1. Introduction
Industrial needs create a continual drive for improving the strength and ductility of low alloy steels. Considerable research effort focuses on new steel alloys, but existing ones must also be improved. Obtaining improvements in strength and ductility at the same time limit the strengthening strategies available to reducing grain size. Several approaches can be employed limiting grain size: slight alloying element modifications for creating grain pinning precipitates, improved thermomechanical processing, and better nucleation during solidification [
1]. Grain pinning and improved thermomechanical processing have been extensively examined but are of minimal use in net shape casting applications. Mechanical deformation of the steel in this application is not possible. Thus, manipulating the nucleation potential of the melt during solidification remains the most logical route.
Improving nucleation within a melt requires the addition of heterogeneous nuclei. These nuclei are solid particles in the liquid metal that assist the formation of the solid phase during freezing. The introduction of a large number of these particles will increase the number of dendrites formed during solidification and decrease the primary dendrite arm spacing (DAS). A smaller DAS will increase the strength and ductility of the alloy. Effective heterogeneous nuclei meet four criteria: solid at the freezing temperature of the alloy, thermodynamically stable in the melt, have a low lattice disregistry with the solid being formed, and wetted by the liquid metal [
2]. Classical heterogeneous nucleation theory has implied that the lattice disregistry can only be between similar crystallographic structures; however, recently edge-to-edge theory has begun to extend this to any set of crystal structures for solidification and solid phase transformations [
3,
4,
5]. Edge-to-edge theory simply requires that a sufficient number of atoms share similar locations and distances on any set of crystallographic planes [
4].
Rare earth (RE) additions have been found to result in the refinement of multiple steel alloys [
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12]. Most RE compounds, such as Ce
2O
3 and CeAlO
3, have an excellent match with austenite, which tends to be the primary phase for high carbon steels and some stainless steels. A smaller set of compounds (CeS and CeO) match δ-ferrite, the primary phase for most steels. Experimental evidence makes it clear RE additions are effective in all steels [
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12]. However, work by Tuttle showed that steels with higher portions of their freezing range dominated by austenite experienced more refinement of the solidification structure and final microstructure [
13]. This result supports the conclusion that RE compounds tend to provide better nucleation for austenite than δ-ferrite. However, the strong experimental evidence still supports some role for RE compounds in assisting δ-ferrite formation since refinement does occur.
Initially, RE based grain refinement focused on single phase or non-hardenable steels [
6,
14,
15,
16,
17]. This was due to the limited strengthening options of these alloys. However, interest also turned to low alloy steels [
11,
12,
18]. Experimentation on 4130 found refinement occurred in the solidification structure which resulted in improved strength and ductility [
11]. A larger strength increase was found in the quench and tempered (Q&T) condition [
11]. RE compounds produced a similar result in 1030 in the Q&T condition [
12]. However, this trend of refinement of the as-cast and Q&T microstructures has not been universal. Work on HY100 uncovered no refinement in the as-cast structure but an improvement in the properties for the Q&T condition [
18]. It appears the RE inclusions may act as heterogeneous nuclei for austenite during the austenization stage of the Q&T heat treatment. The nucleation of more austenite during heat treatment would lead to a smaller martensite packet size and the observed property improvements [
11,
12,
18]. However, the lack of response by HY100 in the as-cast structure was not explained.
Most studies on grain refinement have primarily employed microscopy of the room temperature structure while others have included mechanical properties as well. Using only these techniques provides a limited view of how solidification of the sample progressed. It also requires considerable interpretation by the researcher. Direct observation of solidification would provide better data for determining the role of RE compounds. High temperature microscopy or x-ray diffraction (XRD) are not possible at steelmaking temperatures. However, thermal analysis can provide solidification reaction temperature data for illuminating the underlying mechanisms. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) has been used on steel alloys with limited success [
19,
20,
21,
22,
23]. Metal samples tend to produce very small reaction signals in DSC equipment which makes identifying the reactions error prone [
19,
20,
21,
22]. NIST guidance on the DSC technique outlines that metal solidification is inherently difficult with this technique and that determination of the peritectic reaction may be impossible in most metal alloy systems [
24]. Single thermocouple thermal analysis (TA) has been effectively applied to many metal systems and recently to steels as well [
25,
26,
27,
28,
29]. Binczyk et al. performed work with a super alloy that compared the ability of TA with DSC [
27]. These authors discovered that the solidification reactions were completely missed by DSC while the TA system easily detected all reactions [
27]. Abraham et al. recently applied a modified TA technique to examine the effect of various alloy additions on the peritectic reaction in a plain carbon steel [
29]. These results were used to verify predictions from existing equations on the presence of the peritectic reaction. The TA technique was used to avoid sample segregation issues and easily detect the peritectic [
29]. Recent work by the author has found TA systems are easily able to measure solidification reactions in a range of alloys [
26,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34].
The purpose of this work was to compare the rare earth grain refinement response of 4130 and HY100. This comparison in behavior should provide insight into why some low alloys such as HY100 do not refine while others like 4130 do. Some of the data from the 4130 heats were published in a separate paper that provides some more detail [
35]. The HY100 experimental data are unique. These heats were characterized using optical and electron microscopy, mechanical properties, and thermal analysis. Particular emphasis was placed on comparing the thermal analysis and solidification changes that rare earth additions made in these two alloys. The comparison helps develop a better understanding of how rare earth-based refinement occurs in low alloy steels.
2. Materials and Methods
The test castings consisted of two ASTM A781-05 style keel blocks per heat (
Figure 1). Molds were manually compacted from a green sand composed of silica sand with a 35 AFS GFN, 7.5 wt. % sodium bentonite clay, and 2.2 wt. % water.
A 3 kHz induction furnace melted 23 kg heats of 4130 or HY100 under an air atmosphere. 1010 steel punchings, FeCr (69 wt. % Cr, 5 wt. % C, 1 wt. % Si, 0.01 wt. % P, 0.05 wt. % S), FeMo (64 wt. % Mo, 0.9 wt. % Si, 0.3 wt. % Cu, 0.03 wt % P, 0.1 wt. % S, 0.07 wt. % C), and nickel pellets (99.98 % Ni, 0.007 wt. % C) comprised the initial charge. Once the melt reached 1650 °CC, FeSi (76 wt. % Si, 1 wt. % Al, 1 wt. % Ca), FeMn (76 wt. % Mn, 7 wt. % C, 0.5 wt. % Si, 0.2 wt. % P, 0.01 wt. % S), and graphite were added as needed to make each steel grade. Tapping happened at 1700 °C where aluminum shot and either no addition, 0.3 wt. % RE silicide (18 wt. % Ce, 11 wt. % La, 53 wt. % Si, 1 wt. % Al, 3 wt. % Ca, 0.07 wt. % Ti), or 0.3 wt. % EGR (20 wt. % Cr, 20 wt. % Si, 15 wt. % Ce) were added into a magnesia fiber refractory lined ladle. (EGR is a commercially available cerium-based grain refiner for stainless steels.) After the additions, a small portion of the heat was transferred into a 2.5 kg capacity hand ladle. The contents were immediately poured into a TA cup. After cooling to 1590 °C, the ladle poured the keel block molds. The molds were allowed to cool for 25 min before being shaken out and continuing to cool to room temperature.
The TA system employed consisted of a shell core cup with an S-type thermocouple (TA cup), data acquisition system (DAQ), and computer software.
Figure 2 depicts a typical TA cup. The software was originally designed for aluminum and cast iron alloys, but it has been modified for steels. The existing data smoothing up to fifth order differentiation, liquids detection, and solidus detection algorithms were used. Other peaks such as the peritectic had to be manually processed. Data acquisition occurred once the TA cup heated to 1050 °C and proceeded at a sampling rate of 38.4 Hz until it finally cooled to 1200 °C.
Various samples were extracted from the test castings. Initial sectioning employed a bandsaw.
Figure 1 depicts the locations for the optical emission spectroscopy (OES) sample, tensile bars, and inclusion samples. The TA cups were sectioned 20 mm from the bottom. The tensile bars were turned on a CNC lathe to create a 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) diameter tensile bar in accordance with ASTM E8-04. HY100 tensile bars were quench and tempered by austenitizing at 900 °C for one h, water quenching, and tempering for two h at 625 °C. This was done since the alloy is only used in this condition. The 4130 samples were as-cast. A 500 kN MTS hydraulic universal testing frame pulled the tensile bars at a strain rate of 0.01 1/min as per ASTM E8-04. Three tensile bars were pulled per heat. OES samples were ground and then analyzed with an Angstrom PolySpek spectrometer (Belleville, MI, USA) which has been specially calibrated for cerium in steel matrices.
Table 1 lists the average composition for the three heats poured per alloy.
Metallographic analysis for the TA cup and inclusion specimen were as follows. Grinding using 180, 320, and 600 grit SiC papers occurred first. The TA cups were then etched with a 25 vol. % HNO3/75 vol. % water macroetch for 4130 and a 50 vol. % HCl, 25 % HNO3, 25 vol. % water etchant for HY100. Images of the resulting macrostructure were captured with a digital camera at the same focal length. Two lights were used to illuminate the sample surfaces, one with a blue filter and one with a red filter. This illumination technique improved the contrast in the digital images.
The inclusion samples underwent the same grinding process outlined for the TA cups, but they were further processed by rough polishing with 6 µm and then 1 µm polycrystalline diamond compounds. Final polishing employed 0.05 µm alumina. A 2% Nital etched the inclusion samples for better contrast. A JEOL 5400 scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Peabody, MA, USA) with an Oxford Instruments INCA energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) (Concord, MA, USA) analyzed the inclusions. A 15 kV accelerating voltage and 15 mm working distance were employed.
4. Discussion
The change in macrostructure and TA results appear to help explain some of the difference between the 4130 and HY100 heats. The peritectic reaction temperature increased in the RE silicide and EGR treated 4130 heats but not the HY100. This increase would occur if the observed RE oxysulfide inclusions acted as heterogeneous nuclei. The presence of nuclei in the melt reduces the energy barrier necessary to initiate the solid phase [
36]. A reduced energy barrier allows the reaction to occur at a higher temperature than the normal, matching the results in the TA data. The lack of peritectic reaction movement in the HY100 heats indicates that the observed inclusions did not act as heterogeneous nuclei. Furthermore, the presence of similar inclusions in the HY100 heats supports the theory that they are formed in the melt during tapping.
The lack of similar refinement performance between alloys remains unexplained by the current results. A possible explanation is related to the solidification sequence. Previous work by the author in plain carbon steels found that refining response to RE additions improved as the portion of the freezing range occupied by austenite increased [
13].
Figure 16 depicts the Scheil calculation results for 4130 while
Figure 17 illustrates the HY100 predications. The 4130 undergoes the peritectic reaction at approximately 0.55 into the freezing range, much later than the 0.38 of HY100. Thus, HY100 would be expected to have a better response to the RE additions. Other calculations show that the presence of RE elements in the alloy do not appear to affect the peritectic reaction temperature or mass fraction according to Thermo-Calc©. It appears the point at which the peritectic reaction for HY100 occurs does not explain the refinement difference.
Another explanation may involve the difference in alloying element content between the alloys. HY100 contains more Ni than 4130, 2.7 wt. % verses 0.05 wt. %. Nickel substitutes into the austenite lattice and actually decreases the size of the unit cell [
39]. The resulting decrease in lattice parameter would change the lattice misfit between the austenite and RE inclusions. For instance, Ce
2O
3 has a lattice parameter of 0.389 nm [
40]. Dyson and Holmes developed a regression equation for predicting the lattice parameter of austenite based on composition:
where a
o is the lattice parameter (nm), and the elements are in wt. % [
39]. Using Equation (1) to estimate the lattice parameter in each steel gives the following: for HY100 a
o = 0.3584 nm and for 4130 a
o = 0.3590 nm. The predicted lattice disregistry for HY100 and 4130 are 8.5% and 8.4%, respectively, practically identical. Furthermore, previous work indicating a significant effect on properties in the Q&T condition for HY100 would confirm that the observed RE inclusions match austenite and can act as nuclei. Thus, it would appear lattice parameter differences are not the cause of the refining behavior difference.
Despite the lack of significant difference in lattice parameters, the nickel content may still explain the differing refinement response. As stated earlier, HY100 has a much higher nickel content. Nickel is a substitutional element and austenite stabilizer. Substitutional elements are known to strongly segregate during solidification [
41]. Nickel atoms would build up at the dendrite surface during growth. The segregation of a strong austenite stabilizing alloying element at the interface may provide a strong driving force for the formation of austenite and be the cause for the earlier occurrence of the peritectic when compared to 4130. Calculations on nickel segregation in ThermoCalc© using the TCFE9 database and composition from
Table 1 present a continual increase in the nickel content until 1490 °C where there is a sudden drop as seen in
Figure 18. This drop corresponds to the predicted peritectic temperature, which was verified by the experimental TA data for this alloy. The rapid incorporation of nickel following the peritectic temperature supports the theory that the alloy is rapidly forming austenite which has the face centered cubic (FCC) structure of nickel. The driving force for austenite formation due to the segregation of nickel may be larger than the decrease in the energy barrier provided by the RE inclusions present in the treated alloy. The locally high nickel content next to existing dendrites may strongly favor austenite formation at that location. Thus, the alloy does not appear to use the inclusion nucleation sites. RE inclusions floating in the melt would not necessarily already be in the high nickel content regions and thus the local environment they are in has a lower driving force for austenite.
Assuming the nickel segregation theory presented in this paper were correct, it would appear efforts for grain refining HY100 should focus on effective δ-ferrite nuclei. Introducing effective δ-ferrite nuclei would increase the number of dendrites and cause a decrease in grain size. TiC and TiN particles currently provide the most promising results and have been examined by the author using similar techniques [
42]. Considering that HY100 has only responded to refinement via this route also supports the nickel segregation theory.
Additionally, supporting this theory is the fact that 4130 contains fewer austenite stabilizing elements. This may be why RE inclusions cause refinement in this alloy. Macrostructure images demonstrated that RE additions result in refinement during solidification and mechanical properties improve. TA data indicates that this refinement corresponds to an increase in the peritectic temperature. This increase indicates easier formation of austenite than normal in the alloy. The RE inclusions acting as heterogeneous nuclei is consistent with this observation. Heterogeneous nuclei provide an existing solid surface for atoms from the liquid to bond with. Without an effective solid acting as a nucleus, atoms from the liquid must create a solid embryo which requires overcoming the bulk and surface energies associated with a solid [
41]. This reduction in energy barrier enables the phase reaction to occur at a higher temperature because less undercooling was needed to initiate it. Thus, the phase reaction temperature increases. Since 4130 contains fewer austenite stabilizing elements that segregate near the dendrites, it appears the energy barrier reduction provided by the presence of heterogeneous nuclei favored the formation of austenite.
The difference in behavior between the 4130 and HY100 heats revealed that alloy steels may have more complex responses to refinement. The author’s work in plain carbon steels found more consistent response to RE silicide and EGR additions [
13]. A mixed response to refinement has been observed in other alloy steels. Aravola et al. examined a dual phase Cr-Ni stainless steel that had primary dendrites of δ-ferrite and austenite [
43]. These authors noted some refinement of the alloy but no significant change in the columnar-to-equiaxed transition as expected. This alloy contained significant amounts of nickel as well. Work in other fully austenitic alloys not containing nickel have responded well to RE based grain refinement. Bartlett and Avila found cerium additions to a FeMnAl alloy resulted in a refined structure [
10]. These experimental results, combined with the work in this paper, hint at a complex interaction between solidification response and alloying elements which is not present in plain carbon steels. The poor refinement response for high nickel alloys may reflect an overall issue in these alloys or a simple coincidence. Continued experimentation will be necessary to determine which is the case.