Abstract
In this article we discuss the effect of different test parameters on the analysis of retained austenite in TRIP590, TRIP780 and X90 steels, by means of Electron Backscattered Diffraction (EBSD) and X-ray Diffraction (XRD), respectively. By analyzing the measuring retained austenite content under different conditions, the optimal test parameters were obtained. The retained austenite content measured both by the EBSD and XRD methods were also compared. The results showed that the test parameters had a great influence on the measured results of retained austenite content in steel by the EBSD method. The higher the indexing rate, the better the precision of the measured results. The step size used for EBSD analysis should not exceed 1/5 of the average grain size of retained austenite. The scanning area for EBSD retained austenite analysis in TRIP and pipeline steels should be no less than 0.068 mm2, which is recommended to be performed by multiple small fields.
Highlights
In recent years, retained austenite has been widely used in many steels, such as transformation induced plasticity (TRIP) steel, quenching and partitioning (QP) steel and so on [1,2,3,4]
5338-2006 [13] and ASTM E975-13 [14]. Both standards have some limitations in the process of use: Firstly, the measured result is greatly affected by the crystallographic orientation or texture in steel [15,16,17]; secondly, the shape and distribution of retained austenite cannot be characterized; thirdly, the lower detection limit is high (1% or more [14]) and the trace retained austenite cannot be measured by the X-ray Diffraction (XRD) method
It could be found that high indexing rate, small step size and more field number (In this paper, the field number is defined as the number of the scanning maps) were necessary for the Electron Backscattered Diffraction (EBSD) analysis of retained austenite content in TRIP590 steel
Summary
In recent years, retained austenite has been widely used in many steels, such as transformation induced plasticity (TRIP) steel, quenching and partitioning (QP) steel and so on [1,2,3,4]. 5338-2006 [13] and ASTM E975-13 [14] Both standards have some limitations in the process of use: Firstly, the measured result is greatly affected by the crystallographic orientation or texture in steel [15,16,17]; secondly, the shape and distribution of retained austenite cannot be characterized; thirdly, the lower detection limit is high (1% or more [14]) and the trace retained austenite cannot be measured by the XRD method. The EBSD method is not influenced by the crystallographic orientation or texture in steel It can provide the content of retained austenite, and the distribution and morphology of the austenite phase
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
