Modelling of isothermal formation of pearlite and subsequent

reaustenitisation in eutectoid steel during continuous heating

F. G. Caballero, C. Capdevila and C. García de Andrés

Dr. F.G. Caballero and Dr. C. García de Andrés are in the Department of Physical
Metallurgy, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Metalúrgicas (CENIM), CSIC,
Avda. Gregorio del Amo, 8, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Dr. C. Capdevila, is in the
Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, University of Cambridge,
Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK

1
Three different morphologies of pearlite have been formed isothermally at three

different temperatures in a eutectoid steel. Moreover, the interlamellar spacing of

pearlite was calculated using Zener and Hillert theoretical method. Experimental

results suggest that the growth of pearlite is mainly controlled by volume diffusion of

carbon in austenite in the temperature range studied in this steel. In addition, a model

that describes pearlite-to-austenite transformation during continuous heating in a

eutectoid steel has been developed. The influence of structure parameters, such as

interlamellar spacing and edge length of pearlite colonies, on the transformation

kinetics has been experimentally studied and considered in the modeling. It has been

found that the kinetics of pearlite-to-austenite transformation is slower the coarser

the initial pearlite microstructure. Experimental validation of this model has been

carried out and a good agreement (accuracy higher than 90% in square correlation

factor) between experimental and calculated values has been found.

2
1 Introduction

Pearlite is a lamellar product of eutectoid decomposition, which can be formed in

steels and non-ferrous alloys during transformations under isothermal or continuous

cooling.1,2 A pearlite nodule is composed of multiple colonies; each colony has

parallel lamellae, which are orientated differently with respect to lamellae in adjacent

colonies. This also exhibits a wide range of interlamellar spacing in different

colonies because of the intersection of pearlite colonies at different angles with the

polishing plane. The interlamellar spacing is reflected by the diffusion kinetics at the

transformation front and is a sensitive parameter which, in a particular steel, is larger

as the transformation temperature increases.3 Mehl and co-workers3 demonstrated

that the spacing decreases as the degree of undercooling, ∆T, below the eutectoid

temperature, increases. Zener4 provided the first theoretical analysis of these

observations, which allows a calculation of the interlamellar spacing of pearlite as a

function of undercooling.

Pearlite transformation in steels is reconstructive and known to show a constant

growth rate.5 The growth rate of pearlite is generally believed to be controlled by

either volume diffusion of carbon4,6 or by boundary diffusion of substitutional

alloying elements.7 There are some studies debating the importance of boundary

diffusion of carbon, especially at intermediate transformation temperatures8,

although this possibility is not consider in the present work.

In this paper, three different morphologies of pearlite were formed isothermally at

three different temperatures in a eutectoid steel. As Mehl et al. and Zener reported3,4,

the pearlite is finer the lower formation temperature. Moreover, the interlamellar

3
spacing was calculated using the theoretical method proposed by Zener and

Hillert.4,6,7 Experimental results suggest that the growth of pearlite is mainly

controlled by volume diffusion of carbon in austenite in the temperature range

studied in this steel.

On the other hand, the formation of austenite during heating differs in many ways

from those transformations that occur during cooling of austenite. In this sense, the

kinetics of transformation of austenite during cooling can be described completely in

terms of chemical composition and grain size of only this phase. However, the

microstructure from which austenite may grow during heating can be much more

complex. Therefore, to describe the kinetics of austenite formation additional

variables are needed. Factors such as particle size, the distribution and chemistry of

individual phases, homogeneity, the presence of non-metallic inclusions, all are

important.9-12 In the case of reaustenitization from pearlite the most relevant

structural factor to be considered is the interlamellar spacing of pearlite.13

In fully pearlitic steel, austenite nucleates heterogeneously at the junctions between

pearlite colonies. This is in spite of the relatively large amount of interlamellar

surfaces available within the pearlite colonies, which seem to be much less effective

as sites for the nucleation of austenite.14 The rate of growth of the austenite is

primarily controlled by the rate of carbon diffusion in the austenite between adjacent

pearlitic cementite lamellae, but may also be influenced by boundary diffusion of

substitutional alloying elements at low temperature.10

Models of specific metallurgical approaches exist for isothermal reaustenitization

from different initial microstructures.10,14-20 However, none of these is likely to be

applicable to non-isothermal conditions. In this work, a model is also presented for

4
the reaustenitization from pearlite during continuous heating in a eutectoid steel. The

influence of parameters such as the interlamellar spacing of pearlite and the

length of the edge of the pearlite colonies on transformation kinetics has been

considered in the model. Results of modeling have been experimentally validated at

the three different morphologies of pearlite previously formed isothermally.

2 Experimental Procedure

2.1 ISOTHERMAL FORMATION AND MORPHOLOGICAL

CHARACTERIZATION OF PEARLITE

A eutectoid carbon steel with an actual composition (wt-%) of 0.76C, 0.24Si,

0.91Mn and 0.013P was used. The following heat treatments were carried out to

yield in this steel fully pearlitic microstructures with different morphologies.

Specimens were austenitized for 5 min at 1273 K, isothermally transformed at three

different temperatures and subsequently cooled rapidly to room temperature. Table 1

lists all the temperatures and holding times used for the isothermal formation of

pearlite with different morphological parameters in this steel.

The heating and cooling devices of an Adamel Lhomargy DT1000 high-resolution

dilatometer have been used to perform all the heat treatments previously mentioned.

This dilatometer is equipped with a radiation furnace for heating. The power radiated

by two tungsten filament lamps is focused on the specimen by means of a bi-elliptical

reflector. The temperature is measured with a 0.1 mm diameter Chromel-Alumel (type

K) thermocouple welded to the specimen. Cooling is carried out by blowing a jet of

5
helium gas directly onto the specimen surface. The helium flow rate during cooling is

controlled by a proportional servovalve. The excellent efficiency of heat transmission

and the very low thermal inertia of the system ensure that the heating and cooling rates,

ranging from 0.003 K/s to approximately 200 K/s, remain constant.

Specimens were polished in the usual way and finished on 0.25 µm diamond paste

for metallographic examination. It was found that long polishing times, particularly

on the 6 µm pad, resulted in a deep worked layer that produced a distorted lamellar

structure. Cementite plates in final microstructure seem to bend and eventually

fracture during plastic deformation of ferrite plates induced by long polishing

periods. Polishing times up to five minutes on the 0.25 µm pad were found to be

adequate to remove evidence of surface deformation caused by previous pads. Deep

primary etching with a solution of picric acid in isopropyl alcohol with several drops

of Vilella’s reagent was used to ensure that any deformed layer introduced by

polishing was removed. This etching was eliminated using the 1 and 0.25 µm

diamond pads with almost no pressure being exerted on the sample for no longer

than 3 to 4 min. The sample was then etched again, this time lightly, and polished

carefully on the 1 and 0.25 µm diamond pad. Finally, a light etch was given to the

sample.

This repeated polishing-etching procedure allows disclosure of the morphology of

pearlite in specimens MORF1 and MORF2 on a JEOL JXA - 820 scanning electron

microscope (SEM) (Figs. 1(a) and (b)). The morphology of pearlite in specimen

MORF3 was revealed by transmission electron microscopy. Cylindrical samples

were sliced into 100 µm thick discs and subsequently ground down to a thickness of

50 µm on wet 800 grit silicon carbide paper. These foils were finally electropolished

6
until perforation occurred in a twin-jet electropolishing unit at room temperature and

a voltage of 100 V using a solution of 5% perchloric acid, 15% glycerol and 80%

methanol. Thin foils were examined in a JEOL – 200CX transmission electron

microscope (TEM) at an operating voltage of 200 kV (Fig. 1(c)).

Two parameters, the mean true interlamellar spacing (σo) and the area per unit

volume of the pearlite colonies interface ( S vPP ), characterize the morphology of

pearlite.15 The values of σo were derived from electron micrographs according to

Underwood’s intersection procedure. Underwood21 recommends determining the

mean random spacing σr first to estimate the mean true spacing σo. For this purpose,

a circular test grid of diameter dc is superimposed on an electron micrograph. The

number n of intersections of lamellae of carbide with the test grid is counted. This

procedure is repeated on a number of fields chosen randomly. Then, the mean

random spacing σr is calculated from:

πd c
σr = (1)
nM

where M is the magnification of the micrograph.

Saltykov22 has shown that, for pearlite with a constant spacing within each colony,

the mean true spacing σo is related to the mean random spacing σr by:

σr
σo = (2)
2

7
The values of S vPP were measured by counting the number of intersections (n') of the

pearlite colony boundaries with a circular test grid of diameter d'c as reported by

Roosz et al..15 Then, the area per unit volume of the pearlite colonies interface is:

2n ' M
S vPP = (3)
πd ' c

Approximating the pearlite colony by a truncated octahedron, the edge length of the

pearlite colonies ( a P ) is calculated from the area per unit volume S vPP with the

following expression23:

SvPP =
(
6 1+ 2 3 )
(a P )2
=
31+ 2 3 ( ) (4)
P 3
8 2 (a ) 4 2a P

Data for σo, S vPP and a P are listed in Table 2.

2.2 DILATOMETRIC AND METALLOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF

REAUSTENITIZATION FROM PEARLITE

The experimental validation of the reaustenitization model developed in this work

was carried out using the dilatometer described above. To analyze the progress of

pearlite-to-austenite transformation, interrupted heating experiments were carried out

by quenching. Dilatometric specimens with the three different morphologies of

pearlite (see Table 2) were heated at a constant rate of 5 K/s. Each test was repeated

8
three times. Heating dilatometric curves were analyzed to determine the start

temperature (Ac1) and the end temperature (Ac3) of pearlite-to-austenite

transformation and then several quench-out temperatures were selected in order to

investigate the progress of the transformation. Figure 2 shows the seven selected

quench-out temperatures on a dilatometric curve. They were defined as follows:

Ta=Ac1-5 K, Tb=Ac1, Tc, Td, and Te, are the temperatures at the maximum, inflexion

point and minimum, respectively, of the heating dilatometric curve, Tf=Ac3 and

Tg=Ac3+10 K. The Ac1 and Ac3 temperatures are the average value of three similar

tests. All these temperatures at which heating was interrupted by quenching are listed

in Table 3.

Austenite, which is formed inside pearlite, transforms to martensite during

quenching. Thus, the progress of reaustenitization process is determined throughout

the evolution of the volume fraction of martensite. Specimens from interrupted

heating experiments were polished in the usual way for metallographic examination.

Le Pera’s reagent24 was used to reveal martensite formed during quenching. The

quantitative measurement of martensite volume fraction was determined by point

counting21.

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 CALCULATION OF THE INTERLAMELLAR SPACING OF

ISOTHERMALLY FORMED PEARLITE IN A EUTECTOID STEEL

9
The growth rate of pearlite is believed to be controlled by either volume diffusion of

carbon4,6 or by boundary diffusion of substitutional alloying elements.7 When the

growth rate of pearlite is controlled by the bulk diffusion of atoms in austenite ahead

of the interface, the diffusion of carbon may play a more important role than that of

substitutional alloying elements. Since the diffusivity of the substitutional alloying

elements in austenite is far smaller than that of carbon, the substitutional alloying

elements may not diffuse a long distance during the reaction. In that case, Zener4

proposed the following relationship between the interlamellar spacing, σo, and the

theoretical critical spacing at zero growth rate, σc, based on the maximum growth

rate criterion. That leads to an expression for σo as a function of the pearlite

formation temperature:

4Teσ αθ
σ o = 2σ c = (5)
∆H v (Te − T )

where Te is the eutectoid temperature, T is the formation temperature, σαθ is the

interfacial energy per unit area of the ferrite-cementite lamellar boundary in pearlite

and ∆Hv is the change in enthalpy of transformation per unit volume.

Puls and Kirkaldy25 reported the following σαθ and ∆Hv values, the former is an

experimental value due to Kramer et al.26

( )
σ αθ J / m 2 = 1 (6)

( )
∆H v J / m 3 = 6.07 × 108 (7)
10
From Eqs. (6) and (7), and considering an approximated eutectoid temperature, Te, of

1000 K, Eq. (5) could be rewritten as follows:

6.5898
σ o µm = (8)
(1000 − T )

with T given in K.

When the partitioning of the substitutional alloying elements is substantial during the

growth of pearlite, boundary diffusion of the alloying elements may control the

growth rate of pearlite. In that case, the maximum growth rate criterion of Zener4

gives an expression for σo as a function of the pearlite formation temperature as

follows:

3 3Teσ αθ
σo = σc = (9)
2 ∆H v (Te − T )

Substituting Eqs. (6) and (7) in Eq. (9) and considering again an approximated

eutectoid temperature, Te, of 1000 K, an expression of the interlamellar spacing as a

function of the formation temperature is obtained in this steel for the case of

boundary diffusion of controlled pearlite growth with T given in K:

4.9423
σ o µm = (10)
(1000 − T )

11
Figure 3 represents the variation of the interlamellar spacing as a function of

undercooling for rate controlling mechanism of pearlite growth via volume

diffusion of carbon and via boundary diffusion of substitutional alloying

elements, calculated according to Eqs. (8) and (10), respectively. Moreover, this

figure shows the experimental values of interlamellar spacing listed in Table 2. This

figure suggests that the growth of pearlite is mainly controlled by volume diffusion

of carbon in austenite in the temperature range studied and confirms the applicability

of Zener and Hillert theory to this particular steel.

3.2 MODELING OF NON-ISOTHERMAL PEARLITE-TO-AUSTENITE

TRANSFORMATION KINETICS

Nucleation and growth processes under isothermal condition can be described in

general using the Avrami's equation27:

(
x = 1 − exp − Kt n ) (11)

where x represents the formed austenite volume fraction, K is a constant for a given

temperature, t is the time, and n is a constant characterizing the kinetics. Roosz et

al.15 obtained a value of n=4 from their measured data under isothermal condition.

According to Christian5, with a spherical configuration, a value of n=4 means that the
•

nucleation rate ( N ) and the growth rate (G) are constant in time. This gives a

transformed volume fraction of:

12
  π • 
x = 1 − exp  − N G 3t 4  (12)
 3 

Roosz et al.15 proposed a temperature and structure dependence of N and G as a

function of the reciprocal value of overheating (∆T = T-Ac1) as follows:

•
 − QN 
N = f N exp  (13)
 k ∆T 

 − QG 
G = f G exp  (14)
 k∆T 

where QN and QG were denominated activation energies of nucleation and growth by

Roosz et al.15, respectively, k is Boltzmann’s constant, and fN and fG are the functions

representing the influence of the structure on the nucleation and growth rates,

respectively. The activation energies of nucleation and growth, QN and QG, were

determined experimentally by Roosz et al.15 in a eutectoid steel (QN=3.5×10-22 J and

QG=4.1×10-22 J).

The three different ferrite/cementite interface sites for austenite nucleation in fully

pearlitic steels are: A) the interface of ferrite and cementite platelets, B) the surfaces

of the pearlite colony, and C) the triple points of the pearlite colony intersections.

Several authors14-16 reported that the nucleation of austenite inside pearlite takes

place preferentially at the points of intersection of cementite with the edges of the

pearlite colony (type C).

13
Approximating the pearlite colony as a truncated octahedron, the number of

nucleation sites per unit volume (type C) is calculated as follows:

 36 a P 
 
 3 σ  36a P
o 
NC = 
1
= ≈ P 2 (15)
8 2 aP( )
3 3
( )
24 2 a P σ o ( a ) σ 

where aP is the edge length of the pearlite colony and σo is the interlamellar spacing.

Bearing in mind that the rate of nucleation increases as the pearlite interlamellar

spacing decreases and the edge length of the pearlite colony increases28, the function

fN in Eq. (13) would have the general form:

fN = KN
(a )
P n
( N C )i (16)
σ om

where KN, n, m, and i are empirical parameters. These parameters were adjusted in

order to obtain good fit between theory and the experimental austenite volume

fraction curves. Different cases of structure dependence for n, m, and i were

investigated and it was found out that the measured values of austenite volume

5
fraction as a function of temperature can be best described with n=6, m=1, and i= .
3

Assuming that the growth of austenite into pearlite is controlling by volume

diffusion of carbon in austenite15, the function fG in Eq. (14) representing the

structure dependence on the growth rate can be expressed as follows,

14
 1
fG = KG (17)
σ

where KG is an empirical constant.

Substituting Eqs. (16) and (17) in Eqs. (13) and (14), respectively:

( )
N 1 / mm s = 2.2 × 10
3 12 (a )
P 6
(NC
5
)3
 − 25.38 
exp  (18)
σo  ∆T 

 − 29.7 
G (mm / s ) = 10 −10
1
exp  (19)
σ  ∆T 

KN and KG empirical constants were adjusted from the experimental austenite volume

fraction results.

The difficulties in treating non-isothermal reactions are mainly due to the

independent variations of growth and nucleation rates with temperature, described in

Eqs. (18) and (19). The problem is only undertaken when the rate of transformation

depends exclusively on the state of the assembly and not on the thermal path by

which the state is reached.27 Reactions of this type are called isokinetic. Avrami

defined an isokinetic reaction by the condition that the nucleation and growth rates

are proportional to each other (i.e. they have the same temperature variation). This

leads to the concept of additivity and Scheil's rule.29

Since Avrami's condition for an isokinetic reaction is not here satisfied, a general

equation to describe the non-isothermal overall pearlite-to-austenite transformation

in pearlitic steel was derived integrating the Avrami's equation over the whole
15
temperature range where the transformation takes place.30 In this sense, we have

taken logarithms in Eq. (11) and then it was differentiated,

 1  dx 4π • 3 3
d  ln = = N G t dt (20)
 1− x  1− x 3

If we consider a constant rate for the heating condition, time can be expressed as

follows:

dT ∆T
dt = • t= • (21)
T T

and substituting into Eq. (20):

dx 4π • 3 ∆T 3
= NG dT (22)
1− x
•
3 T 4

Integrating in Eq. (22) in [0, x ] and [Ac1 , T ] intervals on the left and on the right

sides, respectively, it can be concluded that:

 T 4π • 
x = 1 − exp  - ∫ N G 3
∆ T 3
dT  (23)
 •

 Ac1 3 T 
4

16
 • •

where T is the heating rate and, N and G are given by Eqs. (18) and (19). The

eutectoid temperature Ac1 of the steel was calculated using Andrews’ formula.31

3.3 EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF THE MODEL

Figure 4 shows the experimental and calculated austenite formation kinetics plotted

as a function of temperature for three different morphologies of pearlite. R2 is the

square correlation factor of the experimental and calculated volume fraction of

austenite formed at different temperatures. This parameter quantifies the accuracy of

the model. The figure suggests that austenite transformation starts later and appears

to be slower the coarser the initial pearlite microstructure. Experimental results for

the austenite volume fraction are in good agreement with the predicted values from

the model proposed in this work. The accuracy of this model is in the three cases

higher than 90% which can be considered excellent for a kinetics model bearing in

mind the experimental difficulties for its validation.

Figure 5 shows microscopic evidences of how the pearlite-to-austenite reaction

occurs for the three morphologies of pearlite throughout micrographs from

interrupted heating samples at the start, intermediate and finish stages of the

reaustenitization process. Le Pera’s reagent24 reveals pearlite as a darker phase in the

microstructure, whereas martensite formed during quenching appears as lighter

regions in the micrographs. Microstructures in Figs. 5(a), (d) and (g) are formed

mainly of pearlite and some grains of martensite. At these quench-out temperatures,

the pearlite-to-austenite transformation starts, and those temperatures are considered

the transformation start temperature, TS, of the three different morphologies of

17
pearlite. Figures 5(b), (e) and (h) show an intermediate stage of the reaction. Finally,

Figs. 5(c), (f) and (i) represent microstructures formed mainly of martensite. At this

stage, the transformation pearlite-to-austenite has reached completion and those

quench-out temperatures are considered the transformation finish temperature, TF, of

the three different morphologies of pearlite.

Comparison between experimental and calculated results of start (TS) and finish (TF)

temperatures of pearlite-to-austenite transformation is shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b),

respectively. TS temperature is considered to be the temperature at which a volume

fraction of austenite of approximately 0.01 is formed during continuous heating.

Moreover, TF temperature has been defined as the temperature at which a volume

fraction of austenite of approximately 0.99 is present in the microstructure. Points

lying on the line of unit slope show a perfect agreement between experimental and

calculated values. The accuracy of the calculations is quantified by R2. Figure 6(a)

shows a difference of no more than 5 K between the experimental and calculated TS

values. That difference can be a reflection of the fact that this temperature is difficult

to determine experimentally by optical microscopy on interrupted heating specimens

at previously selected quench-out temperatures on dilatometric curves. Likewise,

Fig. 6(b) shows a very good agreement (R2 of 0.9992) between experimental and

predicted TF values. Furthermore, Figs. 6(a) and (b) suggest that both TS and TF

temperatures are higher the coarser the initial pearlite. The morphology of initial

pearlite is therefore a fundamental variable in the inevitable austenitization process

during the heat treatment of steels.

18
4 Conclusions

1. Three different morphologies of pearlite were isothermally formed at three

temperatures in a eutectoid steel (0.76C-0.91Mn-0.24Si-0.013P). The

interlamellar spacing of these morphologies were measured by electron

microscopy. Moreover, the interlamellar spacing of pearlite was calculated as a

function of the undercooling from Zener and Hillert theoretical model. It has

been demonstrated that for this steel, the growth of pearlite is controlled by the

diffusion of carbon in austenite in the studied temperature range.

2. Since conditions to apply Scheil's rule are rarely satisfied, a mathematical model

applying the Avrami's equation has been used to reproduce the kinetics of the

pearlite-to-austenite transformation in a eutectoid steel during continuous

heating. The model proposes two functions, fN and fG, which represent the

dependence of nucleation and growth rates, respectively, on the structure. The

influence of the parameters that characterize the morphology of pearlite on the

overall transformation kinetics has also been experimentally studied. It has been

found that austenite formation commences at higher temperature the coarser the

pearlite. Moreover, the kinetics of the transformation are slower the coarser the

initial pearlite microstructure. Experimental results for the austenite volume

fraction and start and finish temperatures of pearlite-to-austenite transformation

are in good agreement with the predicted values from the model proposed in this

work (accuracy higher than 90% in square correlation factor).

19
5 Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial support from Consejería de Educación y Cultura

de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (CAM 07N/0065/1998).

20
6 References

1. N. RIDLEY: Metall. Trans., 1984, 16A, 1019-1036.

2. N. RIDLEY: in ‘Phase Transformations in Ferrous Alloys’, (Eds. A. R. Marder

and J. I. Goldstein), 201-236; 1984, Warrendale, TMS-AIME.

3. R. F. MEHL, C. S. BARRETT, D.W. SMITH: Trans. AIME, 1933, 105, 215-258.

4. C. ZENER: Trans. AIME, 1946, 167, 550-595.

5. J. W. CHRISTIAN: ‘The Theory of Transformations in Metals and Alloys.

Part 1’, 19; 1975, Oxford, Pergamon Press.

6. M. HILLERT: Jernkont. Ann., 1957, 141, 757-764.

7. M. HILLERT: ‘The Mechanism of Phase Transformation in Crystalline Solids,

231; 1969, London, Institute of Metals.

8. K. HASHIGUCHI and J. S. KIRKALDY: Scandinavian Journal of

Metallurgy, 1984, 13, 240-248.

9. C. I. GARCÍA and A. J. DEARDO: Metall. Trans., 1981, 12A, 521-530.

10. G. R. SPEICH, V. A. DEMAREST and R. L. MILLER: Metall. Trans., 1981,

12A, 1419-1428.

11. M. M. SOUZA, J. R. C. GUIMARAES and K. K. CHAWLA: Metall. Trans.,

1982, 13A, 575-579.

12. XUE-LING CAI, A. J. GARRAT-REED and W. S. OWEN: Metall. Trans.,

1985, 16A, 543-557.

13. C. GARCÍA DE ANDRÉS, F. G. CABALLERO and C. CAPDEVILA: Scripta

Mater., 1998, 38, 1835-1842.

14. G. R. SPEICH and A. SZIRMAE: Trans. TMS-AIME, 1969, 245, 1063-1074.

21
15. A. ROOSZ, Z. GACSI and E. G. FUCHS: Acta Metall., 1983, 31, 509-517.

16. R. R. JUDD and H. W. PAXTON: Trans. TMS-AIME, 1968, 242, 206-215.

17. M. HILLERT, K. NILSSON and L. E. TORNDAHL: JISI, 1971, 209, 49-66.

18. D. P. DATTA and A. M. GOKHALE: Metall. Trans., 1981, 12A, 443-450.

19. E. NAVARA and R. HARRYSSON: Scripta Metall., 1984, 18, 605-610.

20. S. F. DIRNFELD, B. M. KOREVAAR and F. VAN’T SPIJKER: Metall. Trans.,

1974, 5, 1437-1444.

21. E. E. UNDERWOOD: ‘Quantitative Stereology’, 73-75; 1970, Reading,

Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

22. S. A. SALTYKOV: ‘Stereometric Metallography’, 2nd ed., ADC267-701; 1958,

Moscow, Metallurgizdat.

23. R. T. DE HOFF and F. H. RHINES: ‘Quantitative Stereology’, 93; 1968, New

York, McGraw-Hill.

24. F. S. LE PERA: J. Metals, 1980, 32, 38-39.

25. M. P. PULS and J. S. KIRKALDY: Metall. Trans., 1972, 3, 2777-2796.

26. J. J. KRAMER, G. M. POUND, and R. F. MEHL: Acta Metall., 1958, 6, 763-

771.

27. M. AVRAMI: J. Chem. Phys., 1940, 8, 212.

28. G. A. ROBERTS and R. F. MEHL: Trans. ASM., 1943, 31, 613-650.

29. R. G. KAMAT, E. B. HAWBOLT, L. C. BROWN and J. K. BRIMACOMBE:

Metall. Trans., 1992, 23A, 2469-2482.

30. C. GARCÍA DE ANDRÉS, F. G. CABALLERO, C. CAPDEVILA and H. K. D.

H. BHADESHIA: Scripta Mater., 1998, 39, 791-796.

31. K. W. ANDREWS: JISI, 1965, 203, 721-727.

22
Table 1 Isothermal Conditions Employed for the

Formation of Fully Pearlitic Microstructures

Specimen Temperature / K Time / min

MORF1 948 45

MORF2 923 10

MORF3 798 60

23
Table 2 Morphological Characterization of Pearlite

Specimen σo / µm S vPP × 10-3 / µm-1 aP / µm

MORF1 0.20±0.03 581±86 4.16±0.70

MORF2 0.08±0.01 1399±273 1.76±0.34

MORF3 0.06±0.01 1432±60 1.65±0.07

24
Table 3 Temperatures in K of Heating Interruption by Quenching

Morphology Ta Tb Tc Td Te Tf Tg

MORF1 1014 1019 1023 1026 1041 1050 1060

MORF2 1002 1007 1012 1019 1026 1039 1049

MORF3 1001 1006 1008 1011 1019 1031 1041

25
 a MORF1 (SEM), σo=0.20 µm; b MORF2 (SEM), σo=0.08 µm; c MORF3

(TEM), σo=0.06 µm

1 Electron micrographs of the three different morphologies of pearlite

considered in this study

26
2 Temperatures selected from heating dilatometric curves to investigate the
progress of reaustenitization from pearlite

27
 0,35
INTERLAMELLAR SPACING, µm Experimental values
0,30

0,25
Boundary diffusion of
0,20 substitutional alloying
elements
0,15 Volume diffusion of
carbon
0,10

0,05

0,00
0 50 100 150 200 250
UNDERCOOLING T e -T , K

3 Experimental values and theoretical variation of interlamellar spacing as a

function of undercooling in a eutectoid steel

28
 1,20

1,00 R 2 =0,9867

0,80

0,60

0,40 MORF1
σ o =0.20 µm
0,20 a P =4.16 µm

0,00
990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080
AUSTENITE VOLUME FRACTION

1,20

1,00 R 2 =0,9984

0,80 Experimental

0,60 Calculated

0,40 MORF2
σ o =0.08 µm
0,20 a P =1.76 µm

0,00
990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080
1,20

1,00 R 2 =0,9219

0,80

0,60

0,40 MORF3
σ o =0.06 µm
0,20 a P =1.65 µm
0,00
990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080
TEMPERATURE, K

4 Experimental and calculated kinetics results for the formation of austenite

inside pearlite under continuous heating conditions in eutectoid steel

29
 a TS, MORF1; b TI, MORF1; c TF, MORF1; d TS, MORF2; e TI, MORF2; f TF,

MORF2; g TS, MORF3; h TI, MORF3; i TF, MORF3

5 Optical micrographs corresponding to the start (TS), intermediate (TI) and

finish (TF) temperatures of the reaustenitization process

30
 1030

CALCULATED TS TEMPERATURE, K
(a)

1025

1020 MORF1

1015

MORF2
2
R =0,9154
MORF3
1010
1010 1015 1020 1025 1030
EXPERIMENTAL TS TEMPERATURE, K
1070
CALCULATED T F TEMPERATURE, K

(b)
1060 MORF1

1050

1040
MORF2

1030 MORF3

R 2 =0,9992
1020
1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070
EXPERIMENTAL T F TEMPERATURE, K

a start temperature, TS ; b finish temperature, TF

6 Comparison of experimental and calculated critical temperatures of

pearlite-to-austenite transformation in a eutectoid steel.

31