Materials Science and Engineering A 483–484 (2008) 325–328

Mechanical behavior of CrMo steel with tempered martensite

and ferrite–bainite–martensite microstructure
A. Abdollah-Zadeh ∗ , A. Salemi, H. Assadi
Department of Materials Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, P.O. Box 14115-143, Tehran, Iran
Received 6 June 2006; received in revised form 28 September 2006; accepted 5 December 2006

Abstract
This study is concerned with a correlation between the microstructure and mechanical properties of 42CrMo4 steel, with two different microstruc-
tures. Quench tempering and step quenching heat treatments produced tempered martensite and ferrite–bainite–martensite (FBM) microstructures,
respectively. Tensile test results indicated a yield-drop effect in FBM microstructure with ferritic matrix. This was attributed to dislocation genera-
tion in ferrite phase during bainitic and martensitic transformations. Fractographic investigations indicated transgranular cleavage and microvoid in
FBM and tempered martensite microstructures, respectively. This can be attributed to high density of interphase boundary in FBM microstructure
and carbide formation in tempered martensite microstructure.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: 42CrMo4 steel microstructure; Ferrite–bainite–martensite; Cleavage fracture

1. Introduction for mixed microstructure in high strength steels. They found

The influence of microstructure on mechanical properties in
steels has been a subject of considerable research interest for
many years [1–3]. The microstructure of conventional steels
often makes it impossible to obtain concurrently good ductil-
ity, toughness and high strength. Evolution of newer steel with
improved combinations of strength, ductility and toughness has
led to the emergence of a series of mixed or multi-phase struc-
tures in which Advanced High Strength (AHS), represents a
distinguished class [3–5]. Some applications, especially trans-
portations require economical high strength steel with good
ductility and formability. The AHS steels were developed to
satisfy an increasing need, primarily in the automobile industry,
for new high strength steels that permit weight reduction without
dramatically increasing costs [6–9]. The mechanical properties
of mixed microstructure in high strength steels have been widely
investigated. Many researchers reported a good combination
of strength, toughness and ductility for mixed microstructure
[6–8,10,11].
Sanctis and Lovicu [10] developed a model to examine
the effect of the soft and hard phases on the tensile property
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 88005040; fax: +98 21 88005040.
E-mail address: zadeh@modares.ac.ir (A. Abdollah-Zadeh).
that a simple model based on the law of mixtures may result
inaccuracy in predicting mechanical strength, when applied
to product having a large difference in the amount of a hard
constituent.
Matlock and Krauss [11] also investigated the effect of
microstructure on mechanical properties in micro-alloyed, mul-
tiphase steels. They found that tensile properties and fracture
toughness of ferrite–bainite–martensite (FBM) structure of
micro-alloyed steels are inferior to those of conventional steels.
Sankaran et al. [6–8] developed a multiphase microstructure
by thermomechanical processing in micro-alloyed steels in order
to produce a mixed structure. They reported that the proof and
tensile strengths of FMB microstructure are increase by 17%
and 20%, respectively, compared with the values corresponding
to the conventional microstructure.
In all the previous studies made on multiphase steels, both
thermomechanical and heat treatments have been used to pro-
duce FBM microstructures. However, it is of interest to see,
if mechanical behavior could be improved upon by only step
quenching treatment. As of now, no literature is available on
the improved mechanical properties by the step quenching heat
treatment processes. The objective of this investigation is to
study the correlation between the microstructure and mechani-
cal behavior of FBM and tempered martensite microstructure in
42CrMo4 steel.

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2006.12.179
326 A. Abdollah-Zadeh et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 483–484 (2008) 325–328

Table 1
The heat treatment cycles and microstructures
Specimen Heat treatment cycle Microstructure

FBM-1 850 ◦ C, 1 h → 650 ◦ C, 4 min → 430 ◦ C,

4 min → w.q 25%Ferrite–bainite–martensite
FBM-2 850 ◦ C, 1 h → 650 ◦ C, 8 min → 430 ◦ C, 4 min → w.q 31%Ferrite–bainite–martensite
FBM-3 850 ◦ C, 1 h → 650 ◦ C, 12 min → 430 ◦ C, 4 min → w.q 39%Ferrite–bainite–martensite
FBM-4 850 ◦ C, 1 h → 650 ◦ C, 4 min → 400 ◦ C, 4 min → w.q 25%Ferrite–bainite–martensite
FBM-5 850 ◦ C, 1 h → 650 ◦ C, 8 min → 400 ◦ C, 4 min → w.q 31%Ferrite–bainite–martensite
FBM-6 850 ◦ C, 1 h → 650 ◦ C, 12 min → 400 ◦ C, 4 min → w.q 39%Ferrite–bainite–martensite
M-T 850 ◦ C, 1 h → o.q → 650 ◦ C, 1 h Tempered martensite

2. Experimental methods analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to determine

The material used in this investigation was 42CrMo
steel with the composition (wt.%): Fe–0.35C–1.10Cr–0.23Mo–
0.52Mn–0.36Si–0.014P–0.006S. The heat treatment cycles
were designed so as to produce significantly different
microstructures. These included one tempered martensite
microstructure and six FBM microstructures. Quench tempering
and step quenching heat treatments produced a tempered marten-
site and an equiaxed ferrite–bainite–martensite microstructure,
respectively. The detailed heat treatments schedule is given
in Table 1. For optical microscopy, the samples were etched
in a 4% nital. Furthermore, for color tint etching, the sam-
ples were etched in the solution of 4% picral and sodium
metabisulfite.
The ambient temperature tensile and Charpy V-Notch tests
were made according to the specification DIN 50115 and DIN
50125, respectively. Fracture surfaces of Charpy specimens were
the fracture mechanisms.
3. Results and discussion
The microstructures of the quench tempered and step
quenched specimens are shown in Fig. 1a through d, respec-
tively. As can be seen in these figures, the microstructure of the
quench tempered specimen was tempered martensite, whereas
the microstructure of the steel in the step quenching condition
was ferrite (white areas) and mixture of bainite and marten-
site (black areas). In the color tint etching, ferrite, bainite and
martensite were observed in azure blue, brown and white colors,
respectively. As can be seen in Fig. 1b, the matrix is embedded
in the bainite and martensite hard phases, in which ferrite is dis-
tributed in hard phase matrix. This kind of microstructure was
observed in the FBM-1 specimen, which were held in the two
phase (austenite + ferrite) region for 4 min. By increasing the

Fig. 1. Optical micrographs (4% nital etched) of the microstructures, (a) quench tempered microstructure (M-T), (b) isothermally transformed at 650 ◦ C for 4 min
(FBM-1) and (c and d) isothermally transformed at 650 ◦ C for 8 (FBM-2) and 12 min (FBM-3), respectively.
 A. Abdollah-Zadeh et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 483–484 (2008) 325–328 327

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the tempered martensite and FBM microstructures
Specimen Tensile strength (MPa) Yield strength (MPa) Elongation (%) Reduction of area (%) CVN (J)

FBM-1 742 ± 2 605 ± 5 25 ± 1 27 15 ± 1

FBM-2 675 ± 5 530 ± 6 37 ± 1 54 ± 8 39 ± 2
FBM-3 633 ± 6 475 ± 3 45 ± 3 65 ± 2 76 ± 5
FBM-4 862 ± 3 802 ± 12 25 ± 0.3 24 ± 1 10
FBM-5 712 ± 6 545 ± 5 38 ± 1 56 ± 2 47 ± 3
FBM-6 670 ± 1 520 ± 6 40 ± 0.05 63 ± 2 75 ± 5
M-T 940 ± 10 800 ± 5 55 ± 4 31 ± 0.5 80 ± 1

time, from 4 min to 8 and 12 min, the microstructure includes
ferrite matrix, in which the bainite and martensite surrounded
by ferrite phase (see, e.g. Fig. 1c and d). This can be explained
based on the phase transformation of steel during intercritical
annealing treatment, where the ferrite volume fraction increases
from 25% to 39% as the annealing treatment time increases from
4 to 12 min (see, e.g. Table 1).
The tensile and Charpy impact test data of differently heat
treated specimens are given in Table 2. The yield and tensile
strengths of FBM-1 specimen are 742 and 605 MPa, while for
specimen FBM-2 are 675, 530 MPa, and for specimen FBM-
3, are 633 and 475 MPa, respectively. It is seen that the yield
and tensile strength of FBM-2 and FBM-3 specimens are equiv-
alent and far from FBM-1. This difference was also observed
in the elongation, reduction of area and impact energy. In
FBM-1 specimen, the mixture of bainite and martensite hard
phases forms the matrix of microstructure, in which ferrite
phase is distributed in it. Then the mechanical property of
bainite–martensite mixture will determine mechanical proper-
ties. On the other hand, in FBM-2 and FBM-3 specimens,
in which bainite and martensite phases surrounded by ferritic
soft matrix, mechanical properties of ferrite will determine the
mechanical properties of the investigated steel. Such interpret-
ing would be true for differences of tensile, yield strengths
and ductility quantities in FBM-4 with FBM-5 and FBM-6
specimens.
With increasing the bainitic transformation temperature from
400 to 430 ◦ C, yield and tensile strengths of FBM-4, FBM-5 and
FBM-6 specimens increase compared with those of in FBM-1,
FBM-2 and FBM-3, as shown in Table 2. Decreasing the strength
in this steel may be related to the decreasing dislocation den-
sity in bainite phase with increasing the bainitic transformation
temperature from 400 to 430 ◦ C [12].
By comparing the tempered martensite microstructure with
that of FBM microstructure, it can be concluded that the
mechanical properties of tempered martensite microstructure
are generally favorable to mechanical properties of FBM
microstructure.
The tensile results indicated that continuous yielding was
observed in the stress–strain curve for all tempered martensite
specimens. This continuity was also observed in FBM-1 and
FBM-4 specimens. However, in this study, besides continuous
yielding during transition from elastic to plastic deformation,
discontinues yielding was also observed on the stress–strain
curves for all specimens with ferritic matrix microstructure.
The occurrence of discontinuous yielding phenomenon can
be rationalized with the existing theories, as pinning of dis-
locations by solute atoms [13,14], formation of short range
order region near dislocation [15], electrical charge of solute
atoms and depositing on dislocations [16,17]. According to
these theories, solute atoms immobilize dislocations and suf-
ficiently highly applied stress required to loosen dislocation
from their pinning points. From this rationalization, the yield
point is indicative of the applied stress required to mobilize
these pinned dislocations. According to other theories [18],
the occurrence of discontinuous yield phenomenon may be
understood by dislocation generation, which entails a sud-
den increase in dislocation density. It is a known fact that
mobile dislocation density has a very important effect on
yielding phenomenon of metallic materials and does not stay
constant during plastic deformation. The formation of marten-
site and bainite from austenite phase in FBM microstructure
generates a copious number of dislocations in the adjacent
ferrite grain. It is clearly known that, plastic deformation of
specimens during tensile test generates a number of dislo-
cations in FBM microstructure. Due to the pinning of this
deformation generated dislocations with prior dislocations,
mobile dislocations density decrease during plastic deforma-
tion. Decreasing the mobile dislocations causes discontinuous
yielding on the stress–strain curve in the FBM specimens with
ferritic matrix.
Charpy impact fractography results are shown in Fig. 2.
In the tempered martensite microstructure, the fracture sur-
face included small and large dimples (Fig. 2a). The origin
of these dimples can be from the carbides produced in the
tempering of martensite during the tempering treatment [19].
Fractographic investigations showed fracture mechanism of
transgranular cleavage in the FBM microstructure (Fig. 2b and
c), in the surfaces. Bright facet observed in all FBM speci-
mens, which are characteristic of cleavage fracture. The reason
of appearing these surfaces in steel can be related to some factors
that are: the Fe carbide colonies and Fe carbides [20,21], spher-
ical inclusion of manganese sulfide and secondary particles,
especially titanium carbide [22]. If Fe carbide, sulfide inclusion
or secondary partials are cause of bright facet in cleavage frac-
ture, presence of dimples in starting bright facet location will be
unavoidable [20–22]. In microscopic investigation any dimple
in starting bright facet was not observed (see, e.g. Fig. 2c). Thus
these surfaces appear in steel due to the formation of interphase
boundary.
328 A. Abdollah-Zadeh et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 483–484 (2008) 325–328
Fig. 2. SEM images of (a) dimples on the surface of the quench tempered
specimen, (b) fracture surface of step quenched specimens exhibited a typi-
cal transgranular cleavage mode and (c) cleavage step began at the boundary at
top form a sharply defined river pattern. Crack propagation was in direction of
arrow.
4. Conclusions
The mechanical properties of tempered martensite, is more
favorable than those of FBM microstructure. Decreasing bainite
transformation temperature from 430 to 400 ◦ C increases, the
yield and tensile strength but decreases impact energy. Increase
in the yield and tensile strength and the related reduction of
impact energy are results of increasing bainite dislocation den-
sity.
Yield-drop effect was observed in FBM microstructure with
ferritic matrix. This effect can also be attributed to disloca-
tion generation in ferrite phase during bainitic and martensitic
transformations.
Fractography of the Charpy impact specimens indi-
cates ductile and transgranular fracture mechanisms in
quench tempered and step quenched specimens, respectively.
This can be attributed to interphase boundary in FBM
microstructure and carbide formation in tempered martensite
microstructure.
References
[1] Y. Tomita, T. Okawa, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 172 (1993) 145–
151.
[2] D. Liu, B. Bai, H. Fang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 371 (2004) 40–44.
[3] S. Maropoulos, N. Ridley, J. Kechagias, Eng. Frac. Mech. 71 (2004)
1695–1704.
[4] S. Sivaprasad, S. Tarafder, V.R. Ranganath, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 284 (2000)
195–201.
[5] S. Dhua, Mater. Metall. Trans. A 34 (2003) 2493–2494.
[6] S. Sankaran, V.S. Sarma, K. Padmanabhan, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 362 (2003)
249–256.
[7] S. Sankaran, V.S. Sarma, K. Padmanabhan, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 345 (2003)
328–335.
[8] S. Sankaran, V.S. Sarma, K. Padmanabhan, Scripta Mater. 49 (2003)
503–508.
[9] S. Jitsukawa, W. Shiro, J. Nucl. Mater. 329–333 (2004) 39–
49.
[10] M. Sanctis, G.F. Lovicu, 42th MNSP Conf. Proc., vol. 37, ISS, Italy, 2000,
pp. 615–620.
[11] D.K. Matlock, G. Krauss, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 165 (1995) 1–8.
[12] H. Matsuda, H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Proc. R. Soc. London 460 (2004)
1707–1722.
[13] A. Cottrel, B.A. Bilby, Proc. Phys. Soc. London 62 (1949) 49–
62.
[14] H. Suzuki, Symposium on the Relation between the Structure and
Mechanical Properties of Metals, vol. 15, NPL, London, 1963, pp. 517–
525.
[15] K.S.B. Rose, S.G. Gloverj, Acta Metall. 14 (1966) 1505–1516.
[16] A.H. Cottrel, S.C. Hunter, Phil. Mag. 44 (1953) 1064–1070.
[17] G.W. Kelly, Prog. Mater. Sci. 10 (1963) 149–155.
[18] X.L. Cai, J. Feng, Metall. Trans. A 16 (1985) 1405–1415.
[19] E.K. Tschegg, S. Suresh, Metall. Trans. A 19 (1988) 3035–
3044.
[20] S. Druee, Fracture Mechanics 22th Symposium, ASTM, Philadelphia,
1992, pp. 682–706.
[21] X.Z. Zhang, J.F. Knott, Acta Mater. 48 (2000) 2135–2146.
[22] Rosenfield, D.K. Shetty, Eng. Frac. Mech. 17 (1983) 461–470.