Abstract
Bhadeshia recently claimed that the two-step theory of martensitic transformation was mathematically incorrect and incapable of making predictions about the observed pole figures. The present paper argues that his comments are not justified and that his alternative propositions do not agree with the observations. The continuous rotations observed in the pole figures do not result from the tempering treatments but from the plastic accommodation of the lattice transformation during the γ → → α sequence. © 2010 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Published version (
Free)
Free) 
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 call
