Looking over some of the data and GSAS-II tutorials, we may not be using the right value for the results. It looks like GSAS-II outputs two different values; and I didn't completely appreciate the differences until now. (see https://subversion.xray.aps.anl.gov/pyGSAS/Tutorials/Simulation/SimTutorial.htm for details)
"Phase fraction" is the number of unit cells per phase
"Wt. fraction" is the mass of the unit cells per phase
Not listed, but another common value is:
"Volume fraction" the volume of the unit cells per phase
The problem is that the "phase fraction" ignores the fact that the austenite has 2x more cells and nearly 2x the volume.
On the plus side, when looking at wt. fraction for Example05 (SRM487), I get a value much closer to the expected 30% (.307 wt fraction austenite, instead of the 0.181 from the phase fraction).
Looking over some of the data and GSAS-II tutorials, we may not be using the right value for the results. It looks like GSAS-II outputs two different values; and I didn't completely appreciate the differences until now. (see https://subversion.xray.aps.anl.gov/pyGSAS/Tutorials/Simulation/SimTutorial.htm for details)
"Phase fraction" is the number of unit cells per phase "Wt. fraction" is the mass of the unit cells per phase
Not listed, but another common value is: "Volume fraction" the volume of the unit cells per phase
The problem is that the "phase fraction" ignores the fact that the austenite has 2x more cells and nearly 2x the volume.
On the plus side, when looking at wt. fraction for Example05 (SRM487), I get a value much closer to the expected 30% (.307 wt fraction austenite, instead of the 0.181 from the phase fraction).