4.5 Article

Determination of the Critical Stress Associated with Dynamic Phase Transformation in Steels by Means of Free Energy Method

Journal

METALS
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/met8050360

Keywords

dynamic transformation; free energy method; critical stress; DT ferrite

Funding

  1. McGill Engineering Doctoral Award (MEDA) program
  2. Industrial Research Chair in Forming Technologies of High Strength Materials of the Ecole de Technologie Superieure of Montreal
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  4. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq Brazil)
  5. New Brunswick Innovation Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The double differentiation method overestimates the critical stress associated with the initiation of dynamic transformation (DT) because significant amounts of the dynamic phase must be present in order for its effect on the work hardening rate to be detectable. In this work, an alternative method (referred to here as the free energy method) is presented based on the thermodynamic condition that the driving force is equal to the total energy obstacle during the exact moment of transformation. The driving force is defined as the difference between the DT critical stress (measured in the single-phase austenite region) and the yield stress of the fresh ferrite that takes its place. On the other hand, the energy obstacle consists of the free energy difference between austenite and ferrite, and the work of shear accommodation and dilatation associated with the phase transformation. Here, the DT critical stresses in a C-Mn steel were calculated using the free energy method at temperatures ranging from 870 degrees C to 1070 degrees C. The results show that the calculated critical stress using the present approach appears to be more accurate than the values measured by the double differentiation method.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available