Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Spatially resolved in-situ characterisation of competing martensitic transformation pathways during nanoscratch in 316H Stainless Steel

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the choice between two martensitic transformation pathways under a sliding contact in 316H stainless steel is governed by hydrostatic pressure, not shear alone: volume-conserving ε-martensite forms under compression,

desk verdict Impressive new in-situ experiment, but the phase maps need texture and structure-factor work before the pathway story is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19239 v1 pith:MFPMGSJM submitted 2026-07-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

A. Kareer , R.W. Kerr , D. Craven , A.V. Davydok , C. Krywka , D.M. Collins This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords martensitictransformationnanoscratchin-situX-raynanodiffractiontribolayergalling316Hstainlesssteelstrain-inducedhydrostaticpressure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The authors try to establish that the two competing martensitic pathways beneath a single sliding asperity are selected by the local pressure field: the volume-conserving γ→ε transformation is favored under hydrostatic compression ahead of the contact, while the dilating γ→α′ transformation occurs in the unconstrained pile-up and in the wake where compression relaxes, converting pre-formed ε to α′. They demonstrate this by combining in-situ synchrotron X-ray nanodiffraction with nanoscratch testing, mapping phase fractions and strain fields as the scratch progresses, and interpreting the results with finite element simulations of the contact stress. If correct, this mechanistic distinction offers a physical explanation for why cobalt-based hardfacings (which transform via γ→ε) resist galling better than iron-based ones (which form α′ and burden the surrounding matrix with plasticity).

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the difference in volumetric strain between the two transformations combined with the hydrostatic pressure field of the sliding contact. γ→ε is approximately volume-conserving, while γ→α′ introduces a positive dilatation; this asymmetry, interpreted through finite element predictions of hydrostatic pressure and in-plane shear strain, explains the observed spatial segregation of ε ahead of the contact, α′ in the wake and pile-up, and the dislocation activity accompanying α′.

What would settle it

Perform the same nanoscratch in a thinner lamella or single crystal with full profile analysis of many reflections per phase; if ε is not found ahead of the contact or α′ appears under the hydrostatic compression zone, the pressure-selection claim fails. Alternatively, a deeper scratch or blunter tip that raises hydrostatic pressure should suppress α′ under the contact; if α′ still forms there, the dilatation-suppression logic is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that transformation pathway selection is rationalized by the volumetric character of each transformation. The γ→ε (fcc→hcp) transformation is nearly volume-conserving, so it proceeds where hydrostatic compression is high—ahead of the advancing indenter. The γ→α′ (fcc→bct) transformation carries a positive dilatation, so it is suppressed under compression and instead occurs either in the pile-up above the surface, where shear is high and no confining pressure exists, or in the wake after the compressive field relaxes, allowing the pre-formed ε to convert to α′. Spatial maps show α′ concentrated near the surface and ε retained deeper, with elevated dislocation density

Load-bearing premise

The phase maps are computed from integrated intensities of only two diffraction reflections per phase without correcting for structure factor, multiplicity, or deformation texture, so the spatial assignments could be distorted by grain rotation rather than true phase abundance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The sequential γ→ε→α′ pathway in austenitic stainless steels is not a single homogeneous route but two spatially separated steps: ε forms under compression ahead of the contact, then converts to α′ in the relaxed wake.
  • Direct γ→α′ occurs only where hydrostatic constraint is absent, such as the pile-up above the surface, so unconstrained high shear drives the direct route.
  • α′ formation imposes a dilatational strain on the surrounding austenite, which must plastically flow, coupling the hardened tribolayer to subsurface damage beyond the contact.
  • Cobalt-based hardfacings, which transform via volume-conserving γ→ε, avoid that matrix plasticity, offering a mechanism for their superior galling resistance.
  • In-situ nanoscratch nanodiffraction can screen candidate cobalt-free hardfacings by their tendency to favour γ→ε over γ→α′.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the volumetric mechanism holds, alloy design for galling resistance could target lowering the dilatation penalty of α′ or stabilising ε so that it persists under the contact, rather than merely increasing hardness.
  • The same pressure-selection logic likely applies to other metastable austenitic steels and to multi-asperity contacts, where overlapping pressure fields may locally suppress α′ and change wear debris composition.
  • A quantitative prediction is that the α′/ε ratio in the wake should scale with the degree of hydrostatic pressure relief; this could be tested by varying scratch depth or tip geometry to alter the pressure field.
  • Because the phase maps are through-thickness averages of a 50-µm lamella, single-crystal or thinner-lamella variants would reveal whether the depth segregation of α′ and ε is even sharper at the true surface.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an in-situ synchrotron X-ray nanodiffraction study of nanoscratch on 316H stainless steel, mapping phase intensities, strain, and dislocation density beneath a single asperity during interrupted scratch testing. The authors propose that hydrostatic pressure ahead of the contact selects the volume-conserving γ→ε transformation, while the relaxed wake allows ε→α' and the unconstrained pile-up undergoes direct γ→α'. A finite element model is used to rationalize the spatial distribution. The work aims to explain differences in galling resistance between Fe- and Co-based hardfacings.

Significance. If the pathway-selection mechanism is correct, it provides a physically grounded, falsifiable rationale for the galling performance gap and a screening criterion for Co-free hardfacings. The experimental setup is innovative and the uncertainty propagation is exemplary, with error maps and a transparent fitting methodology. However, the central conclusion rests on phase maps that are not validated against texture and structure-factor effects, and the FE interpretation relies on a plane-stress assumption that may not represent the actual contact. The paper is potentially significant but needs to address these concerns before the mechanistic claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Fig. 4] The 'phase fractions' in Fig. 4 are computed as the summed integrated intensities of two {hkl} reflections per phase, normalised against the total of six reflections, without correction for structure factor, multiplicity, or preferred orientation. Under the large plastic strains documented here (dislocation densities up to 10^13–10^14 m^-2, shear strains in Fig. 9), grain rotation is expected and will redistribute intensity among reflections of the same phase without any change in phase abundance. The spatial segregation of ε ahead of the contact and α' in the wake/pile-up — the paper's central mechanistic conclusion — could therefore be a texture artifact. Please quantify the texture: compare spatial maps obtained from different reflection pairs, compute a texture index from the full Debye-Scherrer data, or carry out a Rietveld/Pawley analysis. Without such validation, the 'phase fracti
  2. [§2.3, Fig. 9] The finite element model is plane stress, but the sample is a 50 µm thick lamella indented by a wedge of ~200 µm length. In the interior, the deformation is closer to plane strain, which changes the hydrostatic pressure magnitude and distribution. The Discussion (§4) uses the simulated pressure to argue that compression suppresses α' dilatation. Please justify the plane-stress assumption or test its impact on the pressure fields and the resulting pathway interpretation. If the pressure relief in the wake is sensitive to this choice, the mechanism may not be robust.
  3. [§3.2.1] The inability to distinguish pre-existing α-ferrite from transformed α' is acknowledged, but the subsequent interpretation treats all increased α/α' intensity in the deformed regions as γ→α'. The pre-existing ferrite is heterogeneously distributed (Fig. 4 pristine map); if ferrite grains also rotate under the contact, the 'new' α' signal could be partly contributed by the parent α-ferrite. Please show that the deformed-region α/α' signal is spatially and quantitatively distinct from the pristine ferrite distribution (e.g., subtract the pristine map or track individual ferrite grains).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption uses 'Phase fractions' while the text (§2.2) and the colorbar use 'normalised intensity'. This is misleading; use a neutral term such as 'normalised integrated intensity' and explicitly discuss its limitations.
  2. [§2.2] The azimuthal integration description is confusing: 30° sectors are used for strain analysis, but phase maps appear to use full azimuthal integration. Please clarify and unify the analysis steps.
  3. [General] The term 'in-situ' is used for maps acquired during stationary pauses between scratch increments. Consider 'in-situ (interrupted)' or 'operando' to avoid implying continuous sliding acquisition.
  4. [Appendix A] The propagated error maps for phase intensity show maximum errors of ~0.05, which is non-negligible relative to the reported peak values (~0.07 for ε). Please discuss the impact of these errors on the spatial trends claimed in §3.2.4.
  5. [§2.2, Eq. (7)-(8)] The dislocation density analysis uses Scherrer constant K=0.9 and M=2 without detailed justification; provide appropriate references or a sensitivity check for these constants.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase maps and FE stress fields are independent inputs, and the central pathway-selection interpretation is not fitted to the phase data.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: (i) spatially resolved integrated intensities of γ, ε, and α′ phases are measured by diffraction (§2.2, Fig. 4); (ii) hydrostatic pressure, shear strain, and plastic strain fields are computed from a finite element model whose constitutive inputs are literature flow curves [54], elastic constants [49], friction coefficient [52], and geometry, with no parameter fitted to the phase maps; and (iii) the spatial correlation between pressure and phase distribution is interpreted in terms of the known volumetric character of the γ→ε and γ→α′ transformations [31]. Step (iii) is an interpretive overlay of two independent datasets: the measured phase intensities are not fed into the FE model, and the FE pressure/shear fields are not derived from the phase intensities. The dilatation-based explanation rests on independent crystallographic/thermodynamic facts, not on the present fit. The self-citations [43,44] support the nanoscratch deformation-field methodology and [40,45] support the instrument setup; they do not carry the phase-selection claim. The acknowledged limitations—quasi-static measurement intervals, system compliance, and the two-reflection intensity normalization used for the maps—are measurement-validity concerns, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not require new physical entities, but it rests on several analysis assumptions: intensity-based phase maps without texture correction, a parent-phase FE model that neglects transformation strain, quasi-static measurement intervals, and literature thermodynamic data on volume change. The only hand-chosen numerical constants affecting results are the dislocation-density factor M=2 and the FE friction coefficient 0.15; neither is fitted to the phase data.

free parameters (3)
  • M (dislocation strain-field radius constant) = 2
    Assumed dimensionless constant in Eq. (8); scales all dislocation densities linearly; chosen by hand, not measured.
  • K (Scherrer shape constant) = 0.9
    Assumed in Eq. (7); affects the crystallite-size intercept but not the slope used for dislocation density; included for completeness.
  • Coulomb friction coefficient μ = 0.15
    FE contact input taken from Ref. [52]; affects pressure and shear magnitudes; not fitted to the phase data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Normalized two-reflection integrated intensity represents phase abundance
    Used to build phase maps in §2.2/Fig. 4; no texture/structure-factor/multiplicity correction is applied, and α-ferrite/α′ overlap is acknowledged but intensity increase is attributed to strain-induced α′.
  • domain assumption FE model of the untransformed austenite represents the stress state during transformation
    Appendix B: isotropic hardening, no transformation strain; pressure/shear fields are used to explain transformation selection even though the phase transformations themselves are not modelled.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static diffraction maps represent the loaded scratch states
    Discussion: maps were acquired while the stage was stationary; system compliance means steady-state scratching was not maintained; interpretation relies on these discrete loaded states.
  • domain assumption γ→ε is volume-conserving; γ→α′ is dilatational; hydrostatic compression suppresses α′ formation
    Used throughout Discussion, based on Ref. [31]; it is the thermodynamic premise of the pressure-driven pathway-selection argument.
  • standard math Modified Williamson–Hall analysis with dislocation contrast factors yields dislocation density
    Eqs. (7)–(8) and Ref. [50]; an established method, but only three γ reflections are used per pixel, increasing sensitivity to fitting errors.
  • domain assumption Literature elastic/plastic properties of 316H are applicable to the lamella
    E=193 GPa, ν=0.3, and the true stress–strain table come from Refs. [49,54]; these inputs drive the FE pressure/shear fields and strain conversion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatially resolved in-situ characterisation of competing martensitic transformation pathways during nanoscratch in 316H Stainless Steel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MFPMGSJM

@misc{pith2026260719239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatially resolved in-situ characterisation of competing martensitic transformation pathways during nanoscratch in 316H Stainless Steel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MFPMGSJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19239}
}
abstract

Localised surface deformation beneath frictional contacts generates a tribolayer whose microstructure and properties differ from the bulk. In austenitic stainless steels, this tribolayer forms through two competing martensitic transformation pathways. Here, these pathways are isolated in 316H stainless steel using in-situ synchrotron X-ray nanodiffractometry combined with nanoscratch testing, which together yield spatial maps of the evolving strain field beneath a single sliding asperity. Finite element modelling interprets the resulting distribution of martensitic phases, revealing a pressure driven pathway selection where hydrostatic compression ahead of the contact suppresses $\alpha'$ formation and favours the $\gamma \rightarrow \varepsilon$ transformation, while lateral sliding relieves this constraint and introduces a shear strain driving $\varepsilon \rightarrow \alpha'$ , producing an overall sequential $\gamma \rightarrow \varepsilon \rightarrow \alpha'$ pathway in the tribolayer. Where hydrostatic constraint persists, $\varepsilon$-martensite is retained; where material piles up and is unconstrained above the surface, the transformation proceeds directly to $\alpha'$. The $\gamma$-austenite adjacent to $\alpha'$- martensite shows elevated dislocation density, indicating that $\alpha'$ formation is accommodated by plastic deformation in the surrounding matrix. This distinction could explain differences in galling performance among iron-based and cobalt-based hardfacing alloys, where the $\varepsilon$-martensite forming cobalt alloys offer superior galling resistance. The methodology presented resolves transient microstructural states inaccessible to static measurements of macroscale, multiple asperity contacts, establishing a route to mechanistic insight across tribological phenomena more broadly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the in-situ X-ray di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase identification for in-situ intervals. (a) EBSD phase map of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Spatial maps of the FCC γ-austenite (a - e), hcp ε-martensite (f - j), and the BCT α ′ -martensite (k - o) phase fractions showing the progression of the γ → ε → α ′ transformation. Phase fractions were calculated from summed integrated peak areas and normalised to the total diffracted intensity from the three phases. For each phase, five maps (pristine, indent, scratch 20 µm, scratch 70 µm and unload) correspond to… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatial maps of effective γ-austenite strain εxx (a - e), and the simulated elastic strain in the x-direction, εxx, predicted by the finite element model (f - j). The propagated errors for the experimentally measured εxx are provided in Appendix Appendix A FigureA.12 (…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial maps of the dislocation density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: a-d show the simulated hydrostatic pressure. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Line profiles extracted parallel to the scratch direction from spatial maps in Figures 4, 5 & 6. Each profile averaged over an 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Vertical line profiles of normalised martensitic phase intensity as a function of y-distance below the sample surface, extracted from the spatial maps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Finite element simulation predictions for the hydrostatic pressure, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Proposed mechanistic relationship between imposed stress state, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. A. Rigney, Comments on the sliding wear of met- als, Tribol. Int. 30 (1997) 361–367. doi:10.1016/S0301- 679X(96)00065-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0301- 1997

  2. [2]

    D. A. Rigney, M. G. S. Naylor, A. R. Rosenfield, S. Ja- cobson, Dislocation structures associated with sliding friction of copper, Acta Metall. 32 (1984) 217–225. doi:10.1016/0001-6160(84)90083-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0001-6160(84)90083-3 1984

  3. [3]

    Greiner, Z

    C. Greiner, Z. Liu, R. Schneider, L. Pastewka, P. Gumb- sch, The origin of surface microstructure evolution in sliding friction, Scripta Mater. 153 (2018) 63–67. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.04.048

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.04.048 2018

  4. [4]

    Greiner, Z

    C. Greiner, Z. Liu, L. Strassberger, P. Gumbsch, Se- quence of stages in the microstructure evolution in cop- per under mild reciprocating tribological loading, ACS applied materials & interfaces 8 (2016) 15809–15819. doi:10.1021/acsami.6b04035

    work page doi:10.1021/acsami.6b04035 2016

  5. [5]

    A. Emge, S. Karthikeyan, D. A. Rigney, The effects of sliding velocity and sliding time on nanocrystalline tri- bolayer development and properties in copper, Wear 267 (2009) 562–567. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2008.12.102

    work page doi:10.1016/j.wear.2008.12.102 2009

  6. [6]

    B. Yao, Z. Han, K. Lu, Correlation between wear resistance and subsurface recrystallization structure in copper, Wear 294 (2012) 438–445. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2012.07.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.wear.2012.07.008 2012

  7. [7]

    Hübner, A

    W. Hübner, A. Pyzalla, K. Aßmus, E. Wild, T. Wrob- lewski, Phase stability of AISI 304 stainless steel dur- ing sliding wear at extremely low temperatures, Wear 255 (2003) 476–480. doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00164-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0043-1648(03)00164-9 2003

  8. [8]

    J. S. Rau, S. Balachandran, R. Schneider, P. Gumb- sch, B. Gault, C. Greiner, High diffusivity path- ways govern massively enhanced oxidation during tri- bological sliding, Acta Mater. 221 (2021) 117353. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2021.117353. 13 BCT (α′-martensite) errorHCP (ε-martensite) error 20 µm FCC (γ-austenite) error PristineIndent Scratch 20 um Scratc...

    arXiv 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Hutchings, P

    I. Hutchings, P. Shipway, Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials, Butterworth-heinemann, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1520/G0040-15

    ASTM International, Standard Terminology Relating to Wear and Erosion, ASTM G40-15, aSTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2015). doi:10.1520/G0040-15

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Daure, M

    J. Daure, M. J. Carrington, D. Koti, P. H. Shipway, D. G. McCartney, D. A. Stewart, Significant improvement in el- evated temperature galling resistance of austenitic iron- based hard-facings through heat treatment, Wear (2025) 206487doi:10.1016/j.wear.2025.206487

    2025

  4. [12]

    Vikström, Galling resistance of hardfacing al- loys replacing Stellite, Wear 179 (1994) 143–146

    J. Vikström, Galling resistance of hardfacing al- loys replacing Stellite, Wear 179 (1994) 143–146. doi:10.1016/0043-1648(94)90232-1

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    Inglis, E

    I. Inglis, E. V . Murphy, H. Ocken, Performance of wear-resistant iron base hardfacing alloys in valves operating under prototypical pressurized water reactor conditions, Surf. Coat. Technol. 53 (1992) 101–106. doi:10.1016/0257-8972(92)90110-V

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    Bowden, D

    D. Bowden, D. Stewart, M. Preuss, Understanding the microstructural evolution of silicide-strengthened hardfacing steels, Mater. Des. 161 (2019) 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.09.015

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Vannerem, Chemistry of operating civil nuclear reac- tors, Office for Nuclear Regulation, Nuclear Safety Tech- nical Assessment Guide NS-TAST-GD-088 Revision 2 (2019)

    M. Vannerem, Chemistry of operating civil nuclear reac- tors, Office for Nuclear Regulation, Nuclear Safety Tech- nical Assessment Guide NS-TAST-GD-088 Revision 2 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    B. V . Cockeram, Development of wear-resistant coatings for cobalt–base alloys, Surf. Coat. Technol. 120 (1999) 509–518. doi:10.1016/S0257-8972(99)00492-2

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    Cachon, J

    L. Cachon, J. Denape, F. Sudreau, L. Lelait, Tribological qualification of cobalt-free coatings for pressurized wa- ter reactor primary-circuit gate valve applications, Surf. Coat. Technol. 85 (1996) 163–169. doi:10.1016/0257- 8972(95)02672-X

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    Ahmed, H

    R. Ahmed, H. de Villiers-Lovelock, Friction and wear of cobalt-base alloys, in: Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, ASM International, 2017, pp. 487–501. doi:10.31399/asm.hb.v18.a0006390

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Crook, Cobalt and Cobalt Alloys, in: Proper- ties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special- Purpose Materials, V ol

    P. Crook, Cobalt and Cobalt Alloys, in: Proper- ties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special- Purpose Materials, V ol. 2 of ASM Handbook, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1990, pp. 446–454. doi:10.31399/asm.hb.v02.a0001073

    1990 doi

  12. [20]

    K. C. Antony, Wear-resistant cobalt-base alloys, JOM 35 (1983) 52–60. doi:10.1007/BF03338205

    1983 doi

  13. [21]

    C. Zhao, D. Stewart, J. Jiang, F. P. E. Dunne, A compara- tive assessment of iron and cobalt-based hard-facing alloy deformation using HR-EBSD and HR-DIC, Acta Mater. 159 (2018) 173–186. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2018.08.021

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    D. H. E. Persson, S. Jacobson, S. Hogmark, The in- fluence of phase transformations and oxidation on the galling resistance and low friction behaviour of a laser processed Co-based alloy, Wear 254 (2003) 1134–1140. doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00325-9

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    D. H. E. Persson, S. Jacobson, S. Hogmark, Anti- galling and low friction properties of a laser processed Co-based material, J. Laser Appl. 15 (2003) 115–119. doi:10.2351/1.1514218

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    Bastola, R

    A. Bastola, R. McCarron, P. Shipway, D. Stewart, D. Dini, Experimental and numerical investigations of sliding wear behaviour of an Fe-based alloy for PWR wear resistance applications, Wear 540 (2024) 205186. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2023.205186

    2024

  17. [25]

    D. H. E. Persson, S. Jacobson, S. Hogmark, Effect of temperature on friction and galling of laser processed Norem 02 and Stellite 21, Wear 255 (2003) 498–503. doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00122-4

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    S. R. Rogers, D. Bowden, R. Unnikrishnan, F. Scenini, M. Preuss, D. Stewart, D. Dini, D. Dye, The interaction of galling and oxidation in 316L stainless steel, Wear 450- 451 (2020) 203234. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2020.203234

    2020

  19. [27]

    Y . Shen, X. X. Dong, X. Song, N. Jia, Carbon content- tuned martensite transformation in low-alloy trip steels, Sci. Rep. 9 (2019). doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44105-6

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    P. L. Mangonon, G. Thomas, The martensite phases in 304 stainless steel, Metall. Tran. 1 (1970) 1577–1586. doi:10.1007/BF02642003

    1970 doi

  21. [29]

    G. B. Olson, M. Cohen, A mechanism for the strain-induced nucleation of martensitic transforma- tions, J. Less-Common Met. 28 (1972) 107–118. doi:10.1016/0022-5088(72)90173-7

    1972 doi

  22. [30]

    E. S. Perdahcıo ˘glu, H. J. M. Geijselaers, A macro- scopic model to simulate the mechanically induced martensitic transformation in metastable austenitic stainless steels, Acta Mater. 60 (2012) 4409–4419. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2012.04.042

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    G. W. Greenwood, R. H. Johnson, The deformation of metals under small stresses during phase trans- formations, Proc. R. Soc. A 283 (1965) 403–422. doi:10.1098/rspa.1965.0029

    1965

  24. [32]

    Kim, S.-J

    J.-K. Kim, S.-J. Kim, The temperature dependence of the wear resistance of iron-base NOREM 02 hardfacing al- loy, Wear 237 (2) (2000) 217–222. doi:10.1016/S0043- 1648(99)00326-9

    2000 doi

  25. [33]

    S. R. Rogers, D. Stewart, P. Taplin, D. Dye, Mechanisms of elevated temperature galling in hardfacings, Wear 558 (2024) 205564. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2024.205564. 15

    2024

  26. [34]

    M. J. Carrington, J. L. Daure, S. Utada, V . L. Ratia-Hanby, P. Shipway, D. Stewart, D. G. McCartney, The evolu- tion of subsurface deformation and tribological degra- dation of a multiphase Fe-based hardfacing induced by sliding contact, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 892 (2024) 146023. ...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Emurlaev, I

    K. Emurlaev, I. Bataev, I. Ivanov, D. Lazurenko, V . Burov, A. Ruktuev, D. Ivanov, M. Rosenthal, M. Burghammer, K. Georgarakis, et al., Friction-induced phase transformations and evolution of microstructure of austenitic stainless steel observed by operando syn- chrotron X-ray...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Bhushan, Contact mechanics of rough surfaces in rri- bology: Single asperity contact, Appl

    B. Bhushan, Contact mechanics of rough surfaces in rri- bology: Single asperity contact, Appl. Mech. Rev. 49 (1996) 275–298. doi:10.1115/1.3101928

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    Cappella, D

    B. Cappella, D. Spaltmann, M. Gee, Editorial: Tri- bology and atomic force microscopy – Towards sin- gle asperity contact, Front. Mech. Eng. 8 (2022). doi:10.3389/fmech.2022.853934

    2022

  30. [38]

    Stoyanov, R

    P. Stoyanov, R. Chromik, Scaling Effects on Materials Tri- bology: From Macro to Micro Scale, Materials 10 (2017). doi:10.3390/ma10050550

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    T. D. B. Jacobs, C. Greiner, K. J. Wahl, R. W. Carpick, Insights into tribology from in situ nanoscale ex- periments, MRS Bulletin 44 (2019) 478–486. doi:10.1557/mrs.2019.122

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Zeilinger, J

    A. Zeilinger, J. Todt, C. Krywka, M. Müller, W. Ecker, B. Sartory, M. Meindlhumer, M. Stefenelli, R. Daniel, C. Mitterer, et al., In-situ observation of cross-sectional microstructural changes and stress distributions in frac- turing TiN thin film during nanoindentation, Sci. ...

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    J. B. Pethica, Nanoindentation in more than one dimension–experimental challenges and opportunities, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 27 (2023) 101100. doi:10.1016/j.cossms.2023.101100

    2023

  34. [42]

    Kareer, X

    A. Kareer, X. Hou, N. M. Jennett, S. V . Hainsworth, The existence of a lateral size effect and the re- lationship between indentation and scratch hard- ness in copper, Phil. Mag. 96 (2016) 3396–3413. doi:10.1080/14786435.2016.1146828

    2016

  35. [43]

    Kareer, E

    A. Kareer, E. Tarleton, C. Hardie, S. V . Hainsworth, A. J. Wilkinson, Scratching the surface: Elastic rotations be- neath nanoscratch and nanoindentation tests, Acta Mater. 200 (2020) 116–126. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2020.08.051

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Kareer, E

    A. Kareer, E. Demir, E. Tarleton, C. Hardie, Localised stress and strain distribution in sliding, Scr. Mater. 263 (2025) 116662. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2025.116662

    2025

  37. [45]

    J. Todt, C. Krywka, Z. L. Zhang, P. H. Mayrhofer, J. Keckes, M. Bartosik, Indentation response of a su- perlattice thin film revealed by in-situ scanning X- ray nanodiffraction, Acta Mater. 195 (2020) 425–432. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2020.05.056

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Basham, J

    M. Basham, J. Filik, M. T. Wharmby, P. C. Chang, B. El Kassaby, M. Gerring, J. Aishima, K. Levik, B. C. Pulford, I. Sikharulidze, D. Sneddon, M. Web- ber, S. S. Dhesi, F. Maccherozzi, O. Svensson, S. Brock- hauser, G. Náray, A. W. Ashton, Data Analysis Work- beNch (DAWN), J. S...

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Filik, A

    J. Filik, A. W. Ashton, P. C. Y . Chang, P. A. Chater, S. J. Day, M. Drakopoulos, M. W. Gerring, M. L. Hart, O. V . Magdysyuk, S. Michalik, A. Smith, C. C. Tang, N. J. Terrill, M. T. Wharmby, H. Wilhelm, Processing two- dimensional X-ray diffraction and small-angle scattering ...

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Kröner, Berechnung der elastischen konstanten des vielkristalls aus den konstanten des einkristalls, Z

    E. Kröner, Berechnung der elastischen konstanten des vielkristalls aus den konstanten des einkristalls, Z. Phys. 151 (1958) 504–518

    1958

  41. [49]

    Banerjee, L

    A. Banerjee, L. da Silva, S. Rahimi, Finite ele- ment modelling of transient behaviours and microstruc- tural evolution during dissimilar rotary friction weld- ing of 316 austenitic stainless steel to A516 fer- ritic steel, J. Adv. Join. Process.. 8 (2023) 100167. doi:10.1016/...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Ungár, I

    T. Ungár, I. Dragomir, Á. Révész, A. Borbély, The contrast factors of dislocations in cubic crys- tals: the dislocation model of strain anisotropy in practice, Appl. Crystallog. 32 (1999) 992–1002. doi:10.1107/S0021889899009334

    1999 doi

  43. [51]

    Agius, A

    D. Agius, A. Al Mamun, C. A. Simpson, C. Truman, Y . Wang, M. Mostafavi, D. Knowles, Microstructure- informed, predictive crystal plasticity finite element model of fatigue-dwells, Comp. Mater. Sci. 183 (2020) 109823. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.109823

    2020

  44. [52]

    A. K. Gangopadhyay, M. A. Tamor, Friction and wear be- havior of diamond films against steel and ceramics, Wear 169 (1993) 221–229. doi:10.1016/0043-1648(93)90302- 3

    1993 doi

  45. [53]

    Brazil, J

    O. Brazil, J. B. Pethica, G. M. Pharr, The contribution of plastic sink-in to the static friction of single asper- ity microscopic contacts, Proc. R. Soc. A: 477 (2021) 20210502. doi:10.1098/rspa.2021.0502

    2021

  46. [54]

    Do Kweon, J

    H. Do Kweon, J. W. Kim, O. Song, D. Oh, Determi- nation of true stress-strain curve of type 304 and 316 stainless steels using a typical tensile test and finite ele- ment analysis, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (2021) 647–656. doi:10.1016/j.net.2020.07.014. 16

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.