Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T13:30:06.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interface Segregation and Nitrogen Measurement in Fe–Mn–N Steel by Atom Probe Tomography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2017

Brian Langelier ,
Hugo P. Van Landeghem Open the ORCID record for Hugo P. Van Landeghem [Opens in a new window] ,
Gianluigi A. Botton  and
Hatem S. Zurob
Brian Langelier*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, Canada
Hugo P. Van Landeghem
Affiliation:
SIMaP, UMR 5622, Grenoble INP – CNRS – UGA, 1130 rue de la piscine, BP75, F-38420 St Martin d’Hères, France
Gianluigi A. Botton
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, Canada
Hatem S. Zurob
Affiliation:
SIMaP, UMR 5622, Grenoble INP – CNRS – UGA, 1130 rue de la piscine, BP75, F-38420 St Martin d’Hères, France
*
*Corresponding author. langelb@mcmaster.ca
Get access

Abstract

Improved understanding of the interactions between solutes and the austenite/ferrite interface can benefit modeling of ferrite growth during austenite decomposition, as the transformation kinetic is significantly affected by solutes that influence interface mobility. Solute-interface interactions dominate solute segregation at the interface in binary systems, but in multi-component alloys, solute–solute interactions may also affect segregation. In this study, interface segregation in Fe–Mn–N is examined and compared with Fe–Mn–C, to reveal the extent to which C affects the segregation of Mn. Atom probe tomography (APT) is well-suited to analyze solute concentrations across the interface, as this technique combines high spatial resolution and compositional sensitivity. Measurements of Mn show that segregation is only observed for Fe–Mn–C. This demonstrates that Mn segregation is primarily driven by an affinity for C, which also segregates to the interface. However, the measurement of N in steels by APT may be affected by a variety of experimental factors. Therefore, in verifying the Fe–Mn–N result, systematic examination is conducted on the influence of pulsing method (voltage versus laser), sample preparation (ion milling versus electropolishing), and vacuum storage on the measured N concentration. Both laser pulsing and focused ion beam sample preparation are observed to decrease the apparent N concentration.

Keywords

atom probe tomographyinterface segregationnitrogen quantificationmartensitesteel
Type
Materials Science (Metals)
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 23 , Special Issue 2: Atom Probe Tomography & Microscopy 2016 , April 2017 , pp. 385 - 395
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cahn, J. (1962). The impurity-drag effect in grain boundary motion. Acta Metall 10, 789–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felfer, P., Ringer, S.P. & Cairney, J.M. (2011). Shaping the lens of the atom probe: Fabrication of site specific, oriented specimens and application to grain boundary analysis. Ultramicroscopy 111, 435–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gault, B., Danoix, F., Hoummada, K., Mangelinck, D. & Leitner, H. (2012a). Impact of directional walk on atom probe microanalysis. Ultramicroscopy 113, 182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gault, B., Moody, M.P., Cairney, J.M. & Ringer, S.P. (2012b). Chapter 4. In Atom Probe Microscopy, Hull, R., Jagadish, C., Osgood, R.M.J., Parisi, J. & Wang, Z.M. (Eds.), pp. 74–81. New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
Giannuzzi, L.A. & Stevie, F.A. (2005). Introduction to Focused Ion Beams: Instrumentation, Theory, Techniques and Practice. New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouné, M., Danoix, F., Ågren, J., Bréchet, Y., Hutchinson, C.R., Militzer, M., Purdy, G., van der Zwaag, S. & Zurob, H. (2015). Overview of the current issues in austenite to ferrite transformation and the role of migrating interfaces therein for low alloyed steels. Mater Sci Eng R Rep 92, 1–38.Google Scholar
Guo, M., Panahi, D., van Landeghem, H., Hutchinson, C.R., Purdy, G. & Zurob, H.S. (2015). A comparison of ferrite growth kinetics under denitriding and decarburizing conditions. Metall Mater Trans A 46, 2449–2454.Google Scholar
Hillert, M. & Sundman, B. (1976). A treatment of the solute drag on moving grain boundaries and phase interfaces in binary alloys. Acta Metall 24, 731–743.Google Scholar
Kitaguchi, H.S., Lozano-Perez, S. & Moody, M.P. (2014). Quantitative analysis of carbon in cementite using pulsed laser atom probe. Ultramicroscopy 147, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marceau, R.K.W., Choi, P. & Raabe, D. (2013). Understanding the detection of carbon in austenitic high-Mn steel using atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 132, 239–247.Google Scholar
Miller, M.K. (2000). Atom Probe Tomography: Analysis At the Atomic Level. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, G., Shinbo, K. & Furuhara, T. (2012). Quantitative measurement of carbon content in Fe–C binary alloys by atom probe tomography. Scripta Mater 67, 999–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippe, T., De Geuser, F., Duguay, S., Lefebvre, W., Cojocaru-Mirédin, O., Da Costa, G. & Blavette, D. (2009). Clustering and nearest neighbour distances in atom-probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 109, 1304–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purdy, G.R. & Brechet, Y.J.M. (1995). A solute drag treatment of the effects of alloying elements on the rate of the proeutectoid ferrite transformation in steels. Acta Metall Mater 43, 3763–3774.Google Scholar
Sha, W., Chang, L., Smith, G.D.W., Cheng, L. & Mittemeijer, E.J. (1992). Some aspects of atom-probe analysis of Fe-C and Fe-N systems. Surf Sci 266, 416–423.Google Scholar
Sozinov, A.L. & Gavriljuk, V.G. (1999). Estimation of interaction energies Me-(C, N) in f.c.c. iron-based alloys using thermo-calc thermodynamic database. Scripta Mater 41, 679–683.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Lawrence, D., Larson, D.J., Olson, J.D., Kelly, T.F. & Gorman, B. (2007). In situ site-specific specimen preparation for atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 107, 131–139.Google Scholar
Thuvander, M., Weidow, J., Angseryd, J., Falk, L.K.L., Liu, F., Sonestedt, M., Stiller, K. & Andrén, H.-O. (2011). Quantitative atom probe analysis of carbides. Ultramicroscopy 111, 604–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Genderen, M.J., Sijbrandij, S.J., Böttger, A., Mittemeijer, E.J. & Smith, G.D.W. (1997). Atom probe analysis of initial decomposition of Fe-N martensite. Mater Sci Technol 13, 806–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gent, A., Van Doorn, F.C. & Mittemeijer, E.J. (1985). Crystallography and tempering behavior of iron-nitrogen martensite. Metall Trans A 16, 1371–1384.Google Scholar
Van Landeghem, H.P., Langelier, B., Panahi, D., Purdy, G.R., Hutchinson, C.R., Botton, G.A. & Zurob, H.S. (2016). Solute segregation during ferrite growth: Solute/interphase and substitutional/interstitial interactions. JOM 68, 1329–1334.Google Scholar
Volkert, C.A. & Minor, A.M. (2007). Focused ion beam micromachining. MRS Bull 32, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J.F. (2013). SRIM: The Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter. Version 2013.00, www.srim.org Google Scholar
Zurob, H.S., Panahi, D., Hutchinson, C.R., Brechet, Y. & Purdy, G.R. (2013). Self-consistent model for planar ferrite growth in Fe-C-x alloys. Metall Mater Trans A 44, 3456–3471.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Langelier supplementary material

Langelier supplementary material

Download Langelier supplementary material(File)
File 5.5 MB