Materials Science and Technology

ISSN: 0267-0836 (Print) 1743-2847 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymst20

Effect of hardness of martensite and ferrite on

void formation in dual phase steel

M. Azuma, S. Goutianos, N. Hansen, G. Winther & X. Huang

To cite this article: M. Azuma, S. Goutianos, N. Hansen, G. Winther & X. Huang (2012) Effect
of hardness of martensite and ferrite on void formation in dual phase steel, Materials Science
and Technology, 28:9-10, 1092-1100, DOI: 10.1179/1743284712Y.0000000006

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1743284712Y.0000000006

Published online: 12 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 504

View related articles

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymst20

Download by: [University of Waterloo] Date: 18 January 2017, At: 11:46

 Effect of hardness of martensite and ferrite on
void formation in dual phase steel
M. Azuma1,2, S. Goutianos2, N. Hansen3, G. Winther3 and X. Huang*3
The influence of the hardness of martensite and ferrite phases in dual phase steel on void
formation has been investigated by in situ tensile loading in a scanning electron microscope.
Microstructural observations have shown that most voids form in martensite by evolving four
steps: plastic deformation of martensite, crack initiation at the martensite/ferrite interface, crack
propagation leading to fracture of martensite particles and void formation by separation of particle
fragments. It has been identified that the hardness effect is associated with the following aspects:
strain partitioning between martensite and ferrite, strain localisation and critical strain required for
void formation. Reducing the hardness difference between martensite and ferrite phases by
tempering has been shown to be an effective approach to retard the void formation in martensite
and thereby is expected to improve the formability.
Keywords: Dual phase steel, Morphology, Tempering, Hardness, Void formation, Strain partitioning

This paper is part of a special issue on ‘Hardness across the multi-scales of structure and loading rate’

Introduction fraction, shape and size of martensite, and as a change of

High strength steels are widely used as structural materials
in buildings, ships and automobiles for economical,
environmental and safety reasons. In particular, low alloy
dual phase steels, which consist of a soft ferrite matrix and
hard martensite particles, are of great importance in order
to save fuel and to improve crashworthiness when used in
automobiles. This is because dual phase steels have a wide
ultimate tensile strength range from 440 to 1470 MPa and
also have an excellent combination of strength and
elongation.1–7 As the martensite particles contribute to
the strength and the ferrite phase ensures good elongation,
it follows that the grain size of ferrite and the volume
fraction of martensite are important parameters. It is
reported that although dual phase steels have good
uniform elongation, improved formability is required for
complex components. As it is well known that void
formation is a precursor to fracture,3,8–23 there is an
incentive to control the void formation in dual phase steel.
Therefore, control of the hardness of the constituents is of
great importance as they interact during loading, which is
an underlying cause for void formation and fracture.
Mazinani and Poole suggested the softening of martensite
through intercritical annealing at high temperature, where
the carbon content in austenite is low and can soften
martensite and improve the true fracture strain.3
However, as intercritical annealing affects the volume
such parameters might affect void formation, the effect of
the hardness of martensite is still ambiguous.
Tempering treatments are also suggested as a method to
improve the formability, counterbalanced by a reduction
of ultimate tensile strength.24–29 Fang et al., Samuel,
Joarder et al. and Hasegawa et al. reported that softening
of martensite through tempering increases the elongation/
hole expansion ratio. In particular, local elongation,
which is defined as an elongation from the onset of
necking to fracture, is significantly improved by the
treatments.24–27 However, in these studies, void formation
behaviour in dual phase steels was not explored in such
detail even if void formation leads to fracture of the
specimens. Tomota et al. and Jardim et al. suggested that
softening of martensite assists plastic deformation of
martensite and therefore retards void formation in dual
phase steels.28,29 However, criteria for void formation and
how the hardness of martensite affects void formation are
still ambiguous and need investigation.
In the present study, the effect of martensite hardness
on void formation in dual phase steel is explored by in
situ tensile tests in a scanning electron microscope
(SEM), where the structural evolution can be followed
as a function of applied stress and strain. The observa-
tions have pointed to criteria for void formation affected
by martensite hardness, which is discussed with a view
on the formability of steel.

1
Nippon Steel Corporation, 6-1, Marunouchi 2-Chome, Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo Experimental
100-8071, Japan
2
Materials Research Division, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Materials
Energy, Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde DK-4000, Denmark
3
Danish–Chinese Center for Nanometals, Materials Research Division, An alloy was melted as a 20 kg ingot in a vacuum
Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of furnace. The chemical composition is listed in Table 1.
Denmark, Roskilde DK-4000, Denmark Carbon is one of the most important alloying elements
*Corresponding author, email xiaoxu.huang@risoe.dk when producing dual phase steels, as it affects not only

ß 2012 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 17 October 2011; accepted 9 January 2012
1092 DOI 10.1179/1743284712Y.0000000006 Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28 NO 9–10

the volume fraction of martensite but also the hardness
of martensite. Dual phase steels of 590 MPa grade have
,0?1 wt-%C and from 10 to 20 vol.-% martensite,8–11
and in the present steel, 0?1 wt-% carbon addition
produced ,20 vol.-% martensite. Manganese was added
to retard pearlite transformation during cooling, since,
in steel without Mn, pearlite transformation occurs very
rapidly and most austenites transform to pearlites.
Sulphur and oxygen often exist as sulphides and oxides
in steels, and they have a negative effect on the
mechanical properties because of void formation at
inclusions.21,30–32 Then, an electrolytic iron, with a
sulphur content of ,0?001 wt-%, was used to remove
the influence of sulphides and oxides. The ingot was
annealed to 1200uC for 1 h in an argon atmosphere, hot
rolled from 45 to 3 mm thickness, cooled slowly from
a hot rolling finishing temperature of 950–650uC to
promote ferrite formation, then water cooling to
ambient temperature and transformation of austenite
into martensite. Samples have been tempered from 300
to 600uC as such a treatment may change the hardness
of martensite without affecting the volume fraction and
size of ferrite and martensite.29 A short holding time
of 100 s has been applied to prevent carbides from
coarsening as void formation can be enhanced by
decohesion at the interface between ferrite and large
particle and also by coarsening of such large particles.32
Initial microstructure
The initial microstructures were observed in an SEM
after polishing and etching by nital (96%C2H5OHz
4%HNO3), which allows improved identification of
martensite particles. Five areas were observed at a
magnification of 62000. However, the microstructure
at the centre of the specimen was not examined to avoid
the effect of Mn segregation. The grain size was measured
in the transverse direction and in the direction normal to
the rolling direction by a linear intercept method, and the
average value was defined as the grain size. The aspect
ratio of the martensite particles was determined as the
length in the transverse direction divided by the length in
the normal direction. The volume fraction of each phase
was measured by a point counting method.
Mechanical testing
Tensile testing
Flat dog bone specimens of dimensions 36356180 mm
were deformed in tension. The gauge length was 50 mm,
and the gauge width was 25 mm. The tensile direction
was parallel to the transverse direction of the rolled
sheet. The following parameters have been determined:
yield stress (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), uni-
form elongation and total elongation.
Hardness testing
The initial microstructure was characterised by nanoin-
dentation (Hysitron, TriboIndenter TI-950) and by
Vickers hardness test (a Struers DuraScan 70 hardness).
In particular, the hardness of martensite and ferrite in
the specimens before deformation was measured and
Table 1 Chemical composition/wt-%
C Si Mn P S N O
0.099 0.01 1.63 ,0.001 0.0007 0.0008 ,0.0010
Azuma et al. Effect of hardness on void formation in dual phase steel
related to the tensile properties and strain distribution in
the ferrite grains and the strain partitioning between
martensite and ferrite during deformation. In order to
distinguish ferrite grains from martensite particles,
hardness tests were carried out after polishing and
etching by nital. In the nanohardness test, the penetra-
tion depth was 50 nm, and an indenter with Berkovich
geometry was used. The indent size by nanohardness test
was much smaller than the grain/particle size. In the
Vickers tests, the load was 10 gf, and the loading time
was 10 s. The indent size in the Vickers hardness test was
relatively large, and only the hardness of large grains
and large particles was measured. In addition, the
average hardness of the specimen was measured by
loading of 1 kgf, and the values for 10 areas were
averaged.
In situ tensile testing
Tensile tests and three point bending tests were carried
out in SEM. For in situ tensile testing, 0?1562?8630 mm
specimens were machined, and a hole with a diameter of
1 mm was made in the centre of the specimen. All
specimens were polished and etched before deformation.
The sample was clamped at both ends and stretched
under displacement control in a screw driven load cell,
which was installed inside the microscope. The specimen
was strained gradually, and the surface structure was
characterised during loading. During the test, a number
of parameters were determined, as they can underpin an
analysis of nucleation and growth of voids: size of voids
and nucleation density and length and area fraction of
voids. These parameters have been related to a strain
parameter, which is defined in the following section. For
more details, see Ref. 33.
Strain parameters
During in situ testing, a local strain at the bottom of one
hole eh is estimated based on measurement of gauge
length at the bottom.33 The strain in the tensile direction
is defined as a local strain during in situ testing as the
deformation localises at the edge of the hole. A gauge at
this position was defined based on SEM observations. At
first, a 100 mm gauge was defined by SEM observation, in
which the distance was estimated based on the visible
microstructure. The length change of the gauge was
directly followed during the in situ tests. If the gauge
length is too small, few grains exist in the gauge, and a
strain does not represent an average value of the specimen
because each grain has a different strain due to different
crystal orientations and distribution of martensite parti-
cles. On the other hand, since deformation concentrates
at the bottom of the hole, a large gauge length might lead
to an underestimation of the strain. In addition, strains in
martensite eM and ferrite eF are also important para-
meters to underpin an effect during straining of the
hardness of the two phases.34–36 The changes in these
parameters were followed during the initial test by
measuring the length changes of martensite particles
and ferrite grains. Two hundred grains/particles were
measured, and average values are given as eM and eF. An
additional and important parameter is the local strain in
the necked region of a martensite particle eL, which is
located at a concave part of the particle, which may be
present before straining or it may form during straining.
During in situ testing, the strains in the necked region of
martensite particles were measured directly, and a strain
Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28 NO 9–10 1093
Azuma et al. Effect of hardness on void formation in dual phase steel

in the necked region of the particles just before crack/void

formation is defined as a critical strain for void formation
in the martensite phase.

Results and discussion

Mechanical properties and microstructures
The tempering treatment significantly increases the
uniform elongation; however, the increase is counter-
balanced by a reduction in the ultimate tensile strength
and the hardness. Owing to the introduction of a yield
point phenomenon, the YS increased as a result of
tempering (see Table 2). Table 2 also shows the ratios:
YS/HV and UTS/HV and in accordance with Ref. 37.
The ratio of UTS/HV can, with good accuracy, be
estimated to ,0?3. However, this simple factor cannot
be used to estimate the yield stress based on hardness
measurements (see Table 2). During tensile testing and
hardness indentation, ferrite and martensite show
different deformation behaviours. Just after yielding in
a tensile test, it has been observed38,39 that martensite
deform elastically, whereas at higher stains (2–6%), also
the martensite particles deform plastically. However,
exposed to the relatively high strain in a hardness test,
both phases deform plastically.
The initial microstructures before deformation are
shown in Fig. 1 for non-tempered and tempered speci-
mens. The microstructures consisted of a ferrite matrix
(F) and martensite particles (M). After tempering, the
martensite phase appears bright due to carbide pre-
cipitation. No pearlite or bainite was observed. The
tempering treatments did not affect the volume fraction,
grain size and shape of ferrite and martensite. The
volume fraction of martensite was 21% in Table 3. The
initial microstructures were free from voids and cracks.
Note that the shape of the two phases is different.
Ferrite grains nucleated at triple junctions, and the grain
boundaries of austenite during cooling have the shape of
a polygon. Martensite particles were, on the other hand,
transformed from the remaining austenite, and they are
less regular in shape and have concave and convex
profiles, and some particles were elongated in the
transverse direction. The aspect ratio of particles was
a without tempering; b tempered at 300uC; c tempered
,2?1, and the size of martensite particles varied from ,1 at 500uC
to over 20 mm. 1 Initial microstructure of dual phase steel showing
Tempering treatments, however, affected the hardness equiaxed ferrite grains (F) and martensite particles (M)
of martensite and ferrite, as shown in Fig. 2. The data at with concave and convex profiles (marked by arrows):
25uC are for the specimen before tempering treatments. rolling direction (RD) is marked
The microhardness test shows that tempering mainly
softened martensite, but martensite was still harder than strength of the specimen. According to Pickering,36 the
ferrite (Fig. 2a). Figure 2b shows that the difference of causes are a reduction in solute solution hardening due
the hardness between martensite and ferrite depended on to carbide precipitation and a reduction in the disloca-
the tempering temperature. It is expected that softening tion density induced by martensitic transformation. In
of martensite leads to a reduction in ultimate tensile the present study, cementite precipitation in ferrite and

Table 2 Tensile properties of dual phase steel*

YS/MPa UTS/MPa U-El/% T-El/% HV/GPa

Before tempering 361(0.170){ 683(0.322){ 10.4 19.1 2.12

Tempered at 300uC 395(0.214){ 576(0.311){ 12.3 27.2 1.85
Tempered at 400uC 407(0.229){ 530(0.298){ 13.0 30.3 1.78
Tempered at 500uC 407(0.250){ 504(0.309){ 14.1 34.6 1.63
Tempered at 600uC 406(0.265){ 486(0.318){ 14.7 36.2 1.53
*YS: 0?2% flow stress or upper yield stress, UTS: ultimate tensile strength, U-El: uniform elongation, HV: average hardness of the
specimens (load51 kgf).
{Ratio of YS/HV or UTS/HV.

1094 Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28 NO 9–10

 Azuma et al. Effect of hardness on void formation in dual phase steel

martensite was observed, and as the martensite phase

had more excess carbon, it softened more than ferrite.
However, the indent in the Vickers hardness test was so
large that only the microhardness of larger martensite
particles and ferrite grains was measured as shown in
Fig. 3a and b. On the other hand, Fig. 3c shows that the
indents by the nanohardness test, which were marked in
the figure, are much smaller than the size of martensite
and ferrite as the penetration depth is only 50 nm. It
appears clearly that the nanohardness test is more
suitable to measure the hardness of small particles and
also of microstructures, where the particles and grains
are elongated and very thin. In addition, as strain often
localises in the ferrite grains and martensite particles,
nanoindentation is more suitable to estimate the strain
distribution around martensite particles in dual phase
steel. However, the initial microstructures were char-
acterised by Vickers hardness test, and as the nanohard-
ness test was very sensitive to the surface roughness of
the specimen, the difference between the two hardness
values is large (see Fig. 4) as the cementite precipitation
roughened the surface. In addition, the martensite
particles subdivided by blocks and packets with diffe-
rent crystallographic orientations may show different
hardness values contributing to the observed spread.
Figure 4 shows in accordance with another work40 that
the nanohardness is significantly larger than the Vickers
hardness. However, the ratio is near 2, which gives
confidence to both types of measurements. In another
study,40 it has been suggested that the nanohardness
a microhardness by Vickers hardness tests; b difference
depended on the size of the indent. In the present study, of hardness between martensite and ferrite phases
it is found that the hardness increases with a decrease in 2 Effect of tempering treatments on microhardness of mar-
indent size. tensite and ferrite in dual phase steel: load was 10 gf to
measure hardness of martensite and ferrite phases
Void formation behaviour during in situ
observation perpendicular to the tensile direction, but decohesion
Cracks and voids were observed before and after at the ferrite/martensite interface or at the ferrite/ferrite
tempering at different sites in the martensite phase, in grain boundary was not observed. In the present work,
the ferrite phase and at inclusions. At a given strain, the this type of voids is called ‘a void in the ferrite’. To
majority of voids formed in martensite. Figure 5 shows estimate the effect of tempering treatments on void
typical void formation behaviour in martensite. Before formation more quantitatively, the void number density
deformation, martensite and ferrite did not contain was followed during in situ tests. Voids formed over a
cracks and voids in Fig. 5a. At a strain of 0?067, a void large area of 25 000 mm2 were counted, and the void
formed in a martensite particle due to crack formation number density was analysed with respect to the
in the particle and did not propagate into ferrite grains, martensite and ferrite phases. As shown in Fig. 6, the
and necking was observed at another particle (Fig. 5b). void number density in both phases increased with
Figure 5c shows that further strain led to void formation strain. It is apparent that the majority of voids formed in
at the necked region of martensite (necking1), and the martensite and tempering treatments retarded void
separation of the particle fragments led to void between formation in both martensite and ferrite and thereby
broken martensite particles, and the void grew in the improved the formability. In particular, as more voids
tensile direction. Plastic deformation (necking 2) appeared in the specimens after necking, it appears that
occurred in another concave part of the martensite the effect of tempering on post-necking elongation is
particle. In the present work, this type of void is called ‘a relatively large. A more detailed analysis of void
void in the martensite’. In the tempered specimens, most formation behaviour in martensite was reported in a
voids also formed in martensite due to crack formation previous work.33 In commercial dual phase steels, which
in martensite. On the other hand, few voids formed at consist of smaller ferrite grains and martensite particles,
the martensite/ferrite interface on the ferrite side. The plastic deformation of martensite particles and crack
voids predominantly formed at the interface faced formation in martensite were observed.35,36,40 It appears

Table 3 Volume fraction and grain size of dual phase steel studied

Volume fraction Grain size/mm

Ferrite Martensite Ferrite Martensite Aspect ratio of martensite particles

0.79 0.21 7.3 3.5 2.1

Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28 NO 9–10 1095

Azuma et al. Effect of hardness on void formation in dual phase steel
3 Shape of indent after the hardness tests: a SEM image
of an indent in the martensite phase and b SEM image
of an indent in the ferrite phase by the Vickers hard-
ness tests, and c Scanning probe microscopy image of
indents by the nanohardness test. In the Vickers hard-
ness test the load was 10gf and in the nanohardness
test penetration depth was 50nm. The indents are
marked in the figure and the indent sizes in the nano-
hardness test are much smaller than the particle/grain
size
1096 Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28
4 Relationship between nano- and microhardness
that the same void formation mechanism dominates in
commercial steels. In addition, slip bands were often
observed at the necked region before and after void
formation. In previous works, similar findings were
reported.35,36,40
Discussion
In situ tensile tests have revealed that most voids formed
in martensite due to (i) plastic deformation of martensite
particles, (ii) crack formation in the particles, (iii) crack
propagation in the particles and (iv) separation of the
particle fragments. The tests have also shown that
softening of martensite through tempering treatments
retards void (crack) formation in dual phase steel and
thereby improves the formability. As plastic deforma-
tion of the martensite particles preceded void formation
in martensite, plastic deformation of martensite has an
important role to play in void formation in martensite.
In this section, the effect of softening of martensite on
the deformation behaviour of martensite and ferrite is
discussed.
Strain distribution in martensite and ferrite
During the processing of dual phase steel, a difference in
thermal contraction between the two phases and the
transformation from austenite to martensite can lead to
a build-up of internal stresses. Such stresses can be
relaxed by the formation and motion of dislocations,
which will be stored in the structure. During plastic
deformation of dual phase steel, the largest stresses are
expected at the interface between ferrite and martensite,
and their magnitude will depend on the hardness
difference between the two phases. A high hardness
difference will create a large stress, which means that a
tempering treatment reducing the difference (Fig. 2) will
reduce the stress at the martensite particle interface. In
general, this stress can be relaxed by generation and
motion of dislocations, but relaxation can also take
place by interfacial decohesion and crack formation in
martensite or ferrite.
Dislocations are generated and stored in the structure
both during the processing of dual phase steel and
during plastic deformation. These dislocations can be
classified41 as (i) statistically stored dislocations with a
density that is proportional to the applied stress and
inversely proportional to the slip length and (ii)
geometrically necessary dislocations caused by a local
non-uniform strain at a hard phase. The density of these
dislocations is proportional to the strain and increases
with an increasing volume concentration and a decreas-
ing size of the hard phase. However, the density of
NO 9–10

a initial microstructure without cracks or voids; b neck-
ing of martensite particle and void formation in marten-
site particle (eh50?067); c necking, formation and growth
of voids (eh50?200)
5 In situ observation of void formation in martensite in
dual phase steel during tensile test
geometrically necessary dislocations also depends on the
particle shape, whether it is equiaxed, plate-like or
needle shaped (Ashby). This effect of shape has, for
example, been shown42 in an Al-Sic composite, where
the hard SiC particles are elongated and dislocations
have been observed by TEM along the particles but
most intense at the ends. The present study42 also shows
a fall-off in dislocation density with an increasing
distance from the particles. Finally, a non-uniform
strain may also characterise the region near the grain
boundaries in the ferrite phase as the slip pattern may
depend on the crystallographic orientation of neigh-
bouring grains. In this case, a non-uniform strain may
be accommodated by the formation and motion of
geometrically necessary dislocations with a density that,
at small strains, is proportional to the strain and
increases inversely proportional with the grain size.
The dislocation formed during processing and plastic
deformation may partly be annealed out by dynamic
recovery or climb, but a certain fraction is stored in the
Azuma et al. Effect of hardness on void formation in dual phase steel
a in martensite; b in ferrite
6 Influence of tempering treatments on void number den-
sity in dual phase steel during in situ tensile test
structure in the form of isolated dislocations and as cells
and subgrains, which are rotated with respect to each
other. A measurement of the lattice rotation by electron
backscatter diffraction (EBSD) (or TEM) may therefore
show not only the magnitude of the local stress and
strain but also how it is distributed near the martensite
particles and near the grain boundaries in ferrite.
The strain distribution around martensite particles and
in ferrite grains has been estimated by EBSD in the
undeformed state and after tensile straining to a strain of
0?05, also including specimens that have been tempered at
300 and 500uC. Contour maps in Fig. 7 show deviation of
the Euler angle at each point from the average value in
each ferrite grain. Martensite appears as black and is
neglected; the yellow colour indicates small deviations;
the blue colour indicates larger deviations; and the green
colour indicates large deviations above 7u. Figure 7a–c
shows that deviations present after processing are small
and tend to be localised near the martensite/ferrite
interface, but this localisation is not pronounced, showing
a fairly uniform and rather small dislocation density. In
the deformed state, the strain distribution shown in
Fig. 7d–f is in general support of the general expectation
that the strain and stress are localised at the matrix ferrite
interface and that it is reduced by tempering. However,
the particle shape also significantly affects the strain
distribution as strain localisation is observed at the
concave part and near the end of the martensite particles.
It is also seen that this type of strain localisation is
Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28 NO 9–10 1097
Azuma et al. Effect of hardness on void formation in dual phase steel

7 Strain distribution, which is represented by deviation of Euler angle at each point from average vale, in ferrite at strain
of 0?05: initial microstructures a without tempering, b tempered at 300uC and c 500uC and deformed microstructure d
without tempering treatments, e tempered at 300 and 500uC. In contour maps, black regions are martensite and yellow,
blue and green regions are ferrite. In yellow regions, deviation was 0u; in blue region, deviation is larger, and in green
regions, deviation is over 7u

reduced by tempering. Finally, it can be observed that
green regions were often aligned across some ferrite
grains and martensite particles in the 30–60u direction
from the tensile direction. The strain distribution was
observed in more detail, and Fig. 8 exemplifies typical
misorientation change at the martensite/ferrite interface
in the marked area in Fig. 7d. Accumulated misorienta-
tion profiles were measured at the concave interface (C-F/
M) and the flat interface (F-F/M) between martensite and
ferrite, and the ferrite/ferrite grain boundary (F/F).
Figure 8a is an inverse pole figure, and Fig. 8b is a band
contrast map (an image quality map). In the map,
martensite is dark due to a large dislocation density.
Figure 8c shows the accumulated misorientation profiles
along each line in Fig. 8a. The misorientation increased at
the interface between martensite and ferrite. In particular,
the change at the concave interface (8u/1 mm) was larger
than the flat interface of the martensite particle (2?7u/
1 mm). On the other hand, the misorientation changed
less at the ferrite/ferrite grain boundary (,1u/1 mm). As
dislocations lead to lattice rotation, Fig. 8 shows that a
large number of dislocations are present at the concave
interface, and consequently, a high stress might lead to
local plastic deformation at the concave part of marten-
site. As shown in Fig. 5, slip band formation around the
concave part of the martensite particles and necking of
the martensite particles supplement that deformation is
localised at this part of the martensite particles. It is
apparent that the strain localisation at the concave part of
martensite accelerated void formation in martensite. This
implies that the shape of the martensite particles is one of
the most important factors affecting void formation in
dual phase steels. As strain is also observed to be localised
at the tip of the martensite particles, void formation at
such positions must also be expected.
The present study illustrated the use of EBSD as a
powerful technique to estimate the local deformation
behaviour in dual phase steel. However, one limitation is
that a poor image quality makes it difficult to analyse
the magnitude and distribution of the strain near the
concave part of the martensite particles due to a very
high dislocation density. This may also be an inherent
difficulty when replacing EBSD with TEM. This means
that nanoindentation has a potential as a complemen-
tary technique to further elucidate strain and stress
distribution in dual phase steel. Figure 8 illustrates in
non-tempered dual phase steel that the accumulated
misorientation is much more pronounced at the concave
part of martensite than at the flat part. It also shows that
this effect appears to extend 2–3 mm from the particle
interface. Note also that there is a relatively small build-
up of accumulated misorientation near the ferrite
boundaries.
It appears that the effect of tempering (Fig. 9) is to
make martensite more deformable and ferrite less
deformable due to a different stress and strain partition-
ing between the two phases. This effect of softening of
reinforcements leads to more deformation in the reinfor-
cements but less deformation in a matrix in dual phase
steels and a ferrite–pearlite steel.34,35,43,44 Tasan et al.43

1098 Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28 NO 9–10


8 Electron backscatter diffraction maps of dual phase steel
without tempering after tensile deformation to strain of
0?05: a inverse pole figure and b band contrast map of
martensite containing concave parts and ferrite grains
and c accumulated misorientation profiles from concave
interface between ferrite and martensite (C-F/M), flat inter-
face between ferrite and martensite (F-F/M) and ferrite/fer-
rite grain boundary (F/F) to another interface. In band
contrast map, dark contrast is related to martensite and
due to large dislocation density. Tensile direction is hori-
zontal. Step size is 50 nm
have shown that pearlite in ferrite–pearlite steel is
deformed more than martensite in dual phase steel as
pearlite colonies are relatively soft compared with
martensite particles. In addition, they observed crack
formation in martensite but did not observe void
formation in ferrite. Ghadbeigi et al.,44 Su and
Azuma et al. Effect of hardness on void formation in dual phase steel
9 Strain partitioning between martensite and ferrite during
in situ tensile tests: softening of martensite through tem-
pering treatments results in large strain in martensite and
reduced strain in ferrite
Gurland34 and Shen et al.35 have also suggested that the
martensite particles in tempered dual phase steels are
deformed more than in quenched dual phase steels.
Effect of tempering on criteria for void formation
Tempering treatments affected not only strain partition-
ing but also a criterion for void formation in martensite,
as further straining of martensite led to void formation
in tempered martensite. Melander and Steninger and
Gladman et al. suggested that critical strain or stress is
required for void formation.45,46 In the present study,
the local strain at the concave part of martensite was
defined as a critical strain for void formation in
martensite when a void formed in martensite. The local
strains at the necked region of ,20 particles when voids
formed were measured. Figure 10 shows that the critical
strain for void formation in martensite depends on the
hardness of martensite. It is also found that the critical
strain is independent of volume fraction, shape and
particle size of martensite. In the specimen without
tempering treatments, the critical strain was ,0?27, but
it was improved to 0?84 after tempering at 300uC.
Increasing of the critical strain for void formation also
attributes to retardation of void formation in martensite
and thereby improves the formability.
Conclusions
In dual phase steel, the influence of softening of
martensite through tempering treatments at 300–600uC
on void formation in martensite and ferrite has been
10 Influence of martensite hardness on critical strain for
crack formation in martensite: data before tempering
are shown at 25uC
Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28 NO 9–10 1099
Azuma et al. Effect of hardness on void formation in dual phase steel
investigated by tensile testing of bulk specimens and by
in situ tensile tests in SEM. Martensite and ferrite have
been characterised by nano- and microhardness tests.
Based on the microstructural observation, deformation
and void formation behaviour have been related to the
structure and properties of martensite and ferrite.
1. Softening of martensite through tempering treat-
ments at 300–600uC significantly increases the elonga-
tion, counterbalanced by a reduction in strength. In
particular, post-uniform elongation was increased sig-
nificantly. The tempering introduced a yield point effect
followed by an increase in yield stress. On the other
hand, the tempering treatments affect less the hardness
of ferrite and the grain size, shape and volume fraction
of martensite.
2. Cracks and voids have been observed at different
sites in the martensite phase, in the ferrite phase and at
inclusions both before and after tempering. At a given
strain, the majority of voids formed in the martensite.
3. The voids in martensite evolve in four steps: plastic
deformation of martensite, crack initiation at the
martensite/ferrite interface, crack propagation leading
to fracture of martensite particles and void formation by
separation of particle fragments.
4. Void formation in martensite depends on a critical
strain for void formation in martensite and local strain
at the concave part of martensite. Softening of mar-
tensite through tempering treatments improves the
critical strain and decreases the local strain at the
concave parts; midland increases strain partitioning
between martensite and ferrite. Therefore, the tempering
treatments retard void formation in martensite and
thereby improve the formability.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Nippon Steel Corporation for the
financial support and for producing the steel sheets used
in the present study, and the Danish National Research
Foundation and the National Natural Science Found-
ation of China (grant no. 50911130230) for supporting
the Danish–Chinese Center for Nanometals, within
which part of the present work was performed.
References
1. R. G. Davies: in ‘Formable HSLA and dual phase steels’, (ed. A. T.
Davenport), 25–39; 1977, Warrendale, PA, TMS-AIME.
2. A. R. Marder and B. L. Bramfitt: in ‘Structure and properties of
dual-phase steels’, (ed. R. A. Kot and J. W. Morris), 145–82; 1979,
Warrendale, PA, TMS-AIME.
3. M. Mazinani and W. J. Poole: Metall. Mater. Trans. A: Phys.
Metall. Mater. Sci., 2007, 38A, 328–39.
4. O. Akisue and M. Usuda: Nippon Steel Technical Report no. 57,
11–15, Nippon Steel Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, 1993.
5. S. Matsuoka, K. Hasegawa and K. Tanaka: JFE Technical Report
no. 10, 13–18, JFE Steel Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, 2007.
6. K. Kishida: Nippon Steel Technical Report no. 81, 12–16, Nippon
Steel Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, 2000.
7. M. Delincé, Y. Bréchet, J. D. Embury, M. G. D. Geers, P. J.
Jacques and T. Pardoen: Acta Metall., 2007, 55, 2337–2350.
8. V. Uthaisangsuk, U. Prahl, S. Munstermann and W. Bleck:
Comput. Mater. Sci., 2008, 43, 43–50.
1100 Materials Science and Technology 2012 VOL 28 NO 9–10
9. S. K. Han and H. Margolin: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1989, A112, 133–
141.
10. X. J. He, N. Terao and A. Berghezan: J. Mater. Sci., 1984, 18, 367–
373.
11. G. Avramovic-Cingara, C. H. A. R. Saleh, M. K. Jain and D. S.
Wilkinson: Metall. Mater. Trans. A: Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci.,
2010, 40A, 3117–3127.
12. G. Avramovic-Cingara, Y. Ososkov, M. K. Jain and D. S.
Wilkinson: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2009, A516, 7–16.
13. Y. Toji, S. Takagi, K. Yoshino, K. Hasegawa and Y. Tanaka:
Tetsu-to-Hagane, 2009, 95, 81.
14. A. F. Szewczyk and J. Gurland: Metall. Trans. A, 1982, 13A, 1821–
1826.
15. C. Landron, O. Bouaziz, E. Maire and J. Adrien: Scr. Metall.,
2010, 63, 973–976.
16. E. Maire, O. Bouaziz, M. Di Michiel and C. Verdu: Acta Metall.,
2008, 56, 4954–4964.
17. R. K. Ray: Scr. Metall., 1984, 18, 1205–1209.
18. M. Sarwar and R. Priestner: J. Mater. Sci., 1996, 31, 2091–2095.
19. E. Ahmad, T. Manzoor and N. Hussain: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2009,
A508, 259–265.
20. D. L. Steinbrunner, D. K. Matlock and G. Krauss: Metall. Trans.
A, 1988, 19A, 579–589.
21. E. Erdogan: J. Mater. Sci., 2002, 37, 3623–3630.
22. M. Calcagnotto, Y. Adachi, D. Ponge and D. Raabe: Acta Metall.,
2011, 59, 658–670.
23. J. Kadkhodapour, A. Butz, S. Z. Rad and S. Schmauder: Int.
J. Plast., 2011, 59, 2575–2588.
24. X. Fang, Z. Fan, B. Ralph, P. Evans and R. Underhill: J. Mater.
Process. Technol., 2003, 132, 215–218.
25. F. H. Samuel: Metall. Trans., 1985, 75, 51–66.
26. A. Joarder, J. N. Jha, S. N. Ojha and D. S. Sarma: Mater. Charact.,
1990, 25, 199–209.
27. K. Hasegawa, K. Kawamura, T. Urabe and Y. Hosoya: ISIJ Int.,
2004, 44, 603–609.
28. Y. Tomota, H. Yoshino and K. Kuroki: Scr. Metall., 1977, 11,
853–856.
29. O. R. Jardim, W. P. Longo and K. K. Chawla: Metallography,
1984, 17, 123–130.
30. S. B. Hosseini, C. Temmel, B. Karlsson and N.-G. Ingesten:
Metall. Mater. Trans. A: Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci., 2007, 38A, 982–
989.
31. W. Roberts, B. Lehtinen and K. E. Easterling: Acta Metall., 1976,
24, 745–758.
32. J. Gurland: Acta Metall., 1972, 20, 735–741.
33. M. Azuma, S. Goutianos, N. Hansen, G. Winther and X. Huang:
Proc. 31th Risø Int. Symp. on ‘Material science’, Roskilde,
Denmark, September 2010, Risø National Laboratory, 243–250.
34. Y. L. Su and J. Gurland: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1987, 95, 151–165.
35. H. P. Shen, T. C. Lei and J. Z. Liu: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1986, 2,
28–33.
36. F. B. Pickering: in ‘Hardenability concepts with applications to
steel’, (ed. D. V. Daone and J. S. Kirkaldy), 229; 1978, Warrendale,
PA, AIME.
37. S. Nishijima, A. Ishii, K. Kanazawa, S. Matsuoka and C. Masuda:
‘Fundamental fatigue properties of JIS steels for machine structural
use’, 77; 1989, Ibaraki, National Research Institute for Metals.
38. J. Lian, Z. Jiang and J. Liu: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1991, A147, 55–65.
39. Z. Jiang, Z. Guan and J. Lian: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1995, A190, 55–
64.
40. N. A. Stelmashenko, M. G. Walls, L. M. Brown and Y. V. Milman:
Acta Metall. Mater., 1993, 41, 2855–2865.
41. M. F. Ashby: Philos. Mag., 1970, 21, 399.
42. C. Y. Barlow and N. Hansen: Acta Metall. Mater., 1991, 39, 1971–
1979.
43. C. C. Tasan, J. P. M. Hoefnagels and M. G. D. Geers: Scr. Metall.,
2010, 62, 835–838.
44. H. Ghadbeigi, C. Pinna, S. Celotto and J. R. Yates: Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, 2010, A527, 5026–5032.
45. A. Melander and J. Steninger: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1982, 52, 239–248.
46. T. Gladman, B. Holmes and I. D. Mclvor: ‘Effect of second-phase
particles on the mechanical properties of steel’; 1971, London, ISI
Publication.