2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.02.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Defining a relationship between pearlite morphology and ferrite crystallographic orientation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, while nanostructured pearlitic steel is of interest to the metallurgic community given its outstanding mechanical properties, especially when the interlamellae spacing is small (Masoumi et al, 2019), very few EBSD-based analyses have been conducted on this material and the information generated was always very limited. In SEM and on sub-200 nm cementite lamellae, analysis has been conducted so far either via EBSD pattern acquisition in spot mode with carefully selected incident beam positions (Takahashi et al, 2007; Zhang et al, 2007), via EBSD mapping of the ferritic matrix (Takahashi et al, 2007), or finally by cementite lamellae trace analysis (Guo & Liu, 2012; Durgaprasad et al, 2017). Figure 2 illustrates, on a small area containing 50 nm wide cementite lamellae, the difficulty to map cementite in pearlite by EBSD.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, while nanostructured pearlitic steel is of interest to the metallurgic community given its outstanding mechanical properties, especially when the interlamellae spacing is small (Masoumi et al, 2019), very few EBSD-based analyses have been conducted on this material and the information generated was always very limited. In SEM and on sub-200 nm cementite lamellae, analysis has been conducted so far either via EBSD pattern acquisition in spot mode with carefully selected incident beam positions (Takahashi et al, 2007; Zhang et al, 2007), via EBSD mapping of the ferritic matrix (Takahashi et al, 2007), or finally by cementite lamellae trace analysis (Guo & Liu, 2012; Durgaprasad et al, 2017). Figure 2 illustrates, on a small area containing 50 nm wide cementite lamellae, the difficulty to map cementite in pearlite by EBSD.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advantage of this method was that the difference in contrast under SEM can be used to qualitatively identify the grain misorientation. The EBSD samples were polished using GATAN Ilion II 697 argon ion polishing system, the voltage was 5 kV, and the polishing time was 2 h. The size of cementite was too thin to be resolved by EBSD system [17] , therefore, only the proeutectoid ferrite (Pro-F) and eutectoid ferrite (Eut-F) at different distances from surface were analyzed. The acceleration voltage was 20 kV, the working distance (WD) was 14 mm-16 mm, and the sample table tilt was 70°.…”
Section: Microstructure Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 38 ] So it will be an important task to explain the transformation process of flaky pearlite, in other words, the growth process of pearlite in 3D space. Moreover, the electron backscattered diffraction (EBSD) technique always obtained a large analysis area, which was the reason why it was possibly only suitable for the analysis of coarse grain, [ 39 ] but not of interface structure. Hence, the purpose of this article is to observe and analyze the microstructure of intragranular pearlite in 100Mn13 high‐carbon, high‐manganese steel aged at 600 °C using SEM and TEM, and provide the updated growth models describing the morphology and growth process in 3D space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%