Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
EBSD measurements were carried out on four different martensitic steels (T91, P92, EM10 and Eurofer) in various metallurgical conditions (nine different microstructural states). The usual orientation relationships (ORs) between the parent austenitic phase and the resulting martensite in martensitic steels are those of Nishiyama–Wassermann (NW) and Kurjumov–Sachs (KS). The present study first proposes a methodology based on the combined analysis of the misorientation distribution, the pole figures (PFs) and the angle/axis pairs. This methodology leads to the conclusion that neither NW nor KS relationships are able to account for all the features observed whatever the material under study. A third OR proposed by Greninger and Troiano (GT) proves to describe the relationship between austenite and ferrite in all four different martensitic steels much more accurately.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barcelo et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: