Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science & Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Analysis of the mechanical behavior of a 0.3C-1.6Si-3.5Mn (wt%)

quenching and partitioning steel
Farideh HajyAkbary a,b,n, Jilt Sietsma b, Goro Miyamoto c, Naoya Kamikawa d,
Roumen H. Petrov e, Tadashi Furuhara c, Maria J. Santomia b
a
Materials innovation institute (M2i), Delft, The Netherlands
b
MSE Department of Materials Science and Engineering, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands
c
Institute for Materials Research, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
d
Intelligent Machines and System Engineering, Hirosaki University, Hirosaki, Japan
e
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A 0.3C-1.6Si-3.5Mn (wt%) steel was subjected to different Q&P treatments, leading to different combi-
Received 15 June 2016 nations of initial martensite, bainite, secondary martensite, and retained austenite. In this study, initial
Received in revised form martensite refers to the martensite formed during the initial quenching step and then subjected to an
20 September 2016
isothermal treatment at 400 C; secondary martensite refers to martensite formed during quenching
Accepted 21 September 2016
Available online 22 September 2016
from 400 C to room temperature. The yield strength of each constituent phase was determined by
applying physical models to the data obtained from detailed microstructural characterization. The yield
Keywords: strength (uncertainty of 5%) of the Q&P microstructures was calculated by using a composite law to
Quenching and partitioning steels account for the contribution of each constituent phase. The dependence of the yield strength on the
Yield strength
microstructural features of the Q&P microstructures was revealed by using the approach developed in
Strengthening mechanism
this work. For example, initial martensite (which has a high yield strength and is the dominant phase in
Dislocation density
Martensite the microstructures) had the greatest effect on the yield strength of the Q&P microstructures. Further-
more, the phase fraction and dislocation density of this phase increased with decreasing quenching
temperature, leading to an increase in the yield strength of the material.
& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction microstructures. The yield strength of each phase is controlled by the

During the "Quenching and Partitioning" (Q&P) process, initial
martensite is formed by rapidly quenching an austenitic micro-
structure to temperatures lower than the martensite-start tempera-
ture (Ms). This is followed by an isothermal treatment, where carbon
is partitioned from supersaturated martensite to austenite, and nal
quenching [1]. Secondary martensite may form during nal
quenching, if some austenite regions are insufciently stabilized.
Furthermore, isothermal martensite [2] or bainitic ferrite [3] may
form during the isothermal holding step. Accordingly, Q&P micro-
structures are composed of initial martensite (M1), isothermal mar-
tensite, bainite, secondary martensite (M2), and retained austenite
(RA). Knowledge of the yield strength of each constituent phase and
the respective contribution to the overall yield strength of the ma-
terial is essential for tailoring the yield strength of the Q&P
type of crystal and the defects in the crystal [4]. Knowledge of these
defects (for example, dislocations, precipitates, solute atoms, and
grain boundaries) is crucial for determining the yield strength of a
phase. However, owing to the complex assembly of phases in Q&P
steels, quantitative analysis of the strengthening contribution asso-
ciated with each phase is challenging. Therefore, most studies have
focused on the qualitative relation between the phase fraction and
the mechanical properties of the material [5,6].
In this study, the strengthening contributions from disloca-
tions, grain boundaries, precipitate, and solute atoms are ac-
counted in calculating the yield strength of the constituent phases
comprising the Q&P microstructures of a 0.3C-1.6Si-3.5Mn (wt%)
steel. These contributions are determined by applying a composite
law, with the aim of identifying the key microstructural para-
meters that determine the yield strength of the Q&P steels.

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: f.hajyakbary@tudelft.nl (F. HajyAkbary), 2. Theoretical calculation of the yield strength
j.sietsma@tudelft.nl (J. Sietsma), mmiyamoto@imr.tohoku.ac.jp (G. Miyamoto),
kamikawa@hirosaki-u.ac.jp (N. Kamikawa), roumen.petrov@ugent.be (R.H. Petrov),
furuhara@imr.tohoku.ac.jp (T. Furuhara), The yield strength of the Q&P microstructures can be calculated
m.j.santomianavarro@tudelft.nl (M.J. Santomia). by considering the contribution of each constituent phase. This

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2016.09.087
0921-5093/& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
506 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514

calculation is performed on the basis of a composite law, which is considered as the effective grain sizes that control the yield
given as follows: strength of bainite and martensite, respectively. The grain
i
boundary strengthening of each phase (gb ) is determined from the
yc = yif i ,
(1) Hall-Petch equation:
i
KHP
where yc , yi , i
and f are the yield strength of the Q&P micro- i
gb = ,
i
structure, yield strength of phase i ( i M1, bainite, M2, and RA), dgb (8)
and volume fraction of the phase, respectively. i
where is the effective grain size of martensite or bainite. A Hall-
dgb
Petch slope, KHP , of 210 MPa mm has been reported for both
2.1. Yield strength of martensite and bainite
bainite and martensite [13].
The summation of the strengthening components can be cal-
2.1.3. Precipitate strengthening
culated as follows [7]: i
The contribution from precipitate strengthening, pcpt (MPa), is
2 2 expressed as [14]:
yi = ( ) + ( )
i
A
i
B (2)
i i
where i denotes M1, bainite or M2; A and B are associated with i 0. 538Gb f pcpt dpcpt
pcpt = ln 2b ,
the forest dislocations and the particles, respectively, and are de- i
dpcpt
(9)
ned as follows:
i i
where dpcpt : average diameter of the precipitates, f pcpt : volume
Ai = 0 + ssi + gb
i
fraction of precipitates, G : shear modulus (G 76 GPa for lath
Bi = pcpt
i
+ i (3) structure with high dislocation density [14]), and b: length of the
Burgers vector.
where 0 : lattice friction stress of pure bcc Fe, ssi : solid solution
i i
strengthening, gb : grain boundary strengthening, pcpt : precipitate 2.1.4. Dislocation strengthening
strengthening, and i : dislocation strengthening. In some studies, The contribution of dislocations to the yield strength of phase i ,
precipitate strengthening is considered the same as that resulting i , can be approximated by the Taylor equation:
from obstacles (i.e., particles) and therefore its contribution is
added to Ai [8]. However, in this study, by considering that mobile i = MGb i , (10)
dislocations are unable to distinguish between precipitates and i
where : geometrical constant, M : Taylor factor, and : dislocation
forest dislocations, the contribution from precipitate strengthen-
density in phase i . Here, M 2.73 [15] and 0.25 [16].
ing is added to the contribution from dislocation strengthening.

2.1.1. Solid solution strengthening 2.2. Retained austenite

The solid solution strengthening of each phase ( ssi ) consists of
contributions from both interstitial carbon atoms and substitu- Owing to the high Si concentration, cementite formation in
tional atoms: austenite is prevented during isothermal holding at 400 C. Fur-
thermore, RA has a low dislocation density and therefore, solid
ssi = Ci + st , (4) solution hardening and grain boundary strengthening are con-
sidered the main factors that determine the yield strength of RA.
where Ci
and st are the solid solution strengthening from carbon
The yield strength (MPa) of RA ( yRA ) is determined from the fol-
atoms and substitutional atoms, respectively. Non-partitioning of
lowing empirical relation [17]:
the substitutional elements is assumed during the formation of
bainite and martensite and, hence, these elements have with the
same concentration in both phases. The solid solution strength-
(
yRA=15. 4 4. 4 + 23XCRA +1. 3XSiRA +0. 24XCr
RA RA
+0. 94XMo +32XNRA )
0. 46
ening from carbon, in MPa, is determined as follows [9]: + ,
dRA (11)
1/2
Ci =1720 XCi ( ) , (5) where X jRA and dRA are the concentration (wt%) of element j ( j C,
Si, Cr, Mo, N) in RA and the grain size (mm) of RA, respectively. This
where XCi
(wt%) is the concentration of solute carbon in phase i .
For carbon concentrations higher than 0.2 wt%, Eq. (5) over- equation is typically used for steels with alloying concentrations of
estimates ci and, in this case, XCi (wt%) is determined from [10]: up to 26 wt% [17].

1/3
Ci =1170 XCi ( ) , (6)
3. Experimental procedure
where XCi is in wt% and Ci is in MPa. The solid solution
strengthening from substitutional atoms, in MPa, is given as fol- Cylindrical 10 mm (length)  3.5 mm (diameter) specimens
lows [11]: were machined parallel to the hot-rolling direction of 0.3C-1.6Si-
3.5Mn (wt%) steel sheets. The specimens were austenitized at
st =83XSi +32XMn 31X Cr +39X Cu , (7)
900 C for 180 s, and then quenched to 25 C, 180 C, 200 C, and
where Xj is the concentration (wt%) of element j ( j Si, Mn, Cr, 220 C at a cooling rate of 20 C s  1. Afterwards, the specimens
and Cu). This equation has been used for steels with alloying were isothermally treated at 400 C for 0 s, 5 s, 10 s, 50 s, 100 s, and
concentrations of 45 wt% [11]. 200 s and subsequently quenched to room temperature in a Bhr
DIL 805 A/D dilatometer. The resulting specimens were designated
2.1.2. Grain boundary strengthening as QTxxx-y, where xxx-y denotes a specimen quenched to xxx C and
The bainite plate size [12] and martensite block size [13] are isothermally treated at 400 C for y seconds. A QT260-5 specimen
 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514 507

was used to investigate the microstructural properties of marten- 4. Results

site. The volume fractions (uncertainty of 70.02 [3]) of initial
martensite ( f M1), bainite ( f B ), and secondary martensite ( f M2 ) were
calculated by applying the lever rule to the dilatometry data ob-
tained during the initial quenching, isothermal holding, and nal
quenching steps, respectively. Electron backscatter diffraction
(EBSD) measurements were performed via orientation imaging
microscopy (OIM) on a FEI Nova 600 Nanolab dual-beam (focused
ion beam) FEG-SEM. The QT260-5 specimen was subjected to in-
place EBSD and SEM analysis. During this process, EBSD analysis
was performed, the carbon contamination on the surface of the
specimen was subsequently removed (via ne polishing), and SEM
analysis was then conducted. Post-processing analysis of EBSD data
having a condence index of 40.2 was performed by using the
TSLs software. Selected specimens were observed with a trans-
mission electron microscope (TEM; Philips CM300) operated at
300 kV; details of this examination are provided elsewhere [3].
Atom probe measurements were carried out at Tohoku Uni-
versity, using a LEAP 4000HR (CAMECA Co.) in voltage-pulse
mode. The experiments were performed at an average detection
rate of 1% and a pulse fraction, pulse rate, and base temperature of
20%, 200,000 Hz, and 80 K, respectively.
Three series of X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements were
performed; (a) a continuous-scan to determine the volume frac-
tion of RA ( f RA ) and the carbon concentration of RA ( XCRA ). The f RA
and XCRA values were calculated by using the method described in
[18]. (b) Stop-scan XRD analysis to estimate the dislocation density
of martensite. (c) In-situ XRD analysis to investigate the me-
chanically induced martensite during tensile deformation. This
analysis was performed on at tensile specimens having a gauge
length and cross section of 3 mm and 0.8  0.8 mm2, respectively.
The measured integral area of the peaks was corrected because the
XRD beam irradiated an area of 4  3 mm2, which is larger than
the at surface of the tensile specimen. This correction was per-
Am
formed by using the relation Ac = sin
, where is the Bragg angle;
Am and Ac are the measured and the corrected area, respectively
[19]. Details of the XRD tests are provided in Table 1.
In order to determine the tensile properties of the Q&P mi-
crostructures, tensile specimens having a gauge length and cross
section of 3 mm and 0.8  0.8 mm2, respectively, were prepared
from specimens treated in the dilatometer. The specimens quen-
ched to 180 C, 200 C and 220 C were tested by using a AG-
100kNX plus tensile test machine, where the tensile elongation is
measured by a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera. Tensile test-
ing of the specimens quenched to room temperature was per-
formed on a Deben Microtest machine, where the strain is de-
termined from the crosshead displacement. The inuence of the
machine compliance on the strain was corrected in accordance
with a previous study [20]. Moreover, the tensile tests were all
performed at an initial strain rate of 2  10  3 s  1.
4.1. Volume fraction and carbon concentration of the constituent
phases
Fig. 1 shows that three dilatations occur after the austenitization
step of the QT220-200 specimen. The rst dilatation starts at 288 C,
i.e., the Ms temperature of the steel, and continues until the
quenching temperature (220 C) is reached. The second and third
dilatations occur during isothermal holding and nal quenching,
which are associated with the formation of bainitic ferrite and sec-
ondary martensite, respectively. Although the rst and third dilata-
tions occur in all specimens, the second dilatation occurs only in
specimens quenched to 220 C and isothermally treated at 400 C for
10 s, 50 s, 100 s, and 200 s.
The QT25-0 (directly quenched) specimen consists of marten-
site and carbides (see Fig. 2a). Furthermore, as in the case of the
QT180-5 specimen (see Fig. 2b), the microstructures of the QT180,
QT200, and QT220 specimens consist of an internally etched phase
with carbide precipitates (M1), a blocky phase (M2), and thin lms
of RA. The occurrence of carbide in the as-quenched specimen
indicates that the carbides in M1 resulted from the auto tempering
of martensite during the initial quenching step [3].
4.1.1. Initial martensite
Austenite peaks were absent from the XRD spectra of the QT25
specimens and therefore these specimens were assumed to be
fully martensitic with carbide precipitation. Regarding the occur-
rence of carbide in martensite, the volume fraction of martensite
was determined by subtracting the volume fraction of carbide
from unity: the results are shown in Table 2. Based on the large
fraction of carbide in these specimens, it was assumed that most of
the carbon precipitated as carbide and the concentration of solid-
solution carbon is 0.05 wt%.
The volume fraction of M1 ( f M1) in the QT180, QT200, and
QT220 specimens (see Table 2) was determined from dilatometry
data. Several 3D-APT measurements were performed on the
QT180-5 and QT180-200 specimens in order to determine the
carbon concentration of the solid solution in M1 ( XCM1). These
specimens do not contain bainitic ferrite (next subsection) and M1
is the only low-carbon phase. Therefore, regions with a carbon
concentration lower than the average carbon concentration of the
steel were considered M1. Fig. 3 shows two carbon maps, which
reveal the M1 in the QT180-5 and QT180-200 specimens. The
carbon concentration of both specimens was measured along the
axis of the cylinders. A loss of Fe ions during the 3D-APT

Table 1
Details of XRD measurements performed for different applications.

Application 2 range Filament Step size Counting

time

Determining f RA and XCRA 30135 Co 0.05 5s

Dislocation density of 40150 Cu 0.02 10 s
martensite
Mechanical stability of 45107 Co 0.05 1s
austenite
Fig. 1. Dilatometry curve of the QT220-200 specimen.
508 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514

Fig. 3. 3D atom probe tomography map of carbon atoms in the QT180-5 and
QT180-200 specimens.

Fig. 2. SEM micrographs of the (a) QT25-0 (as-quenched) and (b) QT180-5 specimens.
4.1.2. Bainite
The phase transformation associated with the isothermal holding
of the Q&P process of this steel has previously been investigated [3].
In that work, the fraction of formed phase was perfectly predicted by
the simulation of bainitic-ferrite formation. Therefore, in the present
work, it is assumed that bainitic ferrite is the only phase formed
during isothermal holding. Bainite formation is negligible in the
QT180 and QT200 specimens, but is quite pronounced in the speci-
mens quenched to 220 C. In fact, the fraction of bainite in the QT220
specimens increases with increasing isothermal holding time; the
volume fraction of bainite ( f B ) in these specimens is shown in Ta-
ble 2. Furthermore, owing to the low solubility of carbon in ferrite,
the carbon concentration of bainite is assumed to be zero.

Table 2
4.1.3. Secondary martensite
Volume fractions of initial martensite, bainite, secondary martensite, retained The volume fraction of M2 ( f M2 ) in the QT180, QT200, and
austenite (uncertainty of measurements: approximately 7 0.02) and carbide QT220 specimens was determined from dilatometry data obtained
(uncertainty: 70.05). during the nal quenching step. In some cases, the summation of
Partitioning time (s)
the calculated phase fractions is greater than unity. Therefore, to
fM f fB fM fRA
1 2 normalize the total fraction to unity, f M2 was calibrated by ap-
QT25 0200 0.95 0.05 0 0 0 plying a multiplication to each phase fraction; the corresponding
QT180 5 0.79 0.02 0 0.04 0.15 results are shown in Table 2. A maximum value of 0.02 (which lies
10 0.79 0.02 0 0.03 0.16 within the range of uncertainty of the measurements) was ob-
50 0.79 0.02 0 0.01 0.18 tained for the difference between the calibrated fraction of M2 and
100 0.79 0.02 0 0.02 0.17
200 0.79 0.02 0 0.02 0.17
the fraction calculated from dilatometry. The carbon concentration
QT200 5 0.74 0.01 0 0.07 0.19 of M2 was determined from the dilatometry data and by applying
10 0.74 0.01 0 0.08 0.18 the method described in [3]. Moreover, the carbon content of M2
50 0.74 0.01 0 0.04 0.22 and other phases ( C i ) can be obtained from: C i = f i XCi , where XCi is
100 0.74 0.01 0 0.03 0.23
the carbon concentration of phase i (i M1, RA, M2, and B). Fig. 4a
200 0.74 0.01 0 0.04 0.22
QT220 5 0.65 0.01 0 0.18 0.17 c show the C M2 of the QT180, QT200, and QT220 specimens, re-
10 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.2 spectively. M2 has a high carbon concentration, i.e., TEM analysis
50 0.65 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.23 revealed highly deformed twin-containing martensite grains,
100 0.65 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.23
which are considered M2. Fig. 5a shows an example of an M2 grain
200 0.65 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.24
in the QT180-200 specimen. M2 is un-tempered martensite and,
hence, carbide cannot be detected in the TEM micrographs. As
measurements leads to an overestimation of the concentration such, the carbon in M2 is assumed to be in solid solution.
and, hence, the values were corrected by using the method de-
4.1.4. Retained austenite
scribed in [21]. This yielded a value of 0.05 7 0.01 wt% for the
Table 2 lists the f RA of the QT180, QT200, and QT220 specimens.
corrected concentration of solid-solution carbon in M1 of the
The carbon concentration of RA ( XCRA ) in these specimens was
QT180-5 and QT180-200 specimens. SEM micrographs reveal a
determined via XRD analysis. The corresponding C RA are shown in
high fraction of carbides in the QT180, QT200, and QT220 speci-
Fig. 4ac, respectively.
mens. In addition, the carbon partitioning simulations predict that
most of the solid-solution carbon partitions to austenite during the 4.1.5. Carbide
initial stage of isothermal holding [3]. Therefore, a XCM1 of Selected Area Diffraction (SAD) analysis of carbides in the
0.05 70.01 wt% is also assumed for these specimens. QT180-5 and QT180-200 specimens indicates that M1 contains -
 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514
Fig. 4. Carbon content of phases in the (a) QT180, (b) QT200, and (c) QT220 specimens.
carbide [3]. This suggests that negligible cementite formation oc-
curred during isothermal holding and most of the carbides are -
carbides that formed during the initial quenching. Therefore, the
carbides in the Q&P specimens are considered -carbide, indicating
that Si retards the kinetics of cementite formation in steels, but
has negligible inuence on the kinetics of -carbide formation. The
difference in the inuence of Si on cementite and -carbide for-
mation is attributed to the fact that Si is insoluble in cementite
509
Fig. 5. (a) Bright eld TEM image of twins and (b) dark eld TEM micrograph of -
carbide in the QT180-200 specimen.
crystals. The rejection of Si to the surrounding volume is essential
for the growth of cementite nuclei. However, the nucleation and
growth of -carbide are not inuenced by Si [3].
The volume fraction of -carbide (Fe2.2C) can be determined
from the amount of carbon in the precipitates. As such, the carbon
content of M1 was calculated by subtracting the carbon content of
the other phases from the carbon content of the steel (C =0.3 wt%);
i.e.C M1=C C RA C M2 C B . In the case of the QT25 specimens, f RA =0
and, hence, C M1=0.3 wt% for these specimens. Fig. 4ac show the
C M1 of the QT180, QT200, and QT220 specimens, respectively. The
carbon content of initial martensite (see Fig. 4) includes both
carbon in the precipitates and in solid solution. The amount of
carbon in the precipitates was determined by subtracting the
amount of solid solution carbon from C M1. Table 2 lists the calcu-
lated volume fractions of -carbide. An average diameter of
207 5 nm was obtained for the -carbides, based on dark eld
TEM analysis of the QT180-200 specimen (see example in Fig. 5b)
and TEM analysis of the other specimens.
510 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514

Fig. 6. (a) Combined IQ and phase map of the QT260-5 specimen; black boundaries correspond to misorientation higher than 15; green grains and red grains are RA and martensite
(M1 and M2), respectively. (b) Distribution of grain average IQ of BCC grains, (c) SEM micrograph, and (d) combined IQ and phase map of the selected region in Fig. 6a. In Figs. 6b and
6d, yellow and blue denote M2 and M1, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

4.2. Grain size characterization of the phases
Fig. 6a shows a combined grain average Image Quality (GAIQ)
and phase map of the QT260-5 specimen. In this map, RA grains
and martensite grains (both M1 and M2) are shown in green and
red, respectively. The RA grains have a blocky morphology. How-
ever, thin lms of RA occur between the martensite grains. These
lms have grain sizes that are smaller than the step size of EBSD
(50 nm) and are therefore undetectable, leading to an under-
estimation of the RA fraction [22].
Tempering of M1 during isothermal holding reduces the carbon
concentration and dislocation density of M1 to values lower than
those associated with M2. Consequently, M1 and M2 can be clas-
sied as regions with high-GAIQ and low-GAIQ, respectively [23].
The GAIQ of martensite in the region shown in Fig. 6a was de-
termined (see Fig. 6b) in order to develop an approach for iden-
tifying M1 and M2 on the basis of their GAIQ. Subsequently, based
on the SEM micrograph of the selected region in Fig. 6c, the GAIQ
of the M1 and M2 grains in Fig. 6b was designated by blue and
yellow, respectively. Fig. 6b conrms that most of the M1 grains
have higher GAIQ than M2 grains. However, as shown in Fig. 6b,
the GAIQ distributions of M1 and M2 overlap in a narrow region.
Fig. 6d shows the corresponding microstructure, where green,
blue, and yellow denote the respective RA, M1, and M2 grains. A
comparison of Fig. 6c and d indicates that M1 and M2 can be
identied from the GAIQ distributions as grains with high-GAIQ
and low-GAIQ, respectively.
To determine the actual block size of the grains, the normal direc-
tion of the specimen must be perpendicular to the habit plane of the
grain. Therefore, the measured block size ( dl ) must be corrected using
d = d sin , where d is the actual size [13]; is the angle between the
l l l
normal of the lath habit plane ((0 1 1)M//(1 1 1)A, M: martensite, A:
austenite) and the normal of the specimen surface. This parameter ( )
can be determined from EBSD analysis and is used, in the present
work, to determine the block sizes of M1 and M2 in the QT180-5,
QT180-200, and QT220-5 specimens. The block sizes were determined
for ve initial austenite grains of each specimen. Sizes of 0.970.1 mm
and 0.470.1 mm were obtained, and designated as the block sizes of
M1 and M2, respectively, in the QT180, QT200, and QT220 specimens. A
block size of 0.470.1 mm was obtained for martensite in the QT25
specimens. This value is the average size of grains, in the QT25-5
specimen, which have misorientation higher than 15.
Owing to the tempering of M1 during the isothermal annealing
step, M1 and bainitic ferrite have low carbon concentration.
Therefore these phases exhibit similar contrast in SEM and TEM
images as well as similar GAIQ during EBSD analysis, leading to
difculty in distinguishing the phases. A thickness of 0.17 mm is
assumed for the bainite plates in the QT220 specimens. This is the
thickness of bainitic ferrite plates formed at 400 C in a steel with
chemical composition (0.27C-1.98Si-2.18Mn wt%) [24] similar to
that of the studied steel. The thickness of bainite plates in silicon-
rich steels is determined by the strength of austenite at the
transformation temperature and the chemical free energy change
 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514
accompanying the transformation. These factors are both de-
termined by the chemical composition of the steel.
Average RA grain sizes of 0.4 mm, 0.45 mm, and 0.5 mm were
estimated from EBSD analysis of specimens quenched to 180 C,
200 C, and 220 C, respectively.
4.3. Dislocation density of initial martensite, bainite, and secondary
martensite
XRD peaks corresponding to M1 and M2 overlap in the QT180 and
QT200 specimens and in the QT220 specimens the peaks of M1, M2,
and bainite overlap. The volume fractions of M2 and bainite are
signicantly lower than that of M1 and consequently the full width at
half maximum (FWHM) of the peaks is attributed to the dislocation
density of M1. In this study, the dislocation density was calculated
from the peak broadening by using the method described in [25].
Fig. 7a shows the dislocation density of martensite in the QT25
specimens and M1 in the QT180, QT200, and QT220 specimens as a
function of the quenching temperature. As the gure shows, the
dislocation density of martensite decreases with increasing quench-
ing temperature or increasing isothermal holding time.
Martensite in the QT25-0 specimen and M2 in the QT180, QT200,
and QT220 specimens were formed by quenching to room tem-
perature. These phases were not isothermally treated. Therefore, the
dislocation density of M2 is considered equal to that of martensite in
the QT25-0 (directly quenched) specimen, although the carbon
concentration of the former is higher than that of the latter. This
assumption is based on the fact that increasing the carbon
Fig. 7. Effect of the quenching temperature on the (a) dislocation density of mar-
tensite and (b) yield strength of the Q&P specimens.
511
concentration of steel leads to a maximum dislocation density of
4.1  1015 m  2; further increases result in the formation of twins and
a decrease in the dislocation density [26]. Moreover, the strength-
ening mechanisms are only slightly inuenced by ne internal
twinning in plates of martensite [27]. Therefore, the inuence of
twins on the yield strength of M2 is not considered in the current
study.
The dislocation density of bainitic ferrite ( B (m  2)), which
forms at temperatures of 300650 C, can be determined as fol-
lows [28]:
15845 4100000
B = 2 109 exp ,
T T2 (12)
where T is the isothermal holding temperature in K. An isothermal
holding temperature of 400 C yields a dislocation density of
4  1015 m  2, which is similar to the dislocation density of initial
martensite. However, bainite has a very low carbon and therefore the
dislocation density of bainitic ferrite should be lower than that of M1.
This conict may be resolved by considering that the austenite, which
gives rise to bainitic ferrite, has a higher carbon concentration than the
austenite that gives rise to initial martensite. This is due to the fact that
kinetics of carbon partitioning is faster than that of bainitic ferrite
formation and, hence, austenite receives carbon prior to bainite for-
mation [3]. Accordingly, austenite that gives rise to bainitic ferrite is
harder than the austenite, which gives rise to initial martensite. The
calculated dislocation density of bainitic ferrite is therefore consistent
with the fact that the bainitic ferrite is almost carbon-free.
4.4. Yield strength of the microstructures
Fig. 7b shows the 0.2% offset yield strength of the specimens as
a function of the quenching temperature. As the gure shows, the
yield strength decreases with increasing quenching temperature
while increasing the quenching temperature from 25 C to 180 C
have a signicant effect on the strength. However, the yield
strength is insensitive to the isothermal process associated with
each quenching temperature.
4.5. Mechanical stability of retained austenite
The mechanical stability of RA was determined by measuring
the volume fraction of RA during microtensile testing of the
QT180-5 and QT180-200 specimens (see Fig. 8). Prior to yielding,
the volume fraction of RA decreases by 0.03, which is considered
negligible in the current study.
5. Discussion
5.1. Contribution of the strengthening mechanisms in martensite and
bainite
5.1.1. Lattice friction stress
A value of 41 MPa [29] is adopted for the lattice friction stress
( 0 ) in M1, bainite, and M2; 0 of the QT220-200 specimen is
shown in Fig. 9.
5.1.2. Solid solution strengthening
A value of 0.05 wt% was assumed for the concentration of solid-
solution carbon in martensite of the QT25 specimens and M1 of the
QT180, QT200, and QT220 specimens. The solid solution strengthening
by carbon ( C ) was estimated by substituting this value into Eq. (5).
However, the carbon concentration in bainite is assumed to be zero and,
hence, C in bainite is zero. The contribution of C in M2 was calculated
by inserting the carbon concentration of M2 into Eq. (6). Fig. 9 shows
the C values of M1 and M2 in the QT220-200 specimen.
512 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514
Fig. 8. Effect of the applied stress on the volume fraction of RA in the QT180-5 and
QT180-200 specimens.
Fig. 9. Contribution of the strengthening mechanisms to the yield strength of M1,
bainite, and M2 in the QT220-200 specimen.
Owing to the low diffusivity of substitutional elements at
400 C, the concentration and, consequently, solid solution
strengthening (st ) of these elements in M1, bainite, and M2 are the
same for all of the specimens. The st in M1, bainite, and M2 was
calculated by inserting the chemical composition of the steel into
Eq. (7). The st value of the QT220-200 specimen is shown in Fig. 9.
5.1.3. Grain boundary strengthening
M1
The contribution of grain boundary strengthening in M1 ( gb )
M2
and M2 ( gb ) in the QT180, QT200, and QT200 specimens was es-
timated by inserting the corresponding block sizes (0.9 mm and
0.4 mm, respectively) into Eq. (8). Similarly, the contribution of grain
B
boundary strengthening in bainite ( gb ) was calculated by inserting
the thickness of the bainitic ferrite plates (0.17 mm) into Eq. (8).
M1 M2 B
Fig. 9 shows the gb , gb , and gb of the QT220-200 specimen. The
block size of martensite (0.4 mm) in the specimens quenched to
M
25 C was inserted into Eq. (8), and gb was thereby calculated.
5.1.4. Precipitate strengthening
The contribution of -carbide precipitate strengthening was de-
termined by inserting the volume fraction (see Table 2) and the
average diameter (20 nm) of -carbide precipitates into Eq. (9). The
lattice parameter (a) of ferrite was determined from XRD analysis of
a
the specimens. Substituting this value into 2 111 , the Burgers vector
in ferrite was yielded a value of 0.248 nm. Fig. 9 shows the strength
contribution of -carbide precipitate in the QT220-200 specimen.
5.1.5. Dislocation strengthening
As Fig. 7a shows, the dislocation density of martensite decreases
with increasing quenching temperature, as reported in a previous
study [30]. In that work, the quenching process was interrupted and
the dislocation density of martensite was measured via in-situ neu-
tron diffraction. The supplementary deformation of martensite and
austenite increases with decreasing quenching temperature and in-
creasing fraction of martensite. This increased deformation leads to
an increase in the hardness of the material and, hence, the shear
stress required for the formation of new martensite crystallites in-
creases. Consequently, the dislocation density of the newly formed
martensite crystallites increases with decreasing quenching tem-
perature [30]. As in previous studies [31,32], the dislocation density
of M1 decreases gradually during the isothermal holding step (see
Fig. 7a). The contribution of dislocation strengthening in M1, M2, and
bainite was calculated by inserting the corresponding dislocation
density into Eq. (10). Fig. 9 shows the dislocation strengthening
contribution in M1, M2, and bainite of the QT220-200 specimen.
5.2. Estimation of the yield strength of the constituent phases
The yield strengths of M1, bainite, and M2 in the QT180, QT200,
and QT220 specimens (see Fig. 10ac, respectively) were determined
from Eqs. (2) and (3). Among these phases, M2 has the highest
concentration of solid-solution carbon and dislocation density and, in
turn, the highest yield strength. In addition, strengthening-mechan-
ism contributions in M2 occur at similar levels in all specimens and
therefore the yield strength of this phase varies (17501860 MPa)
only slightly. In contrast, the yield strength of M1 varies from 1340 to
1590 MPa, 12901460 MPa, and 10801200 MPa in the QT180, QT200
and QT220 specimens (see Fig. 10), respectively. Owing to the higher
dislocation density (Fig. 7a), the yield strength of M1 in specimens
quenched to lower temperature is higher than that of M1 in speci-
mens quenched to higher temperature. Fig. 10c indicates that the
yield strength (1121 MPa) of bainite in the QT220 specimens is in-
dependent of the isothermal holding time. Fig. 10ac show the yield
strength of RA in the QT180, QT200, and QT220 specimens, respec-
tively, as determined from Eq. (11). As the gures show, RA has the
lowest yield strength (124131 MPa) of all the phases. This yield
strength represents the yield strength of RA with blocky morphology.
The dislocation density of interlath RA is higher than that of blocky
austenite and, hence, the yield strength of interlath austenite is
higher than that calculated for blocky austenite. However, EBSD
analysis revealed that the RA has mainly blocky morphology and
interlath RA constitutes a fraction of o0.04. Therefore, the inuence
of RA on the yield strength is accurately determined by using the
values associated with the blocky morphology.
The yield strength of each specimen is also included in Fig. 10.
The specimens have lower yield strengths than M1, bainite, and
M2, thereby conrming that RA has signicant inuence on the
mechanical properties of these steels.
5.3. The yield strength of the Q&P specimens
The yield strength of each QT25 specimen was determined from
Eqs. (2) and (3) and compared with the measured values (see
Fig. 11a). This gure reveals that the calculated yield strength (as
determined from Eq. (2)) of the martensitic structures deviates by 2%,
which is within the experimental uncertainty, from the measured
value. The yield strength of the QT180, QT200, and QT220 specimens
 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514 513

Fig. 11. (a) Comparison of the calculated and the measured yield strength and
(b) contributions of the different phases to the yield strength of the Q&P specimens.

Although M2 has the highest yield strength of the constituent phases,

this phase accounts for a small volume fraction of each micro-
structure and, therefore, contributes only modestly to the yield
strength. Bainite accounts for a small volume fraction of the QT220
specimens and, hence, contributes only slightly to the yield strength.
However, initial martensite has a high yield strength and accounts for
the highest volume fraction of all the phases. Therefore, this phase
has the highest contribution to the yield strength. This indicates that
controlling the strength and fraction of M1 is essential for tailoring
the yield strength of the Q&P microstructures.

6. Conclusions

The dependence of the yield strength on the microstructural

characteristics of Q&P microstructures was investigated and the
following conclusions were drawn, based on the results obtained:
Fig. 10. The yield strength of the constituent phases and the total yield strength of
the (a) QT180, (b) QT200, and (c) QT220 specimens.
 The contribution of the strengthening mechanisms to the yield
is calculated by inserting the volume fraction (Table 2) and yield strength of the constituent phases (initial martensite, secondary
strength (Fig. 10) of each phase into Eq. (1). As Fig. 11a shows, the martensite, bainite, and retained austenite) was determined by
calculated yield strength corresponds closely (5% deviation) to the applying physical models. The accuracy of the model used to
measured yield strength. Fig. 11b shows the contribution of each calculate the yield strength of martensitic and bainitic struc-
phase to the yield strength of the Q&P microstructures. Owing to its tures was determined by comparing the calculated and mea-
low yield strength and the low amount of martensite formed prior to sured yield strength values of tempered martensite specimens.
yielding (Fig. 8), RA has the lowest contribution to the yield strength. The results showed that the model estimates the strength of the
514 F. HajyAkbary et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 677 (2016) 505514
specimens with an uncertainty of 2%. In addition, the con-
tribution of the constituent phases to the yield strength of the
Q&P microstructures is linearly proportional to the volume
fraction of the phases. Therefore, the proposed approach reveals
the inuence of microstructural characteristics on the yield
strength of Q&P steels.
 Initial martensite has a relatively high yield strength and ac-
counts for the highest volume fraction of the constituent pha-
ses. Therefore, this phase has the greatest effect on the yield
strength of the Q&P microstructures. The dislocation density of
initial martensite is inversely proportional to the quenching
temperature. In other words, the yield strength and volume
fraction of initial martensite, and, consequently, the contribu-
tion of this phase to the yield strength of Q&P microstructures,
decrease with increasing quenching temperature.
 Retained austenite has a low yield strength and only a small
amount of martensite forms before the 0.2% offset yield
strength is reached. As such, retained austenite contributes only
slightly to the yield strength of the Q&P microstructures.
Acknowledgments
This research was carried out under project number M41.10.11437
in the framework of the Research Program of the Materials innova-
tion institute M2i (www.m2i.nl). The support of Tata Steel RD&T is
gratefully acknowledged. M.J. Santomia gratefully acknowledges the
nancial support of the European Research Council under the Eur-
opean Unions Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC
grant agreement number 306292, Netherlands Organization for Sci-
entic Research (NWO ), and Dutch Foundation of Applied Sciences
(STW) through Vidi-grant number 12376.
References
[1] D.V. Edmonds, K. He, F.C. Rizzo, B.C. De Cooman, D.K. Matlock, J.G. Speer,
Quenching and partitioning martensite-A novel steel heat treatment, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 438440 (2006) 2534.
[2] M.C. Somani, D.A. Porter, L.P. Karjalainen, R.D.K. Misra, On various aspects of
decomposition of austenite in a high-silicon steel during quenching and par-
titioning, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 45 (2014) 12471257.
[3] F. HajyAkbary, J. Sietsma, G. Miyamoto, T. Furuhara, M.J. Santomia, Interaction
of carbon partitioning, carbide precipitation and bainite formation during the
quenching and partitioning process in a low C steel, Acta Mater. 104 (2016)
7283.
[4] N. Kamikawa, K. Sato, G. Miyamoto, M. Murayama, N. Sekido, K. Tsuzaki,
T. Furuhara, Stressstrain behavior of ferrite and bainite with nano-pre-
cipitation in low carbon steels, Acta Mater. 83 (2015) 383396.
[5] I. de Diego-Caldern, M.J. Santomia, J.M.M. Molina-Aldareguia, M.A. Moncls,
I. Sabirov, Deformation behavior of a high strength multiphase steel at macro-
and micro-scales, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 611 (2014) 201211.
[6] J. Sun, H. Yu, S. Wang, Y. Fan, Study of microstructural evolution, micro-
structure-mechanical properties correlation and collaborative deformation-
transformation behavior of quenching and partitioning (Q&P) steel, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 596 (2014) 8997.
[7] J. Irvine, T.N. Baker, The inuence of rolling variables on the strengthening
mechanisms operating in niobium steels, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 64 (1984) 123134.
[8] H.Y. Li, X.W. Lu, W.J. Li, X.J. Jin, Microstructure and mechanical properties of an
ultrahigh-strength 40SiMnNiCr steel during the one-step quenching and
partitioning 40 process, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 41 (2010) 12841300.
[9] G.R. Speich, H. Warlimont, Yield strength and transformation substructure of
low-carbon martensite, J. Iron Steel Inst. 206 (1968) 385392.
[10] P.G. Winchell, M. Cohen, The strength of martensite, J. Iron Steel Inst. 206
(1968) 385392.
[11] T. Gladman, The Physical Metallurgy of Microalloyed Steels, Institute of Ma-
terials, London, 1997.
[12] C.H. Young, H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Strength of mixtures of bainite and marten-
site, Mater. Sci. Technol. 10 (1994) 209214.
[13] S. Morito, H. Yoshida, T. Maki, X. Huang, Effect of block size on the strength of
lath martensite in low carbon steels, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 438440 (2006)
237240.
[14] G. Ghosh, G.B. Olson, The isotropic shear modulus of multicomponent Fe-base
[15]
solid solutions, Acta Mater. 50 (2002) 26552675.
J.M. Rosenberg, H.R. Piehler, Calculation of the Taylor factor and lattice rota-
tions for bcc metals deforming by pencil glide, Metall. Trans. 2 (1971) 257259.
[16] M. Huang, P.E.J. Rivera-Daz-del-Castillo, O. Bouaziz, S. van der Zwaag, Mod-
elling strength and ductility of ultrane grained BCC and FCC alloys using ir-
reversible thermodynamics, Mater. Sci. Technol. 25 (2009) 833839.
[17] F.M. McGuire, Stainless Steels for Design Engineers, 2008, ASM International,
73, Materials Park, Ohio.
[18] M.J. Santomia, L. Zhao, R.H. Petrov, C. Kwakernaak, W.G. Sloof, J. Sietsma,
Microstructural development during the quenching and partitioning process
in a newly designed low-carbon steel, Acta Mater. 59 (2011) 60596068.
[19] A.J. Kolk, Is Retained Austenite Controlling the Mechanical Properties of Q&P
Steels?, (Master thesis)2014, Delft University of Technology, Netherland.
[20] F. HajyAkbary, M.J. Santomia, J. Sietsma, Elastic strain measurement of
miniature tensile specimens, Exp. Mech. 54 (2014) 165173.
[21] G. Miyamoto, K. Shinbo, T. Furuhara, Quantitative measurement of carbon
content in FeC binary alloys by atom probe tomography, Scr. Mater. 67 (2012)
9991002.
[22] G. Thomas, J. Speer, D. Matlock, J. Michael, Application of electron backscatter
diffraction techniques to quenched and partitioned steels, Microsc. Microanal.
17 (2011) 368373.
[23] M.J. Santomia, L. Zhao, R.H. Petrov, J. Sietsma, Microstructural analysis of
martensite constituents in quenching and partitioning steels, Mater. Charact.
92 (2014) 9195.
[24] S.B. Singh, H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Estimation of bainite plate-thickness in low-
alloy steels, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 245 (1998) 7279.
[25] F. HajyAkbary, J. Sietsma, A.J. Bttger, M.J. Santomia, An improved X-ray
diffraction analysis method to characterize dislocation density in lath mar-
tensitic structures, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 639 (2015) 208218.
[26] S. Morito, J. Nishikawa, T. Maki, Dislocation density within lath martensite in
Fe-C and Fe-Ni alloys, ISIJ Int. 43 (2003) 14751477.
[27] G. Krauss, Martensite in steel: strength and structure, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 273
275 (1999) 4057.
[28] M. Takahashi, H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Model for transition from upper to lower
bainite, Mater. Sci. Technol. 6 (1990) 592603.
[29] G.R. Speich, P.R. Swann, Yield strength and transformation substructure of
quenched iron-nickel alloys, J. Iron Steel Inst. 203 (1965) 480485.
[30] F. Christien, M.T.F. Telling, K.S. Knight, Neutron diffraction in situ monitoring of
the dislocation density during martensitic transformation in a stainless steel,
Scr. Mater. 68 (2013) 506509.
[31] Q. Hao, S. Qin, Y. Liu, X. Zuo, N. Chen, Y. Rong, Relation between microstructure
and formability of quenching-partitioning-tempering martensitic steel, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 671 (2016) 135146.
[32] D. De Knijf, M.J. Santomia, H. Shi, V. Bliznuk, C. Fojer, R. Petrov, W. Xu, In situ
austenitemartensite interface mobility study during annealing, Acta Mater.
90 (2015) 161168.