4.7 Article

Treatment of misorientation data to determine the fraction of recrystallized grains in a partially recrystallized metal

Journal

MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
Volume 51, Issue 5, Pages 293-300

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2004.01.005

Keywords

electron backscattered diffraction; EBSD; annealing; recrystallization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A method has been developed to differentiate recrystallized from unrecrystallized grains in partially annealed samples based on the point-to-point misorientation within the grains. Recrystallized grains exhibit a low average point-to-point misorientation whereas the contrary is the case for deformed grains. The analysis for recrystallized fraction was calibrated based on this distinguishing feature, and it was found that the average point-to-point misorientation within a grain in a fully recrystallized sample was less than 0.7degrees. Based on this calibration, partially recrystallized samples were analysed for their degree of recrystallization, and the technique was validated using microhardness measurements. The analysis of the misorientation data was in excellent agreement with the hardness data. There are three factors which distinguish the current method in comparison to the earlier work: a fixed limit is maintained on the minimum number of pixels which may constitute a grain; pattern quality is not considered; and the recrystallization criterion is calibrated to the experimental data. Nevertheless, in the early stages of annealing, where recovery is likely to have the most influence on the drop in hardness, the analysis of electron backscattered diffraction (EBSD) data underpredicts the recrystallized fraction. The analysis was also conducted on a cold-rolled, nonannealed sample, and from this, the error of the technique is estimated to be a maximum of 0.06 recrystallized volume fraction. (C) 2004 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available