Institute of Metals Division - Habit Phenomenon in the Martensitic Transformation

GRENINGER and Troiano' were the first to establish the fact that the habit planes of mar-tensitic products are usually planes of high indices. In steels containing 0.55 to 1.4 pct C, the habit plane indices are {225}A.* In steels with more than 1.5 pct C and in Fe-Ni alloys, the indices are {259In. The presence of both habits in certain alloy steels has been reported recently." Several investigators"-" have subsequently attempted to provide an understanding of these complex habit relations. Bowles'6 work is the most recent and the most successful. Like Greninger and Troiano, Bowles concluded that the transformation occurs in two steps, the first, a strain (or displacement) that is homogeneous throughout the volume of the martensitic plate, while the second is a strain that is homogeneous only within relatively small portions of the martensitic plate. The first strain yields the measured tilt of the specimen surface, but does not produce the final martensitic structure. This and the correct lattice orientations are achieved by the second strain. Bowles also reasoned that each strain could be described by the motion of a plane of no rotation and no distortion (hereinafter called the invariant plane) in a direction not necessarily contained in the plane.** In applying these considerations to steels with {225}a habits, Bowles found that the habit plane coincided with the invariant plane of the first strain, a result which signified that the atoms move along certain paths during the transformation. Whether this correlation results from the existence of some sort of a plate nucleus6 lying along the invariant plane of the first strain, or whether the invariant plane primarily defines the preferred directions of propagation of the first strain, will be discussed in a later section. There are two obstacles to the general acceptance of Bowles' treatment: 1—it has not been shown that elements of his double-strain analysis are unique, and 2—it is not known whether his treatment applies to transformations yielding the {2591A habit. Unless these two questions are resolved, the correlation between the habit and invariant planes in the {225}A systems might be regarded as coincidental. Experimental Procedure Using a 70 pct Fe-30 pct Ni alloy as an example of a {2591A habit system, preliminary attempts were made to obtain a double-strain solution based on a Nishiyamax** set of orientation relations and on a Greninger-Troianot set, adopting the stereographic technique described by Bowles" who used the Kurd-jumow-Sachstt set in connection with the {225}A habit. These attempts were unsuccessful because the method is essentially one of trial and error and requires either exceedingly good luck or a prior knowledge of the results being sought. Consequently it was decided to measure independently the strain associated with the formation of a martensitic plate as well as the habit-plane indices of the particular plate. By means of matrix algebra, the measured strain was applied to the austenite lattice, whose orientation with respect to the strain was determined, in order to ascertain whether the resultant structure would have the lattice of martensite. This was not found to be the case, and hence it was assumed that the measured strain was the first of two Bowles-type strains, characterized by the motion of an invariant plane. A solution of this displacement was obtained in terms of the invariant-plane indices and the direction of motion of the atoms. Then the second strain