Technical Papers and Discussions - Transformation of Austenite - Relationship between Transformation at Constant Temperature and Transformation during Cooling (Metals Tech., June 1946, T. P. 2014, with discussion)

TWO metallurgical tools have acquired wide use within the past several years as a means of studying the transformation characteristics of steel. One is a technique used first by Bain and Davenport for determining the transformation characteristics of a steel at constant temperature; the second is the end-quench hardenability test. Constant-temperature transformation curves like those of Bain and Davenport have done much to rationalize the metallography of steel; however, in commercial practices, constant-temperature transformation is seldom encountered, therefore only rarely can such curves be directly applied. The real reason for the determination of such curves lies in the fact that they provide a way of thinking about transformation that is both convenient and productive. The end-quench hardenability test is a more practical means of studying transformation, for, by correlating positions on the hardenability bar with shapes of different masses, an almost direct application of the results can be made. Unfortunately, the end-quench test, though practical, can do very little toward improving the metallurgists' way of thinking about transformation. These two metallurgical tools, dealing with precisely the same phenomenon, should be very closely associated in metallurgists' minds. Actually, they are frequently pushed into separate mental corners and considered as being more or less distinct and unrelated. The reason for this is that no strong connecting link between them has been developed. An attempt is sometimes made to relate these two tools by projecting the critical cooling rate on the isothermal transformation plot as illustrated in Fig. I. The critical cooling rate is considered as a constant rate-though in practical applications, cooling rates are never constant—and this constant cooling rate is given uniform significance from the Ae temperature down to the temperature of initial transformation. A little thought indicates the errors of such a procedure. Certainly the time interval spent just below point A of Fig. I cannot be as effective in promoting nucleation as is the time interval spent just above point B. Yet the procedure represented in Fig. I considers all the time spent between temperatures A and B to be just as effective in promoting nucleation as though all the time were spent at temperature B. Furthermore, change the shape of the isothermal curve between points B and C in any way desired, and the required critical cooling rate is not changed one iota. This cannot possibly be true. Such a way of thinking about critical cooling rates not only is incapable of giving any results that are quantitatively satisfactory but is likely to give very misleading qualitative results.