Grain-Size Inheritance In Iron And Carbon Steel (6de8eda1-260e-4060-bc1c-6bda44682af3)

ZAY JEFFRIES (written discussion*).-I have read with much interest Mr. Ruder's discussion of Professor Howe's paper, "The Supposed Reversal of Inheritance of Ferrite Grain Size from that of Austenite." I am yet of the opinion that my first explanation' of Mr. Ruder's samples is substantially correct. In that explanation I did not intend, however, to convey the impression that "reversed inheritance" was the general rule nor even of common occurrence but rather that." Non-inheritance" was the general rule. Mr. Ruder suggests that a " perfectly formed" grain is an indication of inheritance. The grains in my Fig. 52 are perfectly formed and in fact more nearly equiaxed than those in Mr. Ruder's Fig: C,3 yet the grains in the former are known not to be inherited but to have been formed by the partitioning of larger austenite grains. On close examination of Mr. Ruder's Fig. C the very shapes of the grain suggest partitioning. Again, the grain size (25 to 30 grains per square millimeter) is at least 10 or- more likely 20 times smaller than might be expected of the austenite from which these grains were .formed under the given time and temperature conditions. Mr. Ruder's newer results on electrolytic and Armco iron are most interesting and instructive. His results fit in. nicely with my conclusions 5, 6 and 10.4 His photographs, however, indicate that the thickness of the pieces of sheet metal are such that abnormal grain growth is promoted. He indicates that equilibrium grain size after heating to 950° C., with furnace cooling, is about the same as his Fig. 1, above. I estimate this to be approximately one-half -grain per square millimeter, or 40 times as large as I have obtained with the same material (Armco iron) after heating Y4-in. bars to 1300° C. for 2 hr. and cooling in the furnace. The effect of thickness of sample on grain size is one which needs more attention.