must be characterized accurately 2. Evaluation of the Maximum Dislocation Density in terms of orientation, morphology, transformation disloca- Based on the TTSD Model tion density, and retained austenite. In recent years, Morito et al. observed the martensitic orientation and microstruc- According to Iwashita et al., the martensitic transformation tures by means of TEM, SEM and EBSD.811) Spanos et al. is accomplished by coupling lattice deformation and plastic adopted EBSD and serial sectioning to establish 3-D mor- deformation.14) The lattice deformation (Bain deformation) phology of martensite lath,7) which provided further detailed realizes the transformation from the austenite phase with a insights into lath orientation, distributions and shapes. face-centered cubic (fcc) lattice to a body-centered tetragonal High dislocation density is inevitable in lath martensite, (bct) lattice. After that, the length of the c-axis is adjusted to which accommodates the large strain induced by martensitic accommodated the strain induced by Bain deformation. Due transformation and subsequent interface gliding. Wayman to the strain induced by Bain deformation is so large that classified the dislocations in the martensite phase into two plastic deformation is inevitable. In the present study, the types: transformation dislocations and interface disloca- plastic deformation is realized by dislocation slip along two tions.5) Morito et al. used a TEM method to measure the independent slip systems as shown in Fig. 1, which is called dislocation densities in nickel steels and carbon steels, and as the TTSD model. The crossed planes shown in Fig. 1(a) they reported that the dislocation density for lath martensite are the two types of slip systems, ½101ð101 Þ¡0 and 15 ¹2 14) is approximately 1.11 © 10 m in a Fe0.18C steel and ½101 ð101Þ¡0 . Through TTSD model, the habit plane 14 ¹2 12) 3.8 © 10 m in a Fe11Ni steel. In addition, Cong et al. {557}£ and lattice correspondence between the martensite used the X-ray diffraction (XRD) method to detect the dislocation density of lath martensite in low carbon steels (0.020.09 mass% C) and the dislocation density is 4.87 © (a) (b) 1014 m¹2 in a Fe10Cr5W0.02C steel.13) However, all these studies focus purely on experimental results, which [101] (101) cannot relate the dislocation with the formation mechanism α' or of lath martensite. [101] (101) Recently, Iwashita et al. developed a two types of slip α' deformation (TTSD) model to explain the formation mechanism of lath martensite.14) In this model, high dislocation density introduced by martensitic transformation is realized by two inevitable independent slip systems. In this Fig. 1 Skeleton of plastic deformations along two slip systems, i.e., ½101ð101 Þ¡0 and ½101 ð101Þ¡0 . b1 and b2 are the Burgers vector for the +Corresponding author, [email protected] two slip systems. Prediction of the Maximum Dislocation Density in Lath Martensitic Steel by Elasto-Plastic Phase-Field Method 1599 phase and the austenite phase are successfully explained without any rotation matrix. Figure 1(b) shows that each slip system can be taken as a combination of two a=2h111i¡0 dislocation slips with the Burgers vectors of b1 and b2, which can usually be observed in practical steels. Compared to directly performing the slip deformation along h111i slip system, the TTSD model can represent the plastic deforma- tion simply. Moreover, the TTSD model can well explain the {557}£ habit plane in the formation process of lath Fig. 2 Slip deformation skeleton for (a) a random state and (b) an assumed martensite. state, where the intervals between the neighboring slip planes are the Assuming that the plastic deformation is accommodated same. throughoutly by these dislocation slips, the total dislocations for the necessity of the formation of the lath martensite can be evaluated. The idea for using the phase-field method two adjacent slip planes for each slip system is m, then the to model a dislocation is establishes by Nabarro15) that value of D can be given by eq. (3): dislocations can be taken as a set of coherent misfitting D ¼ m  dhkl: ð3Þ platelet inclusions. For simplisity, a dislocation loop is described as a sheared pletelet with thickness and the region The distance between the (hkl)¡A planes can be obtained from inside the platelet is sheared by a Burgers vector b.16) By eq. (4). extending this discription to a spatial region with a 1 dhkl ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi; ð4Þ population of dislocations, the average plastic strain pave, h2 k2 l2 þ þ caused by dislocation slip is given by 2 2 2 a¡0 a¡0 c¡0 jbj p ¼ ; ð Þ where h, k and l are the Miller indices of the slip planes, and ave D 1 a¡A and c¡A are the lattice parameters of the martensite phase. where «b« is the magnitude of the Burgers vector and D is By inserting the values of D(101) estimated from eq. (1) and the average distance between the neighboring slip planes, d(101) in eq. (3), we can evaluate the number of lattice planes that is, dislocation planes. In the formation process of lath slipping along the h101i¡0 system, m(101). As a result, the martensite, a lot of dislocations are necessary for the plastic number of lattice planes slipping actually along the h111i¡0 accommodation. After the martensitic transformation, some direction m(111) should be twice that of m(101). By substituting dislocations are resided in the martensite crystal, which can the values of m(111) and d(111) into eq. (3), we obtain D(111). be observed by experiments, whereas some dislocations pass Now with the help of D(111) and eq. (2), the total amount through out of the martensite crystal using for the formation of dislocations for the necessity of the formation of lath of lath boundaries, which cannot be observed directly by martensite in practical steels can be evaluated. experiments. In the present study, we focuses on the total dislocations contributing on the formation of lath martensite, 3. Elasto-Plastic Phase-Field Method which is taken as the upper limit of dislocation density of lath martensite, μlim. In the martensitic transformation, μlim For the martensitic transformation, the field variable ºiðrÞ should contribute to the plastic deformation for moderating (i = 1, 2, 3) is introduced to describe the Bain deformation the strain by Bain lattice deformation. Here, we give the and i = 1, 2, 3 is used to distinguish the three coordinate distance between neighboring dislocations by a rough coincidences; that is, the c-axis of the bct phase is along the estimation as three equivalent h100i directions in the austenite matrix. Here pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi r is the positional vector. º ðrÞ (i = 1, 2, 3) ranges from 0 to 1 D 1= μ : ð2Þ i lim and 0 represents austenite phase, where 1 represents the full Assuming that all of the dislocations contriute to the plastic martensite phase at a certain i. In the present simulation, deformation, the value of D can be estimated from the the lath martensite phase is formed only when ºiðrÞ ² 0.7. ¡ average plastic strain pave, which is available from the Another field variable pi ðrÞ (i = 1, 2, 3) is considered to ¡ simulation results by using phase-field model. As mentioned describe the plastic deformation and the value of pi ðrÞ above, TTSD model is based on ½101ð101 Þ¡0 and represents the local plastic strain produced by dislocations. ½101 ð101Þ¡0 slip systems in bct crystals as shown in ¡ represents the number of slip systems, i.e., ½101ð101 Þ¡0 or ¡ Fig. 1(a). Therefore, the value of D evaluated from eq. (1) ½101 ð101Þ¡0 . In our simulation, the value of pi ðrÞ ranges is the distance between the neighboring slip planes along from 0, which means no plastic deformation, to 1.21, which ½101ð101 Þ¡0 or ½101 ð101Þ¡0.