What could be causing this microstructural difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quentin_alex
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the microstructural differences observed in two A706 grade rebar samples with identical chemical compositions of 0.27 wt%C, 1.2 wt%Mn, and 0.033 wt%V. Despite similar rolling mill parameters, the pearlite size varies significantly, attributed to factors such as cooling rate, carbon content, and bar dimensions. The 19 mm bar exhibits larger pearlite colonies compared to the 13 mm bar, likely due to differences in cooling rates and the extent of deformation during processing. The micrographs indicate that the smaller bar, having undergone more deformation, developed finer pearlite structures.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of microstructural analysis in metallurgy
  • Knowledge of pearlite formation and its influencing factors
  • Familiarity with rebar specifications, particularly A706 grade
  • Basic principles of heat treatment and cooling processes in metals
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of cooling rates on microstructure in steel alloys
  • Study the relationship between bar dimensions and microstructural development
  • Explore the impact of deformation on pearlite formation in steel
  • Investigate the role of carbon content variations in steel microstructures
USEFUL FOR

Metallurgists, materials scientists, and engineers involved in the production and analysis of steel rebar, particularly those focused on microstructural optimization and quality control.

Quentin_alex
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have two rebar samples of virtually identical chemical composition of 0.27 wt%C, 1.2 wt%Mn and 0.033 wt%V that are A706 grade. The rolling mill parameters are essentially the same yet I am seeing differences in pearlite size upon microscopy. The billets used to make the bars are reheated in a furnace before they hit the mill. What are some possible explanations of why this is occurring?

Attached are the two micrographs taken at the same magnification.
5318 A core 20x.png
4534 core 20x.png
 

Attachments

  • 5318 A core 20x.png
    5318 A core 20x.png
    256.5 KB · Views: 775
  • 4534 core 20x.png
    4534 core 20x.png
    223.9 KB · Views: 833
Engineering news on Phys.org
That was my first thought. The images show that the pearlite colonies are significantly larger in the first image, so I am lead to believe there is a difference in both cooling rate and carbon composition. Also, I must add that the micrographs were taken at the core of the bar.
 
Quentin_alex said:
the micrographs were taken at the core of the bar.
Different bar dimensions?
 
The first and second image are of 19 and 13 mm bars, respectively. The bars were not subject to a quenching process, but rather mostly air cooled. Taking the dimensions of the bar into account we might see a slightly finer structure in the center of the 13 mm bar. I think based on the images this is something we can suggest. However, my concern is the dramatic increase in pearlite of the 19 mm bar. I wonder if something else could be causing this.
 
Quentin_alex said:
The first and second image are of 19 and 13 mm bars, respectively.
Pearlite forms as the billet is worked and as the bar cools. The smaller bar needs to be worked for longer, so it has more deformation and time to develop pearlite before the microstructure reactions were frozen.

It is also possible that grain alignment due to stretching is affecting the view. It looks like both sections were cut from the same section orientation across the core of the bar. The section of each grain will be reduced as the crystals are stretched more to make the smaller bar.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G