M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3 –9 2 2

available at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/matchar

Plastic deformation and creep damage evaluations of type 316

austenitic stainless steels by EBSD

Rika Yoda a,b,d,⁎, Toshinori Yokomaku c , Nobuhiro Tsuji d

a
Electronics Division, Kobelco Research Institute Inc., 1-5-5 Takatsuka-dai, Nishi-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 651-2271, Japan
b
Department of Adaptive Machine Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita,
Osaka 565-0871, Japan
c
Engineering Mechanics Division, Kobelco Research Institute Inc., 1-5-5 Takatsuka-dai, Nishi-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 651-2271, Japan
d
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto,
606-8501, Japan

AR TIC LE D ATA ABSTR ACT

Article history: The inspection method of plastic and/or creep deformations has been required as the
Received 10 May 2009 quantitative damage estimation procedure for structural components especially used in
Received in revised form 6 May 2010 electric power plants. In this study, the method using electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD)
Accepted 10 May 2010 was applied to the deformation and damage evaluation of austenitic stainless steels
strained by tension or compression at room temperature and also tested in creep at high
temperature. It was found that the value of Grain Average Misorientation (GAM) which
Keywords: showed the average misorientation for the whole observed area including over several
Electron backscatter diffraction dozen grains, was a very useful parameter for quantifying the microstructural change as
(EBSD) either the plastic or creep strain increased. The unique linear correlation was obtained
Average misorientation between GAM and plastic strain in tension and compression. For creep damage evaluation,
Plastic deformation the difference of grain average misorientation from the value of the unstrained specimen
Creep damage (ΔGAM) showed an excellent correlation with the inelastic strain below strain at which the
Inelastic strain tertiary creep began.
Austenitic stainless steel © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tion. Therefore, the inspection method of plastic and/or creep

In structural components for electric power or petro-chemical
plants, residual stresses, caused by plastic deformation in
metal forming and welding processes, may raise the stress
corrosion cracking sensitivity or deteriorate the fatigue
properties. Also, thermal and mechanical stresses at service
temperatures may cause the life reduction by creep deforma-
⁎ Corresponding author. Electronics Division, Kobelco Research
Institute Inc., 1-5-5 Takatsuka-dai, Nishi-ku, Kobe, Hyogo
651-2271, Japan. Tel.: +81 78 992 6043; fax: +81 78 990 3062.
E-mail addresses: yoda.rika@kki.kobelco.com (R. Yoda),
yokomaku.toshinori@kki.kobelco.com (T. Yokomaku),
nobuhiro.tsuji@ky5.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp (N. Tsuji).
deformation has been required as the quantitative damage
estimation procedure for above structural components.
Various methods have been developed for this purpose [1],
such as hardness measurement, A-parameter method using
replicas of surface microstructure, ultrasonic, electric, mag-
netic, and X-ray methods. Hardness measurement is a very
simple method, but it cannot distinguish hardening by plastic
deformation from that by precipitation occurred at elevated
temperatures. Surface replication method, such as A-parame-
ter method to evaluate the void fraction, can be applied only to
the materials including creep voids. Either ultrasonic, electric,
magnetic or X-ray method, utilizes indirect parameters, such
as ultrasonic amplitude, electric resistance, Barkhausen noise,
and half breadth value of X-ray diffraction peak, each of which
does not necessarily have a clear physical meaning of the
deformation or damage itself.

1044-5803/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2010.05.006
914 MA TE RI A L S CH A R A CT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3–9 2 2

On the other hand, a method using electron backscatter Table 2 – Tensile properties of the starting materials.
diffraction (EBSD) detected in a scanning electron microscope Material Yield Tensile Elongation Reduction
(SEM) has the advantage that the degree of deformation or stress strength (%) in area (%)
damage can be expressed quantitatively as a local change in (MPa) (MPa)
crystal orientation of grains[2–13]. Also, the deterioration in
Type 316 287 607 60 74
quality of EBSD patterns is considered to correspond to a change Type 316NG 282 577 53 80
in dislocation density caused by plastic strain [14–18]. The recent
improvement of the equipment and analysis software is propel-
ling the studies regarding damage evaluation by the EBSD
method. It has been reported that local misorientation in grain plastic strain, in order to apply the EBSD method to various
increased with increasing plastic strain [5,19–28]. On the other damage evaluations in real structural materials. Uniaxial
hand, for creep damage evaluation of heat-resistant material, deformation is the most fundamental deformation mode.
Takaku et al. [29] showed that the same tendency was obtained Therefore, both tensile and compression deformations were
even during increasing creep strain in a Ni base superalloy. adopted as uniaxial plastic deformation in this study.
However, Fujiyama et al. [30] and Ohtani et al. [31] clarified that Round-bar tensile specimens 7 mm in diameter and 15 mm
local misorientation decreased with creep strain in the material in gauge length, and cylindrical compression specimens 10 mm
having martensitic structure, such as 10%Cr steel and type 403 in diameter and 20 mm in length were machined from the type
stainless steel, respectively. Furthermore, Mitsuhara et al. [32] 316NG stainless steel plate. These specimens were deformed
reported that three different parameters were suitable for three uniaxially in tension or compression, respectively, at room
different creep regions in a 9–10%Cr steel. These results suggest temperature. Both tensile and compression deformations were
that appropriate EBSD parameters for creep damage evaluation carried out at an initial strain rate of 3.3 × 10− 3 s− 1 using
depend on the kind of materials or phases. SHIMADZU Autograph. The specimens were deformed up to
In this study, first, we evaluate the relationship between four different strain levels: 0.87% engineering strain (true strain:
the Grain Average Misorientation (GAM), that is one of the εpl = 0.0087), 2.82% (εpl = 0.0278), 4.79% (εpl = 0.0468) and 9.70%
parameters obtained by EBSD analysis, and the plastic strain (εpl = 0.0926) for tensile deformation, and 0.88% (εpl = 0.0088),
in the most fundamental tensile and compressive deforma- 2.84% (εpl = 0.0288), 4.86% (εpl = 0.0498) and 9.72% (εpl = 0.102) for
tion, using an austenitic stainless steel. Secondly, we discuss compression, respectively.
the applicability of this parameter as a measure of the creep
damage and deformation. 2.3. Creep Deformation

The round-bar creep specimens of 10 mm in diameter and

2. Experimental Procedures
2.1. Materials
Two types of austenitic stainless steels are used in this study.
One is a type 316 stainless steel (JIS-SUS316) that is a common
material for high-temperature applications. The other is a type
316 nuclear grade stainless steel (ASTM type 316NG) for nuclear
power plant component. The steels were solution-treated after
hot rolling, and provided for the present experiments. The
chemical compositions and tensile properties of the steels are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The optical
microstructures of the starting specimens solution-treated are
shown in Fig. 1. Both steels show fully recrystallized micro-
structures, and the average grain diameters are 106 μm and
23 μm for type 316NG and type 316, respectively.
2.2. Tensile and Compression Deformation
The first purpose of this study is to clarify the relationship
between some parameters obtained by EBSD analysis and
50 mm in gauge length, were machined from the type 316
stainless steel plate. Creep rupture tests were conducted at
600 °C under the applied stresses of 250, 270, 280 and 300 MPa
and the corresponding rupture times (tr) were 2600, 599, 409
and 156 h, respectively, as is shown in Fig. 2(a). Creep
interruption tests were carried out under an applied stress of
270 MPa (rupture time = 599 h). Interruption times of the tests
are 72, 144, 210, 300 and 419 h which correspond to the creep
damage ratio (Dc = t/tr, t; interruption time) of 0.12, 0.24, 0.35,
0.50 and 0.70, respectively. Creep curves of the interrupted
specimens are shown in Fig. 2(b). The 316 steel showed typical
creep behaviors.
2.4. EBSD Analysis
OIM (Orientation Imaging Microscopy™) system of EDAX/TSL
attached to a field-emission SEM (FEI XL30S-FEG) was used for
the EBSD analysis. The cross-section parallel to the stress axis
in each specimen was polished using progressively finer
grades of diamond paste, ranging from 6 µm to 1 µm and
finally 0.25 µm in particle size, and then they were lightly

Table 1 – Chemical compositions of the stainless steels studied.

Material (mass%)

C Si Mn P S Cu Ni Cr Mo N

Type 316 0.05 0.26 1.28 0.033 0.029 – 10.0 16.99 2.01
Type 316NG 0.016 0.43 1.54 0.02 0.0006 0.26 11.94 17.13 2.15 0.1
 M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3 –9 2 2
Fig. 1 – Optical microstructures of the (a) type 316NG and
(b) type 316 starting specimens.
etched using colloidal silica to finish it to a smooth and flat
surface. The center area of the polished plane was analyzed.
The same area was also observed by SEM. The EBSD
measurements were done in the area of 1000 × 1000 μm2 with
a step of 2 μm on a hexagonal grid for the tensile and
compression test specimens and 240 × 240 μm2 with a step of
0.8 μm for the creep test specimens. These conditions were
selected in order to include a sufficient number of both crystal
grains in the measured region and pixels in the grain. That is,
each measurement area had about 100 grains, and an average
number of pixels per grain were about 1000.
The Grain Average Misorientation (GAM), one of the parameters
obtained by the EBSD analysis, was used to evaluate the degree of
misorientation in grains. The definition of GAM is as follows.
The schematic illustration showing a grain composed of
pixels in the EBSD measurement is shown in Fig. 3. The thick
lines in the figure represent the grain boundaries determined
as the boundaries which have misorientation larger than 5°. A
grain is defined as a region completely surrounded by the
thick boundaries (>5°). It should be noted, here, that the grain
still can involve misorientation larger than 5° as an isolated
915
Fig. 2 – (a) Relationship between applied stress and rupture
time in creep tests of type 316 stainless steel at 600 °C. The
data from the interrupted tests are indicated as the symbol
“×”, (b) Creep curves of the type 316 stainless steel specimens
tested at 600 °C for various periods under an applied stress of
270 MPa.
boundary within it. Each pixel i, having a crystal orientation
datum, has six neighboring pixels because the orientation
mapping was done on the hexagonal grid in this study.
However, when a neighboring pixel belongs to a different
grain, it should be excluded from the calculation of misorien-
tation. Therefore, up to six different misorientations exist
between the pixel i and neighboring pixels within an identical
grain surrounded by the grain boundary. The number of
misorientation data in one grain, m, is defined by the equation,
1 n
m= ∑ P ð1Þ
2 i=1 i
where n is the number of pixels within the grain and Pi the
number of pixels neighboring to the pixel i. Therefore, average
misorientation β in the grain is defined as,
1 m
β= ∑ θ ð2Þ
m j=1 j
916 MA TE RI A L S CH A R A CT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3–9 2 2
Fig. 3 – Schematic illustration showing a grain composed of
pixels in the EBSD measurement.
Here, θj is each misorientation value. The parameter GAM that
shows the average misorientation for the whole analyzed area
is defined by the following equation.
 
=∑
N N
GAM = ∑ ðβk Ak Þ Ak ð3Þ
k=1 k=1
where N is the number of grains included in the analyzed area
and Ak the area of grain k.
3. Results
3.1. Relation between the EBSD Parameter and Plastic
Strain by Tension and Compression
The EBSD results for the tensile specimens strained to 0%,
0.87% (εpl = 0.0087), 2.82% (εpl = 0.0278), 4.79% (εpl = 0.0468) and
9.70% (εpl = 0.0926) are shown in Fig. 4. The inverse pole figure
maps shown in Fig. 4(a) indicate the crystal orientations
parallel to the normal direction (ND) of the observed planes.
These maps show that the degree of color gradation within the
grains increases with plastic strain. It means that the
orientations of the grains are initially uniform but misorien-
tation appears within the grains as the plastic deformation
proceeds. The image quality maps shown in Fig. 4(b) indicate
the quality of the EBSD patterns in gray scale. It is known that
higher strained region has lower value of image quality [14].
The image quality lowers with increasing strain. However, the
change in image quality within each grain is not uniform but
heterogeneous. Such heterogeneity within the grains is very
similar to the color gradation observed in the inverse pole
figure maps. It means that the distribution of lattice defects
such as dislocations has a relationship with the change in
crystal orientation in the grains. As is well-known, the image
quality can be influenced not only by strain within the
material, but also by SEM or EBSD acquisition parameters.
However, in this study, it can be considered that there is no
influence of these parameters because they are constant in all
measurements.
The results of the inverse pole figure maps and image
quality maps indicate that it is possible to evaluate the
microstructural change along with the increase of plastic
strain by such maps, but the evaluation can be done only in a
qualitative manner from these maps. Then, in order to
evaluate the change quantitatively, the average misorienta-
tion β determined in Eq. (2) is used. The average misorienta-
tion maps for the specimens strained to 0%, 0.87% (εpl = 0.0087),
2.82% (εpl = 0.0278), 4.79% (εpl = 0.0468) and 9.70% (εpl = 0.0926)
are shown in Fig. 4(c). The β of the undeformed (0%) specimen
is not zero, which is probably due to an error of measurement.
It is thought that such deviations are inevitable in ordinary
measurement conditions. These maps show that β increases
with increasing strain, and the change in misorientation is
different depending on the grains. The same tendency was
obtained in the results for the compression specimens.
The relationship between GAM and plastic strain is shown
in Fig. 5. A unique linear correlation can be obtained between
the GAM and both tensile and compressive strain as:
GAM = 4:373εpl + 0:252: ð4Þ
The maximum and minimum values of β (the average
misorientation of each grain determined in Eq. (2)) in each
plastic strain are also shown in the figure. It should be noted
that the bars in Fig. 5 do not indicate standard deviations. Both
of the maximum and minimum β increase with the increase of
plastic strain. This means that the GAM can be an appropriate
parameter to evaluate the amount of plastic strain. At the
same time, the difference between the maximum and the
minimum values expands with increasing strain, which
indicates that the change in misorientation within the grains
is not uniform but heterogeneous in grain to grain. The
coefficients in Eq. (4) would vary depending on the measure-
ment conditions. However it seems that this linear correlation
is a universal tendency as far as the conditions are controlled
well.
It is summarized that the GAM has a unique linear
correlation with true plastic strain and can be an appropriate
parameter to evaluate plastic deformations quantitatively. It
should be noted, however, that the analyzed area has to
include a sufficient number of grains, when the changes in
misorientation are heterogeneous in grain to grain. Further-
more, it has been shown in this study that the relationship
between GAM and true plastic strain is independent of the
direction of deformation, that is, tensile or compression.
3.2. Relation between the EBSD Parameter and Creep
Damage
The results of creep tests have been already shown in Fig. 2.
The total engineering strain (e) in creep curve shown in Fig. 2
(b) includes instantaneous elastic strain εe, instantaneous
plastic strain εpl, and creep strain εc. The εc is the time-
dependent strain component. In this study, the relationship
between inelastic strain (εin) that is expressed as, εin = εpl + ε̇c ⋅t,
and EBSD parameters are discussed. The creep strain (εc)
occupies 37–72% of the inelastic strain (εin) for creep damage
 M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3 –9 2 2
Fig. 4 – EBSD results for the type 316NG stainless steel tensile tested by 0–9.26% strain : (a) inverse pole figure maps showing the
crystal orientations parallel to ND of the observed planes, (b) image quality maps and (c) average misorientation maps.
ratios, Dc = 0.12–0.7. The plastic strain εpl of 4.5% estimated
by using the stress–strain curve obtained in parallel exami-
nation is a considerable amount in inelastic strain (εin), though
elastic strain εe of 0.17% calculated from Young's modulus
and stress is negligibly small under the applied stress of
270 MPa. Strictly speaking, EBSD parameters should be related
with the plastic strain and the time-dependent creep strain
individually, because deformation mechanisms for uniaxial
Fig. 5 – Change in the grain average misorientation (GAM)
with plastic strain in the tensile and compression specimens
of the type 316NG.
917
and creep deformations are different. However, we discuss it
without partitioning the inelastic strain into two components
hereafter.
The microstructures of the interruption and rupture speci-
mens observed by SEM are shown in Fig. 6. Creep voids are
found in the specimens above Dc = 0.50. However there are not
so many voids even in the specimen at Dc = 0.70, which
corresponds to the beginning of tertiary creep. Therefore, it
can be concluded that there is no elongation caused by void
growth below Dc = 0.70.
The EBSD analysis was carried out on the specimens tested
under the applied stress of 270 MPa at 600 °C for various Dc.
The specimen of Dc = 0 held at 600 °C for 599 h without applied
stress was also evaluated by EBSD for comparison. The inverse
pole figure maps showing the crystal orientations parallel to
ND of the observed planes for these specimens are shown in
Fig. 7. There is no color gradation in the crystal orientation
map for the specimen of Dc = 0, but color gradation appears
within the grains after Dc = 0.12. The degree of the gradation
becomes large with the increase in creep damage. It means
that the orientations of the grains are initially uniform but
misorientation appears within the grains as the creep damage
proceeds, as in the case of tensile/compression deformations.
The image quality maps for the creep specimens are shown
in Fig.8. The quality of EBSD patterns lowers with increasing
the creep damage ratio, and especially the ruptured specimen
reveals obviously low image quality. However, the image
quality of each grain varies widely in the region of small
damage ratio because the effect of crystal orientation is
918 MA TE RI A L S CH A R A CT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3–9 2 2

Fig. 6 – SEM microstructures showing creep voids in the type 316 stainless steel creep tested at 600 °C for various periods.
(a) Creep damage ratio, Dc = 0.12 (70 h), (b) Dc = 0.24 (140 h), (c) Dc = 0.35 (210 h), (d) Dc = 0.50 (300 h), (e) Dc = 0.70 (420 h) and
(f) rupture (599 h).

Fig. 7 – Inverse pole figure maps showing the crystal orientations parallel to ND of the observed planes obtained from the EBSD
measurements for the type 316 stainless steel creep tested at 600 °C for various periods : (a) Dc = 0, (b) Dc = 0.12 (70 h), (c) Dc = 0.24
(140 h), (d) Dc = 0.35 (210 h), (e) Dc = 0.50 (300 h), (f) Dc = 0.70 (420 h) and (g) rupture (599 h).
 M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3 –9 2 2
Fig. 8 – Image quality maps obtained from the EBSD measurements for the type 316 stainless steel creep tested at 600 °C for
various periods : (a) Dc = 0, (b) Dc = 0.12 (70 h), (c) Dc = 0.24 (140 h), (d) Dc = 0.35 (210 h), (e) Dc = 0.50 (300 h), (f) Dc = 0.70 (420 h) and (g)
rupture (599 h).
relatively large as in the case of tensile and compression
deformation, which was discussed in Section 3.1. The
quantitative change of image quality is described later.
Therefore, it seems that the image quality cannot be a
parameter indicating creep damage.
The average misorientation maps for the creep specimens
are shown in Fig. 9. It is shown that the misorientation
increases with increasing the creep damage ratio. This
tendency is very similar to those in tensile and compression
deformation. The misorientation largely differs depending on
the grains, which indicates that the non-uniform creep
deformation is progressing in the specimen. In addition,
some voids exist at grain boundaries having large misorienta-
tions in the specimen of creep damage ratio Dc = 0.7 and the
ruptured specimen. Accordingly, it is concluded that the
highly creep damaged area can be determined by the average
misorientation maps and the average misorientation seems to
be an appropriate parameter indicating creep damage.
The relationship between GAM and creep damage ratio is
shown in Fig. 10. GAM means the average misorientation for
the whole analyzed area, as described in Eq. (3). The change in
GAM is plotted as a function of damage ratio in Fig. 10,
together with the minimum and maximum values of the
average misorientation (β) within each grain as bars. It is
obvious that both the β of each grain and the GAM of the whole
analysis area monotonously increase as the creep damage
ratio increases. The magnitude of the increase in β with creep
damage differs depending on the grains. The grains having
large and small β coexist in the high damaged or ruptured
919
specimens. The tendency of the change in β and GAM is very
similar to than in the case of plastic deformation. However, a
sharp rise at the beginning of creep caused by instantaneous
plastic strain is characteristic.
4. Discussions about the Parameters for
Damage Evaluation
In Fig. 11, the change in GAM with the increase of creep
damage is compared with the changes in the image quality,
which is another quantitative parameter obtained by the EBSD
analysis, and Vickers hardness, which has been often used as
a conventional damage parameter. The image quality of the
ruptured specimen of Dc = 1 is obviously lower than the initial
specimen of Dc = 0. However, the image quality of the
interrupted specimens of Dc = 0.12–0.70 does not decrease
with creep damage ratio. Therefore, the image quality is not
an appropriate parameter to evaluate the creep damage. The
hardness value dramatically changes at the instantaneous
loading or the primary creep, but reveals only a slight increase
at the secondary creep region. Therefore, it is concluded that
the reliability of the creep life estimation using hardness is
fairly low, especially in the secondary creep region, neverthe-
less it is the most important region for the real structure
components. On the other hand, GAM monotonously
increases through all creep stages. After the comparison, it
can be concluded that the GAM is the most suitable parameter
to evaluate creep damage.
920 MA TE RI A L S CH A R A CT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3–9 2 2

Fig. 9 – Average misorientation maps obtained from the EBSD measurements for the type 316 stainless steel creep tested at
600 °C for various periods : (a) Dc = 0, (b) Dc = 0.12 (70 h), (c) Dc = 0.24 (140 h), (d) Dc = 0.35 (210 h), (e) Dc = 0.50 (300 h), (f) Dc = 0.70
(420 h) and (g) rupture (599 h).

Then, the relationship between GAM and strain is dis-
cussed. The comparison of the change in ΔGAM with
engineering inelastic strain (εin) is shown in Fig. 12. Here,
ΔGAM means the difference of grain average misorientation
from the value of the unstrained specimen. ΔGAM is used
instead of GAM because GAM is not zero at the unstrained
specimen. Fig. 12 shows that both curves fairly coincide till the
creep damage ratio of Dc = 0.7 which corresponds to the
beginning of tertiary creep. The gap between inelastic strain
and ΔGAM curves increases after Dc = 0.70. This is because the
macroscopically measured strain includes the strain induced
by the growth of voids. It means that the ΔGAM measured by
EBSD represents intrinsic deformation, while macroscopic
strain (εin) involves both intrinsic deformation and apparent
one due to voids. Therefore, it can be concluded that ΔGAM is
the most meaningful physical parameter even at tertiary creep
stage.
The relation between ΔGAM and true inelastic strain is
shown in Fig. 13. ΔGAM shows an excellent correlation with

Fig. 10 – Change in the grain average misorientation (GAM) Fig. 11 – Change in three kinds of parameters for damage
with creep damage ratio in the specimens of the type 316 evaluation as functions of creep damage ratio in the specimens
stainless steel creep tested at 600 °C. of the type 316 stainless steel creep tested at 600 °C.
 M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3 –9 2 2 921

5. Conclusions

The EBSD method was applied to the deformation and damage

evaluation of austenitic stainless steels strained by tension or
compression and also tested in creep. It was found that the
parameter, Grain Average Misorientation (GAM) which shows
the average misorientation for the whole observed area, is
useful for quantifying the microstuructural change as the
plastic or creep strain increases. The following results were
obtained in this study.

(1) The linear correlation was obtained between GAM and

Fig. 12 – Changes in ΔGAM and engineering inelastic strain as
a function of creep damage ratio in the specimens of the type
316 stainless steel creep tested at 600 °C.
the inelastic strain below strain of about 0.2 at which the
tertiary creep begins. It seems possible to use this relationship
as a master curve for creep life prediction.
The result obtained by tensile and compressive test shown
in Fig. 5 is also plotted in Fig. 13. These two curves in Fig. 13
monotonously increase with true inelastic strain (εin), but
have different gradients. As mentioned in Section 2.4, the step
sizes used in the EBSD analysis for tensile/compression
specimens and creep specimens are 2 and 0.8 μm, respective-
ly. The difference in step size is thought to be one of the main
REFERENCES
causes for different gradient in ΔGAM–inelastic strain relation.
The effect of step size on misorientation is a very important
issue which must be discussed in the future study. When the
effect of step size on the ΔGAM–inelastic strain relation is
established, the creep damage can be estimated only from the
results of simple tests in a short time, such as a tensile or
compression test.
Fig. 13 – Change in ΔGAM as a function of true inelastic strain
in the specimens of the type 316 stainless steel creep tested
at 600 °C and the type 316NG stainless steel tensile or
compression tested.
plastic strain in tension and compression. By applying
this linear correlation to the materials of which plastic
strain is unknown, the induced plastic strain can be
estimated.
(2) The GAM increases monotonously as the creep damage
ratio increases. However, at the tertiary creep stage, the
increasing rate of GAM is smaller than that of the
inelastic strain macroscopically measured in the spec-
imen gage length. This is because the inelastic strain
includes the strain induced by creep void growth.
Therefore, ΔGAM represents the essential deformation
behavior within the grain.
(3) The present result indicates that the parameter GAM
obtained by EBSD analysis can be applied as one of the
useful and meaningful physical parameters for creep
life prediction.
[1] Edited by The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Remaining Life Estimation Technology for Power Plants and
Structures. Tokyo: Gihodo Shuppan Co. Ltd.; 1992 (in
Japanese).
[2] Wilkinson AJ. Measurement of elastic strains and small lattice
rotations using electron back scatter diffraction.
Ultramicroscopy 1996;62:237–47.
[3] Wilkinson AJ. A new method for determining small
misorientations from electron back scatter diffraction
patterns. Scr Mater 2001;44:2379–85.
[4] MacLachlan DW, Wright LW, Gunturi S, Knowles DM.
Constitutive modelling of anisotropic creep deformation in
single crystal blade alloys SRR99 and CMSX-4. Int J Plast
2001;17:441–67.
[5] Field DP, True BW, Lillo TM, Flinn JE. Observation of twin
boundary migration in copper during deformation. Mater Sci
Eng A 2004;372:173–9.
[6] Boyce BI, Michael JR, Kotula PG. Fatigue of metallic
microdevices and the role of fatigue-induced surface oxides.
Acta Mater 2004;52:1609–19.
[7] Field DP, Trivedi PB, Wright SI, Kumar M. Analysis of local
orientation gradients in deformed single crystals.
Ultramicroscopy 2005;103:33–9.
[8] Wilkinson AJ, Meaden G, Dingley DJ. High-resolution elastic
strain measurement from electron backscatter diffraction
patterns: new levels of sensitivity. Ultramicroscopy 2006;106:
307–13.
[9] Trivedi PB, Yassar RS, Field DP, Alldredge R. Microstructural
evolution and observed stress response during hot deformation
of 5005 and 6022 Al alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 2006;425:205–12.
922 MA TE RI A L S CH A R A CT ER IZ A TI O N 61 ( 20 1 0 ) 9 1 3–9 2 2
[10] Pantleon W. Resolving the geometrically necessary dislocation
content by conventional electron backscattering diffraction. Scr
Mater 2008;58:994–7.
[11] Merriman CC, Field DP, Trivedi P. Orientation dependence of
dislocation structure evolution during cold rolling of
aluminum. Mater Sci Eng A 2008;494:28–35.
[12] He W, Ma W, Pantleon W. Microstructure of individual grains
in cold-rolled aluminium from orientation inhomogeneities
resolved by electron backscattering diffraction. Mater Sci Eng
A 2008;494:21–7.
[13] Wilkinson AJ, Meaden G, Dingley DJ. Mapping strains at the
nanoscale using electron back scatter diffraction.
Superlattices Microstruct 2009;45:285–94.
[14] Wilkinson AJ, Adams BL. Measuring strains using electron
backscatter diffraction. In: Schwartz AJ, Kumar M, editors.
Electron Backscatter Diffraction in Material Science. New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2000. p. 231.
[15] Wilkinson AJ, Dingley DJ. Quantitative deformation studies
using electron back scatter patterns. Acta Metall Mater
1991;39:3047–55.
[16] Wilkinson AJ. Deformation studies of metal matrix
composites using electron backscatter patterns. Mater Sci Eng
A 1991;135:189–93.
[17] Wilkinson AJ, Dingley DJ. The distribution of plastic
deformation in a metal matrix composite caused by straining
transverse to the fibre direction. Acta Metall Mater 1992;40:
3357–68.
[18] Wilkinson AJ, Hirsch PB. Electron diffraction based
techniques in scanning electron microscopy of bulk
materials. Micron 1997;28:279–308.
[19] Sutliff JA. An investigation of plastic strain in copper by
automated-EBSP. Microsc Microanal 1999;5(Suppl 2):236.
[20] Lehockey EM, Lin YP, Lepik OE. Mapping residual plastic strain
in materials using electron backscatter diffraction. In:
Schwartz AJ, Kumar M, Adams BL, editors. Electron
Backscatter Diffraction in Material Science. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2000. p. 247.
[21] Othon MA, Brewer LN, Angeliu TM, Young LM. Electron
back-scattered diffraction misorientation mapping applied to
stress corrosion cracking of stainless steels. Microsc
Microanal 2002;8(Suppl 2):698CD.
[22] Fukuoka C, Morishima K, Yoshizawa H, Mino K.
Misorientation development in grains of tensile strained and
crept 2.25%Cr–1%Mo steel. Scr Mater 2002;46:61–6.
[23] Trivedi P, Field DP, Weiland H. Alloying effects on dislocation
substructure evolution of aluminum alloys. Int J Plast 2004;20:
459–76.
[24] Pantleon W. On the apparent saturation of the average
disorientation angle with plastic deformation. Scr Mater
2005;53:757–62.
[25] Kamaya M, Wilkinson AJ, Titchmarsh JM. Measurement of
plastic strain of polycrystalline material by electron
backscatter diffraction. Nucl Eng Des 2005;235:713–25.
[26] Kamaya M, Wilkinson AJ, Titchmarsh JM. Quantification of
plastic strain of stainless steel and nickel alloy by electron
backscatter diffraction. Acta Mater 2006;54:539–48.
[27] Kimura H, Wang Y, Akiniwa Y, Tanaka K. Misorientation
analysis of plastic deformation of austenitic stainless steel by
EBSD and X-ray diffraction methods. J Jpn Soc Mech Eng Ser A
2005;71:118–24 (in Japanese).
[28] Wert JA, Huang X, Winther G, Pantleon W, Poulsen HF.
Revealing deformation microstructures. Mater Today 2007;10:
24–32.
[29] Takaku R, Saito D, Yoshioka Y. Effect of grain size and crystal
orientation on creep damage evaluation by changes of
misorientation in Hastelloy X. J Soc Mater Sci Jpn 2009;58:
229–34 (in Japanese).
[30] Fujiyama K, Mori K, Kaneko D, Matsunaga T, Kimachi H. Creep
damage assessment of high chromium steel forging through
EBSD method and hardness measurement. J Jpn Soc Mech Eng
Ser A 2008;74:323–8 in Japanese.
[31] Ohtani T, Yin F, Kamada Y. Microstructural and
non-destructive evaluation of creep damage in martensitic
stainless steel. J Soc Mater Sci Jpn 2009;58:136–42 (in
Japanese).
[32] Mitsuhara M, Morioka S, Hata S, Ikeda K, Nakashima H.
Degradation behavior of crept lath martensite analyzed by
crystallographic evolution. Report of the 123rd committee on
heat-resisting metals and alloys. Jpn Soc Promot Sci 2009;50:
37–43 in Japanese.