Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:52:38.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comments on determining X-ray diffraction-based volume fractions of retained austenite in steels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2012

C. K. Lowe-Ma*
Affiliation:
Chemical and Physical Sciences Laboratory, Ford Research Laboratories, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan 48121-2053
W. T. Donlon
Affiliation:
Chemical and Physical Sciences Laboratory, Ford Research Laboratories, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan 48121-2053
W. E. Dowling
Affiliation:
Powertrain Operations, Automatic Transmission New Product Center, Ford Motor Company, Livonia, Michigan 48150
*
a)Electronic mail: clowema@ford.com

Abstract

Retained austenite is an important characteristic of properly heat-treated steel components, particularly gears and shafts, that will be subjected to long-term use and wear. Normally, either X-ray diffraction or optical microscopy techniques are used to determine the volume percent of retained austenite present in steel components subjected to specific heat-treatment regimes. As described in the literature, a number of phenomenological, experimental, and calculation factors can influence the volume fraction of retained austenite determined from X-ray diffraction measurements. However, recent disagreement between metallurgical properties, microscopy, and service laboratory values for retained austenite led to a re-evaluation of possible reasons for the apparent discrepancies. Broad, distorted X-ray peaks from un-tempered martensite were found to yield unreliable integrated intensities whereas diffraction peaks from tempered samples were more amenable to profile fitting with standard shape functions, yielding reliable integrated intensities. Retained austenite values calculated from reliable integrated intensities were found to be consistent with values obtained by Rietveld refinement of the diffraction patterns. The experimental conditions used by service laboratories combined with a poor choice of diffraction peaks were found to be sources of retained austenite values containing significant bias.

Type
Technical Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

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

ASTM E975-95 (1995). “Standard Practice for X-ray Determination of Retained Austenite in Steel with Near Random Crystallographic Orientation,” ASTM Committee E-4, pp. 675–680.Google Scholar
Cullity, B. D. (1978). Elements of X-ray Diffraction, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, London).Google Scholar
Dowling, W. E., Donlon, W. T., and Wise, J. P. (1998). “The Influence of Ammonia on the Surface Microstructure of Carbonitrided 8620 and 5120 Steels,” Proceedings from the 1998 ASM Heat Treating Symposium, ASM Inter-national, Metals Park, OH, pp. 387–397.Google Scholar
Hill, R. J. (1993). “Appendix 5.A, Quantitative phase analysis,” in The Rietveld Method, edited by R. A. Young, International Union of Crystallography (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), pp. 95–96.Google Scholar
Jatczak, C. F., Larson, J. A., and Shin, S. W. (1980). “Retained Austenite and Its Measurements by X-ray Diffraction,” SAE SP-453 (Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA).Google Scholar
Young, R. A., Larson, A. C., and Paiva-Santos, C. O. (1998). “Program DBWS-9807 for Rietveld Analysis of X-ray and Neutron Powder Diffraction Patterns,” Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, August 1998; the 1998 upgrade of “DBWS-9411—an upgrade of the DBWS programs for Rietveld Refinement with PC and mainframe computers,” J. Appl. Crystallogr. JACGAR 28, 366367. acr, JACGAR CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zevin, L. S. and Kimmel, G. (1995). Quantitative X-ray Diffractometry (Springer, New York), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar