Failure during Sheared Edge Stretching of Dual-Phase Steels

B.S. LEVY, M. GIBBS, and C.J. VAN TYNE

The use of dual-phase steels has been limited in a number of applications, due to failure during
sheared edge stretching. Previous investigations have studied the properties of dual-phase steels,
especially regarding the mechanical properties of the individual phases or constituents, the
strain partitioning to the microconstituents during loading, and the decohesion at the interface
during loading. On the basis of the literature review, a hypothesis is developed in which failure
in sheared edge stretching is the result of a sequence of events. Cracking rst develops in the
hard constituent, cracks grow in the interface between the hard constituent and ferrite, and
relative movement of ferrite relative to the hard constituent increases the rate of cracking. In the
present study, a single steel was heat treated to produce dierent amounts of hard constituent
within the ferrite matrix in order to better understand the behavior of dual-phase steels during
sheared edge stretching. The results of the study are consistent with the proposed hypothesis. It
was found that in contrast to other studies, increased strength of the hard constituent retards
crack initiation. Crack growth increased with increasing surface area of hard constituentferrite
interfaces and increasing movement of ferrite relative to the hard constituent.
DOI: 10.1007/s11661-013-1718-7
The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2013

I.

INTRODUCTION

DUAL-PHASE

sheet steels are being extensively

used in automotive applications in order to reduce
vehicle mass, which can lead to better fuel economy and
lower carbon emissions. One of the limitations in
forming these types of advanced high-strength steels
(AHSSs) is the fracture that occurs when sheared edges
are stretched. A number of investigators have studied
aspects of this process. The results of these investigations have identied conicting results on the factors
that contribute to shear edge failures when sheared
edges of dual-phase steels are stretched. The intent of
the present study is to provide insight on the important
steps of the failure process in stretching sheared edges by
evaluating a steel with a constant bulk carbon content
but processed to dierent dual-phase microstructures.
Analyzing the failure process during sheared edge
stretching must consider the literature on strength of
phases, fracture in the hard constituent, interface
conditions, decohesion between phases, microstructural
morphology, and the eect of shearing. The information
from the literature review provides the basis for the
proposed failure sequence. The data from experimental
investigation in this study evaluate the factors that
contribute to the failure as identied from the review of
the literature.
B.S. LEVY, President, is with the B.S. Levy Consultants Ltd, 1700
E. 56th St., Suite 3705, Chicago, IL 60637. M. GIBBS, formerly
Graduate Student with the Department of Metallurgical and Materials
Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, is now
Engineer with the ArcelorMittal, Burns Harbor, IN. C.J. VAN TYNE,
FIERF Professor, is with the Department of Metallurgical and
Materials Engineering, Colorado School of Mines. Contact e-mail:
cvantyne@mines.edu
Manuscript submitted December 11, 2012.
Article published online April 10, 2013
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

A. Hard Constituent and Ferrite Strength

Krauss[1] has shown that the strength of martensite is
determined by its carbon content and that Vickers
hardness is a linear function of carbon content, up to
somewhere between 0.3 and 0.5 pct carbon. Thereafter,
the slope of the curve gradually decreases.
McFarland[2,3] evaluated the stressstrain properties
of 100 pct martensite steels with carbon contents
ranging from 0.06 to 0.25 pct. For carbon contents
ranging between 0.09 and 0.15 pct, McFarland found
rapid strain hardening between the proportional limit
and the 0.2 pct oset yield strength, followed by strainhardening exponents (n-values) of 0.21/0.22, up to a
strain of 0.03. Total elongation failure was ranging from
3 to 4 pct, which indicates fairly low tensile ductility.
In relating tensile strength to percent carbon,
McFarland[3] combined data from two separate experiments with data from Leslie et al., and a data set that
used results from Kurdjumov et al., and Aborn. The
equations from each regression were similar, and showed
that TS (in ksi) = 120 + 546 9 (wt pct C). These results
exhibit excellent agreement with Hasegawa et al.[4] who
determined that the tensile strength of a 0.052 pct C steel
with 100 pct martensite would be 1068 MPa.
Huper et al.[5] evaluated a nominal 100 pct martensite
steel with 0.6 pct carbon. The reported eective stress
strain curve is r = 3560 (0.001 + ep)0.21. The agreement
with the n-value from the McFarland study is excellent.
Using the Huper et al. equation, the stress at strains of
0.025 and 0.05 is respectively 1654 and 1906 MPa.
Given the lower carbon content for the McFarland data,
the two results exhibit excellent agreement.
Data from Lee et al.[6] examine the dierence from
100 pct of a phase to a mixed microstructure. Lee et al.
data show the strength of ferrite and martensite for two
dual-phase steels. Steel A had a carbon content of
VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 20133635

0.33 pct with 34 pct martensite and steel B had a carbon

content of 0.25 pct with 49 pct martensite. The eective
stress (in MPa) eective strain curves for martensite and
ferrite were determined to be as follows:

0:406
Steel A martensite: r 4679 0:001 ep
Steel B martensite: r 3976 0:001 ep

0:343

Steel A ferrite: r 891 0:002 ep

0:207

Steel B ferrite: r 874 0:002 ep

0:200

It can be seen that n value from the M G Lee

et al. data is much larger than the n value from the
McFarland and Huper et al. data. The ferrite strength is
similar for steel A and steel B and the strength
coecients (891 and 874 MPa) are much higher than
would be expected for low carbon ferrite steel. A
comparison of the McFarland and Huper et al. data
with the M G Lee et al. data clearly shows that stress
strain properties of martensite and ferrite in a mixed
microstructure are dierent from what is expected for
100 pct of each of these phases.
Allen and Levy[7] have shown that for a nominal
100 pct martensite steel with a yield strength of
1200 MPa, an engineering tensile strength of
1500 MPa, and a total elongation of 4.1 pct, it is
possible to draw a cup with a limiting drawing ratio
(LDR) of 1.5. The equivalent strains for producing such
a cup are much larger than a total elongation of 4.1 pct
in tensile deformation. The Allen and Levy results show
that the stress state from a macro view aects martensite
ductility. If macro stress state aects ductility, then it is
likely that stress state at the microconstituent level
should also aect the ductility of a hard constituent with
a dual-phase structure.
B. Deformation in Tensile Testing
While deformation in tensile testing is dierent from
that in sheared edge stretching because of the large
strains imparted by shearing, the information obtained
from tensile deformation is still useful.
Ballinger and Gladman[8] indicated that during plastic
deformation of dual-phase steel, ferrite supports large
strains, with martensite showing little deformation.
Matlock et al.[9] also showed that ferrite accommodates
most of the deformation in dual-phase steels. In
contrast, Ishigoru et al.[10] showed that with a large
volume fraction of ferrite, martensite exhibits signicant
deformation. The dierence in results between these
authors is typical of other studies in the literature.
Paul[11] showed that the form of plastic strain localization is critical to understanding metallurgical damage. Kang et al.[12] showed that strain heterogeneity
increases when ferrite is surrounded by martensite. Sun
et al.[13] showed that for martensite ranging from 15 to
40 pct, failure is primarily governed by the instability
3636VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 2013

induced by phase inhomogeneity between the hard and

soft phases. In this case, the inuences of ferrite ductility
and microvoids in ferrite become relatively unimportant. In another study, Sun et al.[14] developed a nite
element model using Abacus to show that plastic strain
localization results from incompatible deformation
between ferrite and martensite.
Hasegawa et al.[15] suggested that increasing volume
fraction martensite enhances stress redistribution
between ferrite and martensite. Minami et al.[16] showed
that martensite hardness aects deformation inhomogeneity in dual-phase steels. In a subsequent study, Minami
et al.[17] also found that at strains of 7.2 and 13.7 pct,
martensite deformation accounted for about 20 pct of
total deformation, and that increasing strain particularly
increases strain at the martensiteferrite interfaces.
Shen et al.[18] found that, in general, ferrite deformed
immediately and to a much greater extent than the
deformation of martensite, and that, for dual-phase
steels with low volume fractions of martensite, there was
no measurable strain in martensite. At higher martensite
volume fractions, the shearing of martensiteferrite
interfaces extended into martensite islands. Fallihi[19]
found that decohesion is followed by martensite fracture
at higher strains, and that as martensite volume fraction
increases there is more decohesion.
The results of Paul,[11] Kang et al.,[12] Sun et al.,[13,14]
Hasegawa et al.,[15] Miami et al.,[16,17] Shen et al.,[18] and
Fallihi[19] show that while specic details vary, martensite deformation is possible and that stress concentration
on the constituent level as well as microstructural morphology can aect the nature of martensite
deformation.
Lee et al.[20] showed that applied stress is nonuniformly distributed because of second-phase particles;
interface decohesion is inuenced by local stress concentrations; and void nucleation usually occurs when the
applied stress on an interface exceeds the debonding
resistance of the interface. S B Lee et al. also indicated
that stress concentration on the microconstituent level
can be higher than macro stress calculated from the
external loading. While comparing void nucleation
between tension and torsion, S B Lee et al. showed that
as a result of the stress state, void nucleation occurs at
higher strains in torsion than in tension. The above
referenced study by S B Lee et al. shows that both the
macro stress and the micro stress aect the deformation
and that micro stresses can be higher than macro
stresses.
In another study Lee et al.[21] also showed that a
damage accumulation function can be inferred from a
normalized strain-hardening rate. The damage accumulation function is highly sensitive to steel microstructure
and strength level. The second-phase volume fraction
and particle size are believed to control damage accumulation, in conjunction with the matrix work hardening rate, which is the locally concentrated stress. The
inference from the current study is that relative deformation between ferrite and hard constituents aects the
failure process.
Ahmed et al.[22] and Kunio et al.[23] showed that
martensite morphology aects the stress transfer
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

between ferrite and martensite. Kunio et al. described

the constraint due to martensite by a parameter: the
boundary length of the martensite phase divided by the
sum of the length of the martensite phase and the length
of line of the ferrite grains less the length shared with the
martensite. These results show that the hard constituent/
ferrite interface aects failure.
Kunio et al.[23] also found that connected martensite
islands increase martensite cracking. In subsequent
additional studies, Ahmed et al.[24,25] showed that voids
are due to the fracture of martensite or decohesion at
ferritemartensite interfaces. Gerbase et al.[26] showed
that voids occur by decohesion at ferritemartensite
interfaces.
Avramovic-Cingara et al.[27] showed that for uniformly distributed martensite, the major void nucleation
was at ferritemartensite interfaces at a local strain of at
least 0.15, with voids growing along ferrite grain
boundaries. In contrast, with heavy centerline banding,
martensite cracking was observed at a local strain of
0.029.
Kadkhodapour et al.[28] determined that void growth
occurs predominantly in the direct neighborhood of
martensite islands due to the delamination of ferrite
martensite interfaces. Kadkhodapour et al. also stated
that high strength ferritemartensite interfaces are result
of carbon diusion to ferrite during tempering, which
increases interface strength.
Erdgan[29] observed martensite cracking and void
formation at ferritemartensite and ferrite-inclusion
interfaces. Coarse martensite or martensite interconnected along ferrite grain boundaries resulted in more
martensite cracking than that of ne martensite.
Szewczyk and Gurland[30] found that martensite yielding
occurred at the uniform elongation strain and void
formation occurred at ferritemartensite interfaces.
Uthaisangsuk et al.[31] found that the failure mechanism depended on the microstructural constituents. The
initial void nucleation occurred either by the de-bonding
of martensite from ferrite, or by the cracking of
martensite. Using simulation, they determined that
cracks initiated in martensite and then propagated
along ferritemartensite interfaces.
He et al.[32] determined that for a coarse dual-phase
microstructure consisting of elongated martensite
islands located entirely at ferrite grain boundaries or
triple points, martensite islands crack during the early
stages of deformation, and during necking voids are
observed at martensite ferrite interfaces. With very nely
dispersed martensite islands located at ferrite grain
boundaries or triple points, decohesion was observed at
ferritemartensite interfaces. In the latter case, void
growth and coalescence is much slower than for the steel
with the elongated martensite islands.
Steinbrunner et al.[33] showed that void nucleation
occurs by three distinct processes: (1) decohesion at
ferritemartensite interfaces; (2) fracture of martensite
particles; and (3) fracture between adjacent elongated
martensite islands. The dominant mechanism for nucleation of voids is fracture of martensite islands at strains
as low as 0.05. However, void growth occurred primarily at ferritemartensite interfaces, which resulted from
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

strain gradients in the ferrite. Steinbrunner et al. also

showed that void nucleation in tensile deformation is a
consequence of microstructures in which signicant
strain gradients develop between ferrite and martensite.
Ahmed et al.,[22,24,25] Kunio et al.,[23] Gerbase et al.,[26]
Avramovic-Cingara et al.,[27] Khadkhodapur et al.,[28]
Ergan,[29] Szewcyk and Gurland,[30] Uthaisangsuk
et al.,[31] He et al.,[32] and Steinbrunner et al.[33] show
that cracking can occur in martensite, at the interface
between ferrite and hard constituent, or some combination of the two. Given the extent of these various
studies, it is reasonable to believe that all the failure
locations are possible. Nonetheless, it would appear that
cracks in the hard constituent are likely to be an
important factor to the failure process.
C. Failure in Stretching Sheared Edges
Shearing and punching are deformation processes
that separate metal sheets by means of opposing tools
that are oset by very small clearances. In a review of
the literature on shearing and punching, Levy and Van
Tyne[34] showed that the shearing process is controlled
by the geometry of the shearing tools and the thickness
of the work material. Thus, for a given geometry of the
shear tooling and a constant thickness of the work
material, deformation caused by shearing is not aected
by material properties.
Levy and Van Tyne[34] also showed that shearing is
characterized by high strain rate deformation in strain
paths close to pure shear to large true strains with
adiabatic heating. It is also shown that there is a highstrain region up to 200 microns behind the sheared edge
where signicant strain is accumulated, and which
ultimately results in failure when the sheared edge is
stretched. The region aected by shearing is identied as
the shear-aected zone, SAZ.[35]
Lee et al.[36] showed that cracks form in the SAZ right
behind the shear face and then coalesce. In an ideal
situation, deformation occurs by pure shear, but in
actual cases, there are stress and strain gradients in the
SAZ. It is known that deformation along a shear strain
path can impart signicant strain before failure. Citing a
Korean doctoral thesis, S B Lee et al. showed that ferrite
plus bainite microstructures exhibit the lowest strainhardening rate and the highest hole expansion of the
steels studied. This result shows that strain-hardening
rate can describe the eect of a hard constituent failure
in sheared edge stretching.
Dalloz et al.[37] evaluated interrupted shearing at slow
speed with a clearance of 0.1 mm and no hold down.
The interrupted shearing tests showed severe plastic
deformation and local cavitation at ferritemartensite
interfaces at depths up to 200 microns from the shear
face.
Takahashi et al.[38] and Sudo et al.[39] showed that
ferritebainite steel has a better circumferential limit
strain than ferritemartensite steel. Sudo et al. attributed
the improved performance of bainite compared with
martensite because the ductility of bainite restrains void
initiation at high strains. Sudo et al.[40] also showed that
as the volume fraction hard phase increases over a range
VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 20133637

of 2.5 to 20 pct, circumferential limit strain markedly

decreases for ferritemartensite steels and moderately
decreases for ferriteother hard-phase steels.
The studies of Takahashi et al.[38] and Sudo et al.[39]
are consistent with the study of Lee et al.[36] because S B
Lee et al. show that dierences in strain-hardening rate
can be attributed to dierences in the hard constituent.
This result indicates that the exact details of the hard
constituent microstructure in dual-phase steels are not
always necessary to evaluate failure in sheared edge
stretching.
Sudo et al.[40] also showed that for water-quenched
steels, as the martensite island size increased from 2 to 4
microns, there was a substantial drop in the circumferential limit strain. Thereafter, increasing martensite
island size to 12 microns had little or no eect on
circumferential limit strain. These results could be
consistent with crack initiation within the martensite
islands where the initial increase island size makes it
easier to initiate a crack.
Sudo et al.[40] determined that for ferritemartensite
steels, voids initiate by cracking in martensite islands
and by decohesion at ferritemartensite interfaces at
about 20 pct strain. For samples with ferrite, bainite,
and martensite microstructures, voids are formed by
decohesion at ferritehard-phase interfaces at about
25 pct strain.
In studying damage in tensile tests, Lee et al.[36]
showed the importance of strain-hardening rate on
microstructural damage that leads to failure. The greater
the strain-hardening rate, the greater the deformation of
ferrite relative to a hard constituent. Increasing the
strain dierential between ferrite and a hard constituent
increases the rate of crack growth in the interface region.
Since it is not possible to perform a tensile test on
material from the SAZ, Levy and Van Tyne[41] used the
strain-hardening rate at uniform elongation in a tensile
test as a measure of damage leading to failure in sheared
edge stretching. Data were taken from other studies.[4245]
It was found that circumferential limit strain increases
linearly with decreasing strain-hardening rate at uniform
elongation. The relationship applies to steels with a
relatively soft ferrite and the following hard phases:
angular or spherical carbides; pearlite; titanium carbonitride; bainite; and higher-carbon martensites. At the
same strain-hardening rate, it is found that an increase
in ferrite strength, such as a recovery-annealed product
and lower carbon martensite in dual-phase or TRIP
steels, resulted in improved circumferential limit strain.
These results are consistent with the study of Lee
et al.[36]
Based on the above results from the literature, a
tentative hypothesis for the failure sequence for sheared
edge stretching in dual-phase steels is proposed. This
hypothesis is that cracking initiates in the hard constituent with either a crack that may split a hard constituent
island or a crack at the hard constituent ferrite interface.
Thereafter, a crack grows along hard constituentferrite
interfaces. Eventually, cracks at multiple hard constituentferrite boundaries link and failure ensues. Increasing the relative ow between ferrite and the hard
constituent increases the rate of crack growth.
3638VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 2013

D. Experimental Approach
The experimental approach in the current study was
designed to evaluate the hypothesis that cracking
initiates in the hard constituent and extends to the hard
constituentferrite interfaces where relative ow
between ferrite and the hard constituent is important
in determining the circumferential stain at failure. The
entire hypothesis cannot be evaluated from a single
experiment. In the current study the experiments were
conducted on a steel with a single bulk carbon content
that was heat treated to produce a hard constituent with
a range of volume fractions.
In evaluating the eect of microstructure on sheared
edge stretching, most studies use microstructure and
tensile properties before shearing.[39,40,4550] Since the
SAZ has signicantly dierent properties after shearing,
sheared edge stretching performance should be evaluated using the properties of the SAZ that are within 200
microns of the shear face.
Since there is no phase transformation during shearing, ferrite and hard constituent volume fractions and
size distributions remain unchanged. What, however,
does change is that the ferrite grains and the hard
constituent islands are substantially elongated. The
increased elongation increases the surface area of
ferritehard constituent interfaces. Shearing also
increases ferrite strength and has an undetermined eect
on hard constituent strength.
The current study examined ve dual-phase steels
with the same composition from the same coil. Four of
the microstructures were produced by laboratory isothermal heat treatments on the cold rolled product. The
other steel microstructure was produced on a commercial hot-dip galvanizing line as a galvannealed steel
product. Metallographic analysis and Vickers hardness
values were measured before and after shearing. Tensile
properties were determined before shearing. These
properties are used to examine structureproperty relationships for sheared edge stretching.

II.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

A. Materials
Samples were taken from a single coil after cold
rolling for use in isothermal annealing to vary dualphase microstructures. The remainder of the coil was
used to produce hot-dip-galvannealed dual-phase steel.
The full hard material was isothermally annealed in a
salt pot and air-cooled to produce steels with four levels
of percent carbon in the hard constituent. The thickness
of the steel is 1 mm. Table I shows the chemical
composition of the steel.
The percentage of carbon in the hard constituent is
determined by:
CM wt pct C in steel=VM

1

where VM is the volume fraction of the hard constituent.

The samples are identied by a code, where L
represents an isothermal laboratory heat treatment and
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Table I.

Chemical Analysis of Steel (in Weight Percent)

Mn

Si

Mo

Al

Ti

0.08

1.77

0.19

0.006

0.19

0.050

0.020

0.040

0.003

Table II.

Annealing Temperature and Metallurgical Characteristics

Size of Hard
Ferrite
Volume Fraction
Wt Pct C in
Nature of
Constituent, Hard Phase Grain Size,
Annealing
Hard Constituent
Hard Constituent (CM) Hard Phase**
GM (lm)
Aspect Ratio GF (lm)
Material Temperature (K)*
(VM)
L15
C19
L24
L31
L38

988
***
1013
1038
1053

0.15
0.19
0.24
0.31
0.38

0.533
0.421
0.333
0.258
0.211

M
M&B
M
M&B
M&B

1.17
1.84
1.01
1.21
1.16

2.01
2.24
2.10
2.04
2.04

4.32
4.55
2.67
2.53
2.16

*Temperatures are 10 K.
**M = martensite, B = bainite.
***Hot-dip-galvannealed.

C represents the commercial hot-dip-galvannealed product. The number following the letter represents the
volume fraction hard constituent. Table II shows the
isothermal annealing temperature, volume fraction hard
constituent, a description of the hard constituent, and
percentage of carbon in the hard constituent.
B. Metallography
Samples were examined using optical and scanning
electron microscopy. Etchants were selected to highlight
metallographic features, voids, and related metallurgical
damage. Ferrite grain size and hard constituent island size
were determined using ASTM E112-96[51] for determining
size in materials with a bimodal size distribution. Ferrite
grain size (GF) or hard constituent island size (GM) was
determined from the following relationship:
Gd Vf =Na L=M

2

where Gd is the average grain or island size, Vf is the

volume fraction of the phase or constituent of interest,
Na is the number of intersections with either ferrite
grains or hard constituent islands, L is the total length of
line, and M is the magnication.
Volume fractions of ferrite and of hard constituent
were determined by the Abrams 3-circle intercept
method with a line length of 500 mm. Intersections with
whole ferrite grains or hard constituent islands were
counted in accordance with ASTM E112-96.[51] Sucient point counts were taken to insure an accurate
determination of volume fraction.

Plastic strain ratios (R-values) were determined using

ASTM E-517.[53] R-values were determined at 10 pct
elongation because of the limited ductility of these
materials.
Hardness on sample cross sections was determined
using Vickers hardness with a 100 gf load and a dwell
time of 10 s. The standard deviation of the hardness
measurements is 6 HV for samples tested before
shearing. After shearing, the standard deviations are
larger. The increase in the standard deviation after
shearing is a result of the less homogenous microstructure in the SAZ (i.e., within 200 microns of the sheared
edge).

D. Hole Expansion Limit

An initial circular hole was punched using a clearance
of 18 pct to produce a 19.15-mm hole. The punch speed
was not recorded, but was very rapid. A conventional
Marciniak die set with a 101.6-mm punch diameter was
used for expanding the initial hole. A good lubricant
was applied to the punch before testing. The force on the
lock bead was sucient to prevent metal movement o
the binder. Tests were run with the shear burr up at a
test speed of 0.51 mm/s.
Failure was determined visually with the aid of a
monitor screen. The failure criterion was that of either
initial fracture or a very deep neck. The increase in the
diameter of the hole is the average of measurements at
0/180, 45/225, 90/270, and 135/315 degrees around the
hole. The approximate standard deviations of the hole
expansion ratio results range from 0.006 to 0.017.

C. Mechanical Testing
Tensile testing was done per ASTM E-8[52] using a
specimen width of 12.7 mm and a gauge length of
12.7 mm. Tests were pulled at a constant engineering
strain rate of 6 9 104 s1. Samples oriented longitudinally (L), transverse (T), and diagonal (D) to the rolling
direction were pulled, and the average tensile properties
were determined from [L + T + 2D]/4.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

III.

RESULTS

A. Tensile Properties
Table III shows the average tensile properties of the
ve steels tested. Table III also shows that as volume
fraction hard constituent increases, tensile strength
VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 20133639

Table III.
Material
L15
C19
L24
L31
L38

Mechanical Properties before Shearing

Yield Strength
(MPa)

Tensile Strength
(MPa)

Uniform
Elongation (Pct)

Total Elongation
(Pct)

K-value
(MPa)

n-value*

R-bar

eC-limit

391
346
333
395
383

581
624
712
769
756

22.0
17.6
16.0
14.5
14.9

28.7
26.4
22.7
21.5
21.3

977
986
1096
1154
1143

0.19
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.14

0.83
0.88
0.84
0.83
0.81

0.336
0.365
0.255
0.231
0.215

Tensile properties are average values calculated from (L + T +2D)/4.

*These steels exhibit signicant variation in instantaneous n value. The results shown in the table are calculated from true stress of 425 MPa up to
the true stress at uniform elongation.

increases, with little or no increase in yield strength.

Also, as volume fraction hard constituent increases,
uniform elongation, total elongation, and n-value
decrease. The volume fraction hard constituent does
not aect the R-value.
B. Microstructure
Table II shows the laboratory annealing temperature
and selected metallurgical characteristics of the steels.
As volume fraction hard constituent increases, its
carbon content decreases, which results in decreasing
strength. Also, for the isothermal heat treatments, a
martensitebainite mixture is observed for the two
highest isothermal annealing temperatures.
The heating cycle for the hot-dip-galvannealed steel,
C19, required about 300 s for the steel to reach
approximately 1093 K (820 C). The time at temperature was at least 30 s. Cooling to room temperature took
about 160 s with a hold and slight increase in temperature when the steel was in the zinc pot. The cooling rate
was somewhat faster after the sheet exited the zinc pot.
The hot-dip-galvannealed steel exhibits a mixed martensite bainite microstructure.
The hard constituent aspect ratio for all ve steels and
the hard constituent island diameter for the four
isothermally annealed steels are similar. Ferrite grains
are relatively equiaxed before shearing. The hard constituent islands exhibit aspect ratios from 2.01 to 2.24.
Figure 1 shows a typical microstructure after shearing,
and indicates that the shearing process substantially
elongates both the ferrite grains and hard constituent
islands. On a qualitative basis, the elongation of the
ferrite grains appears to be equivalent to at least 60 pct
cold reduction. A 60 pct cold reduction is equivalent to
a true thickness strain of 0.92.
Figure 2 shows the extent of voids and related
damage. While strain in shearing exceeds strain in
tensile deformation, it would seem that more microstructural damage should be observed.
For a single bulk carbon content, only one of the
following four variables is independent: (1) volume
fraction hard constituent; (2) volume fraction ferrite; (3)
percentage of carbon in hard constituent; and (4) isothermal annealing temperature. Correlation analysis shows
that ferrite grain size is highly correlated with volume
fraction martensite and circumferential strain at failure.
These cross correlations are discussed in Section IVG.
3640VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 2013

Fig. 1Typical microstructure after shearing. Sample L31.

Figure 3 shows a cross-sectional view of the SAZ

where it can be seen that the shearing process rotates
and elongates both ferrite grains and hard constituent
islands. The extent of the elongation of the hard
constituent can be seen by comparing the aspect ratio
of the hard constituent before shearing in Table II with
the metallographic evidence shown in Figure 3. The
increased elongation of the hard constituent after
shearing indicates signicant deformation of the hard
constituent.
As shown in Figure 3, voids were observed at ferrite
hard constituent interfaces in the burnish and fracture
regions of the SAZ within 3 to 20 microns from the
shear face for all the steels in the study. Within the
limitations of the metallographic work, the incidence of
voids was similar for all ve steels.
Figure 4 shows that cracks are sometimes observed at
hard constituentferrite interfaces. Figure 5 shows decohesion at ferritehard constituent interfaces near the
surface of the shear face. Observations indicated that
voids were more likely to form at martensiteferrite
interfaces than bainiteferrite interfaces. Also, cracks
were occasionally observed at probable manganese
sulde stringers that are parallel to the angle of grain
rotation. These cracks intersect the shear face. The
importance of these cracks to failure in sheared edge
stretching is not known.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Fig. 2Example showing limited number of voids and related damage; (a) low magnication, and (b) high magnication. Sample C19.

C. Hardness

IV.

Table IV shows Vickers hardness values before and

after shearing. The after shearing Vickers hardness
values were determined from locations as close as
possible to the sheared edge. Given marked strain
gradients in the SAZ, it is not surprising that some of the
standard deviations for after shearing tests are greater
than for before shearing tests. Considering the added
variability of after shearing hardness values, the increase
in Vickers hardness appears to be reasonably similar for
all ve steels.
Using a standard Vickers hardness table for steels,[54]
Vickers hardness and tensile strength can be related.
HV 0:3357 TS  18:581

3

where HV is the Vickers hardness, TS is the tensile

strength in MPa, and the square of the correlation
coecient, R2, for this relationship is 0.997. To determine tensile strength from HV values, the data are
regressed again.
TS 2:97 HV 57:1

4

The valid range is: 125<HV<318 and 427<TS<1006.

While the after shearing Vickers hardness data are
outside the valid range for Eq. [4], the conversion is used
to provide a sense of the increase in tensile strength.
It can be seen from Table V that the before shearing
tensile strengths calculated from Eq. [4] exhibits excellent agreement with the experimental tensile strengths
from before shearing. The agreement between calculated
and experimental tensile strengths provides some condence that the calculated tensile strengths from after
shearing are reasonable.
The data in Tables IV and V both indicate that
shearing substantially increases strength in the SAZ
adjacent to the shear face.
D. Circumferential Limit Strain
Table VI shows the circumferential limit strain data
as determined from the hole-expansion tests.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

A. Deformation in Shearing
Failure when a sheared edge is stretched occurs in the
SAZ, which is a region at a distance ranging from 20 to
200 microns behind the shear face. The strain in the
SAZ can be determined by rearranging the power law
equation to solve for strain.
ep r=K1=n

5

If it is assumed that the eective stress-eective strain

curve determined before shearing is applicable at higher
strains that are typical of the failure region, then the
initial values of K and n can be used in Eq. [5]. The
strength in the SAZ can be estimated using Vickers
hardness. Vickers hardness is the force necessary to
produce an indentation divided by the surface area of
the indentation. In essence, this is a load divided by an
instantaneous area, which results in a true stress. Thus,
converting Vickers hardness to tensile strength provides
an approximation of true stress needed in Eq. [5].
Using Eq. [5], the calculated true strains in the SAZ
for L15, C19, L31, and L38 are, respectively, 1.31, 1.16,
1.20, and 1.41 with an average and standard deviations
of 1.17 0.11, respectively. The calculated true strain in
the SAZ for L24 is 0.78. The Vickers hardness in the
region behind the shear face is subject to placement
error, because of the sharp strain gradients in the SAZ
near the shear face. For this reason, the true strain for
L24 is thought to be an anomalous result.
The strains determined in the current study are lower
than the strain of 1.65 for AISI 1008-type steel reported by
Milosevic and Moussy.[55] Milosevic and Moussy determined strain by calibrating hardness measured in the SAZ
with hardness measurements from cold rolling, where
strain could be directly determined. The dierent in
results between the two studies may be the result of the
dierent test methods, dierences in shearing practice, or
an eect of material properties before shearing.
Given the large strains and rapid deformation rates
characteristic of shearing, adiabatic heating is to be
VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 20133641

Fig. 3The shear-aected zone (SAZ) near the shear face; (a) Full cross section; (b) the burnish region to fracture region transition, with the
arrows indicating the dierences in the general ow direction of the ferrite in the material near the burnish (upper) and fracture (lower) regions;
(c) the middle of the fracture region, with the arrows indicating voids; and (d) the burr. Ferrite grains are elongated due to the strain imposed by
shearing. Hard-phase islands aligned in the direction of ferrite elongation. Some hard-phase plasticity is observed. Sample L31.

expected. For calculating the adiabatic temperature

increase, the average strain from shearing is used. In
estimating the adiabatic temperature increase, ideal
plastic stressstrain behavior is assumed, because much
of the deformation is for strains where there is very little
strain hardening. The increase in adiabatic heat for the
bulk is calculated using the approach of Dieter:[56]
DT 0:95WqCp

6

where DT is the increase in temperature, W is the work

per unit volume, q is density, and Cp is the specic heat.
3642VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 2013

The calculated adiabatic temperature increase in the

failure region of the SAZ increases with volume fraction
hard constituentspecically, L15-306K, C19-308K,
L24-343K, L31-361K, and L38-357K. While tempering
is known to reduce the strength of hard constituents
(particularly martensite), botha very short time at
temperature and a rapid heat transfer to the bulksuggest that adiabatic heating should not signicantly aect
the strength of the hard constituents or microstructural
damage due to shearing.
Microstructural examination of samples from after
shearing shows only modest void formation and crack
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

growth. Given the calculated strain and the highly

deformed microstructure in the SAZ near the shear face,
it is surprising that there is not more void formation and
crack growth.
Lee[44] and Levy and Van Tyne[34] have shown that
shear deformation is a process that can achieve large
strains before fracture. Lee[44] has shown that for a
DP590 steel void nucleation begins at a strain of 0.16 for
tension and 0.60 for torsion. LeRoy and Embury[57]
have shown that the fracture strain of aluminum alloys
is considerably greater in torsion than in tension.
Given the high strains associated with shearing, the
extent of sheared edge stretching is surprising. The
substantial remaining ductility in stretching a sheared
edge would seem to be the result of minimum damage

that resulted from shear deformation. In subsequent

stretching, the strain path will reach the failure limit
sooner. Specically, there is a circumferential strain
oset of 0.09 before the deformation follows a tensile
strain path[58].
B. Failure Hypothesis
The failure hypothesis developed from a review of the
literature suggests that there is a series of events that
ultimately lead to failure in sheared edge stretching. The
initial step is cracking across a hard constituent island or
crack initiation at the interface between the hard
constituent and ferrite. The cracks then grow along
hard constituentferrite interfaces. Furthermore,
increases in the relative deformation of ferrite relative to
the hard constituent increases crack growth. Eventually,
the cracks at ferritehard constituent interfaces link up
and the macroscopic sheared edge cracking is observed.
The independent variables needed to evaluate the
proposed failure hypothesis include the strength of the
hard constituent; the strength dierence across the hard
constituentferrite interface; ferrite grain size, which for
the steels in the current study is a measure of the surface
area of hard constituentferrite interface; and the strainhardening exponent at uniform elongation before shearing. Since cracking in the hard constituent is part of the
Table IV.
Material

Fig. 4A crack in the fracture region. The crack occurs where a

string of inclusions meets the edge. The dashed oval shows the penetration depth of the crack into the sheet.

L15
C19
L24
L31
L38

Hardness before and after Shearing

Before (HV)
178
192
218
237
237

5
6
7
6
6

After (HV)
327
320
336
379
384

5
16
11
3
17

Fig. 5The fracture of hard constituent and voids at hard constituentferrite interfaces (a) low and (b) high magnications.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 20133643

Table V.

Comparison of Tensile Strength before and after

Shearing
Before

Material

Calculated
# (MPa)

Actual
(MPa)

After
Calculated
# (MPa)

585
627
706
761
761

581
624
712
769
756

1029
1009
1056
1184
1199

L15
C19
L24
L31
L38

# Calculated from standard conversion.

TS [MPa] = 2.97 HV + 57.1.
Applicable Range.
125 <Hardness (HV) <427.
427 <Tensile Strength (MPa) <1006.
Values outside applicable range are included to give a sense of the
dierence.

Table VI.

Circumferential Limit Strains

Material

True Limit Strain

L15
C19
L24
L31
L38

0.336
0.365
0.255
0.231
0.215

0.017
0.019
0.006
0.011
0.015

failure process, the eect of volume fraction hard

constituent is included in the analysis. The eect of
cross correlations between independent variables is also
considered.
C. Strength of Hard Constituent
The strength of the hard constituent is dicult to
determine because (1) mechanical property data from
samples of 100 pct of a single phase are limited, (2)
in situ measurements are extremely dicult, and (3)
stress concentrations on the micro level and microstructural constraints can aect the strength and interactions
between individual constituents.
The carbon content of the hard constituent was
calculated using Eq. [1]. A graph from Bain and
Paxton[59] shows the relationship between Vickers hardness and carbon content of martensite. Points were
picked from the Bain and Paxton graph and regressed:
HVM b0 b1 C b2 C2

7

where HVM (in kg/mm ) is the hardness of martensite,

b0 = 164.64, b1 = 2111.2, b2 = 1553.1, and C is the
wt pct carbon. The regression has an R2 = 0.999.
Since there is some bainite in the hard constituent of
several of the samples, the calculated Vickers hardness is
an approximation. Nevertheless, the calculated hardness
of the hard constituent is still a useful approximation.
The Vickers hardness for ferrite before shearing is
calculated using the law of mixtures.
HVF HVB  VM HVM =1  VM
3644VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 2013

8

where HVB is the bulk hardness of the steel, VM is the

volume fraction of the hard constituent, and HVM is the
hardness of the hard constituent.
The average calculated HVF before shearing is 61 9.
Since the carbon content of the ferrite for all ve steels is
approximately 0.004,[60] the calculated hardness seems
reasonable for very low carbon ferrite. Using Eqs. [7] and
[8], the hardness ratio, hard constituent/ferrite before
shearing can be calculated. Even if the hardness of the
ferrite is not exact, it is expected that its hardness should
be reasonably constant for all ve steels. Thus, changing
the ferrite hardness would aect the absolute values of the
hardness ratios, but the relative values of the hardness
ratios would still provide insight.
After shearing, it is evident that ferrite strength should
increase substantially. The eect of shearing on the
strength of the hard constituents in a ferrite matrix is not
known. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed
that the strength of the hard constituent is not changed.
The strain in ferrite in the SAZ has been shown to be
approximately 1.17. For convenience, a true strain of
one is used in each of the power law equations shown in
Table III to determine the true stress in the ferrite.
While the calculated true stress is not a tensile strength,
it is considered a reasonable approximation of the
tensile strength. Equation [3] is used to determine the
Vickers hardness for ferrite after shearing.
Figure 6 shows the eect of the ratio of Vickers
hardness for the hard constituent to the Vickers hardness of ferrite before and after shearing on the true
circumferential strain at failure. The change in the
curves for before and after shearing in Figure 6 is the
result of an increase in ferrite strength. Since the
hardness values of the ferrite before shearing and after
shearing are similar for each of the ve steels, Figure 6
can be interpreted as the eect of the hard constituent
on the true circumferential strain at failure.
Figure 6 also shows that increased strength of the
hard constituent increases true circumferential limit
strain at failure. These results show that for the ve
steels in the current study, increasing the strength of the
hard constituent increases resistance to cracking in the
hard constituent and/or at the hard constituentferrite
interface. Ishigoru et al.,[10] Kang et al.,[12] Minami
et al.,[16,17] Shen et al.,[18] Fallihi et al.,[19] Kunio et al.,[23]
Ahmed et al.,[24,25] Uthaisangsuk et al.,[31] and He
et al.[32] all indicate the importance of martensite in void
nucleation and crack growth.
It can also be seen from Figure 6 that as the strength
dierential across the hard constituent/ferrite interface
increases, the true circumferential limit strain at failure
increases. The eect of both the strength dierential across
the hard constituent/ferrite interface and the strength of the
hard constituent on the true circumferential limit strain at
failure are unexpected. Figure 6 also shows the pronounced eect of shearing on the value of the strength
dierential across the hard constituentferrite interface.
D. Interface Area
Table II shows that hard constituent island size is
relatively constant, while there is a range of ferrite grain
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

True Circumferential Strain Limit, C-Limit

0.40
0.35
Before Shearing

After Shearing

0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15

Uncertainty is 1 standard deviation

0.10
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hardness Ratio (Hard Constituent/Ferrite)

True Circumferential Strain Limir, C-Limit

Fig. 6Relationship between eC-limit and hardness ratio of constituentsbefore and after shearing.

Since the microstructures of the steels in the current

study show more examples of hard constituenthard
constituent interfaces than ferriteferrite interfaces, the
right side of Eq. [9] is an approximation of the surface
area of hard constituentferrite interface. Consequently,
Figure 7 can be interpreted to show that the surface area
of hard constituentferrite interface area predicts true
circumferential limit strain at failure.
Kunio et al.,[23] Gerbase et al.,[26] Avramovic-Cingara
et al.,[27] Kadhodapouret al.,[28] Erdgan,[29] and Uthaisangsuk
et al.[31] all show the importance of hard constituent
ferrite interfaces in determining sheared edge stretching
limits. It is most likely that as the area of hard
constituentferrite increases, crack length can increase,
which accelerates the process of crack growth, crack
linkage, and ultimate failure. Alternatively, an increased
area of hard constituentferrite interface increases the
probability of crack initiation at the hard constituent
ferrite interface.

0.40

E. Relative Movement of Ferrite Grains

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
Uncertainty is 1 standard deviation

0.10
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Ferrite Grain Size, GF (m)

Fig. 7Relationship between eC-limit and ferrite grain size.

size. Shearing elongates the ferrite grains, and to a lesser

extent the hard constituent islands. This increased
elongation increases the interfacial surface area between
ferrite and the hard constituent.
Since the ferrite grain elongation from shearing is
relatively similar for all ve steels, ferrite grain size
remains a useful parameter for evaluating microstructure after shearing. Despite being not fundamentally
correct, ferrite grain size is a reasonable indicator of the
surface area of ferrite grains.
Figure 7 shows a linear relationship between increasing ferrite grain size and increasing circumferential limit
strain for all ve steels in the study. The results of a
regression analysis are
eClimit a0 a1 Gf

9

where a1 = 0.076 0.016, a2 = 0.649 0.005, and Gf

is ferrite grain size. The R2 value for the regression is
0.98, with N = 5, and there is no systematic deviation.
With a given volume fraction ferrite, as ferrite grain
size increases, the surface area of ferrite grains decreases.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Levy and Van Tyne[41] have shown that increasing

strain-hardening rate at a uniform elongation increases
the local strain on the ferrite side of a hard constituent
ferrite interface. The basic logic is that on the microscopic scale, the greater the bulk strain-hardening rate,
the greater the deformation of a soft phase relative to a
hard phase. A greater deformation of ferrite relative to a
hard constituent increases the likelihood of void initiation and crack growth that leads to failure.
The strain-hardening rate at uniform elongation is the
engineering tensile strength expressed as a true stress
value.[41] Table III provides the necessary data to
compute strain-hardening rate at uniform elongation.
Figure 8 shows the eect of strain-hardening rate at
uniform elongation on the circumferential strain limit at
failure. For the isothermal heat treatments, the circumferential limit strain decreases linearly as the strainhardening rate at uniform elongation increases. Since a
higher strain-hardening rate at uniform elongation
decreases the strain at which voids nucleate and cracks
form, the sheared edge formability for these laboratoryheat-treated steels depends on the bulk mechanical
properties.
Figure 8 also shows that the hot-dip-galvannealed
steel, C19, exhibits an increased circumferential limit
strain, compared with the laboratory-annealed steels at
a comparable value of the strain-hardening rate at
uniform elongation. Levy and Van Tyne[41] have shown
that the eect of strain-hardening rate at uniform
elongation depends on microstructure. Given the dierence in heat treatment, it is possible that C19 exhibits
more bainite at the hard constituentferrite interface. In
this case with more bainite at the interface, it is
reasonable that for an equivalent amount of local strain
at the hard constituentferrite interface, the interface
should be better able to withstand void formation and
crack growth than a martensiteferrite interface.

VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 20133645

True Circumferential Strain Limit, C-Limit

Table VII.
0.40
0.35

eC-limit
VM
CM
GF
HM
dr/de

0.30
0.25
0.20

eC-limit

VM

CM

GF

HM

dr/de

1
0.90
0.89
0.99
0.91
0.95

1
0.97
0.89
0.99
0.92

1
0.90
0.99
0.96

1
0.91
0.96

1
0.95

HM = Hardness of hard constituent.

dr/de = Strain-hardening rate at uniform elongation.

0.15
Uncertainty is 1 standard deviation

0.10
700

750

800

850

900

Strain Hardening Rate at Uniform Elongation (MPa)

Fig. 8Relationship between eC-limit and strain-hardening rate at
uniform elongation.

True Circumferential Strain Limit, C-Limit

Cross-Correlation Results for Independent

Variables

0.40

C19

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15

Uncertainty is 1 standard deviation

0.10
0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Volume Fraction Hard Constituent, VM

Fig. 9Relationship between eC-limit and volume fraction-hard
constituent.

F. Volume Fraction Hard Constituent

Limit true circumferential strain at failure is often
plotted as a function of volume fraction hard constituent. Figure 9 shows that true limit circumferential
strain at failure decreases as volume fraction hard
constituent with C19, exhibiting improved performance
compared with the laboratory heat-treated steels.
While Hasegawa et al.[15] suggested that increasing
volume fraction martensite enhances the stress distribution between ferrite and martensite; the explanation
seems insucient to explain the results of the current
study. Supercially increasing volume fraction hard
constituent increases the probability of crack formation
within the hard constituent or in hard constituent at the
interface with ferrite. However, the experimental results
in the current study show the importance of the
hardness of the hard constituent, which increases as
volume fraction hard constituent increases. Also, with
respect to the data in the current study, the hard
constituentferrite interface area does not increase with
increasing volume fraction hard constituent.

3646VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 2013

G. Correlation between Key Variables

Analyzing data that are highly cross correlated can be
dicult. Table VII shows the cross correlations between
key independent variables and true circumferential limit
strain at failure. Based on fundamental considerations,
cross correlation between percent carbon in the hard
constituent and its hardness is expected, and only the
hardness of the hard constituent is used in the analysis
of the experimental data. However, there are no
fundamental considerations for hard constituent hardness, ferrite grain size, and strain-hardening rate at
uniform elongation to be highly cross correlated.
For a single bulk hardness and a limited number of
heat-treating conditions a high cross correlation can be
introduced between key independent variables. Thus,
the analysis in the current study does not prove the
proposed hypothesis describing the failure process for
sheared edge stretching, but it can be concluded that the
analysis is consistent with the proposed failure hypothesis. Additional experimental study including samples
with more bulk carbon contents, more varied heattreatments, and a more detailed study of the hard
constituents is needed to denitively prove the proposed
hypothesis.
If a future experiment denitively proves the proposed
hypothesis, then the independent variables would still be
highly cross correlated because a sequence of events is
needed to cause failure. Specically, hardness of the
hard constituent aects its resistance to initial fracture;
increased surface area of ferritehard constituent interface aects crack growth, which for the steels in the
current study is represented by ferrite grain size; and
strain-hardening rate at uniform elongation aects
relative movement of ferrite grains relative to a hard
constituent, which increases crack growth. Given the
sequence of events needed for failure, a high degree
of cross correlation for the causative variables is
expected.

V.

CONCLUSIONS

For the steels used in the current study, analysis of the

experimental results is consistent with a failure process in
which initial cracking is in or adjacent to the hard
constituent, crack growth occurs at the hard constituent

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

ferrite interface, and relative movement of ferrite

increases crack growth.
Increased hardness in the hard constituent reduces
initial cracking.
Increased surface area of hard constituentferrite
interface increases crack growth. For the steels used in
the current study, ferrite grain size provides an estimate
of hard constituentferrite interface area.
Increased strain-hardening rate at uniform elongation
increases ferrite movement relative to the hard constituent, which accelerates crack growth.
Failure occurs in the shear-aected zone (SAZ) in a
region within about 200 microns from the sheared edge.
True strain in the SAZ after shearing is about 1.2.
Subsequent stretchability of this highly deformed region
is a consequence of the deformation being along a shear
or a near shear strain path.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Partial support for the current study from the
Advanced Steel Processing and Products Research
Center at Colorado School of Mines is gratefully
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. G. Krauss: Steels: Heat Treatment and Processing Principles, ASM
International, Materials Park, OH, 1990.
2. W.H. McFarland: Trans. AIME, 1965, vol. 233, pp. 202835.
3. W.H. McFarland: Blast Furn Steel Plant, 1969, vol. 57, pp. 132
45.
4. K. Hasegawa, K. Kawamure, T. Urabe, and Y. Hosoya: ISIJ Int.,
2004, vol. 44, pp. 60309.
5. T. H}
uper, S. Endo, N. Ishikawa, and K. Osawa: ISIJ Int., 1999,
vol. 39, pp. 28894.
6. M.G. Lee, J.H. Kim, D.K. Matlock, and R.H. Wagoner:, Proceedings of Numiform, F. Barlat, Y.H. Moon, and M.G. Lee, eds.,
American Institute of Physics, New York, 2010, pp. 14952.
7. R.W. Allen and B.S. Levy: Springs Mag., vol. 22(4), Oct 1983.
8. N.K. Balliger and T. Gladman: Met. Sci., 1981, vol. 15, pp. 95
108.
9. D.K. Matlock, F. Zia-Ebrahami, and G. Krauss:, Deformation,
Processing and Structure, G. Krauss, ed., ASM, Metals Park,OH,
1984, pp. 4787.
10. T. Ishiguro, Y. Yoshida, N. Yukawa, T. Ishikawa, H. Yoshida,
and N. Fujita: Tetsu to HaganeJ. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn., 2011,
vol. 97, pp. 13642.
11. S.K. Paul: Comput. Mater. Sci., 2012, vol. 56, pp. 3442.
12. J. Kang, Y. Ososkov, J.D. Embury, and D.S. Wilkinson: Scripta
Mater., 2007, vol. 56, pp. 9991002.
13. X. Sun, K.S. Choi, A. Soulami, W.N. Liu, and M.A. Khaleel:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2009, vol. 526, pp. 14049.
14. X. Sun, K.S. Choi, A. Soulami, W.N. Liu, and M.A. Khaleel: Int.
J. Plast., 2009, vol. 25, pp. 1888909.
15. K. Hasegawa, Y. Toji, H. Minami, H. Ikeda, T. Morikawa, and K.
Higashida: Tetsu to HaganeJ. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn., 2012, vol. 98,
pp. 32027.
16. H. Minami, K. Nakayama, T. Morikawa, K. Higashida, Y. Toji,
and K. Hasegawa: Tetsu to HaganeJ. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn., 2011,
vol. 97, pp. 493500.
17. H. Minami, H. Ikeda, T. Morikawa, K. Higashida, T. Mayama,
Y. Toji, and K. Hasegawa: Tetsu to HaganeJ. Iron Steel Inst.
Jpn., 2012, vol. 98, pp. 30310.
18. H.P. Shen, T.C. Lei, and J.Z. Lui: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1986,
vol. 2, pp. 2833.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

19. A. Fallahi, R. Khamedi, G. Minak, and A. Zucchelli: Mater. Sci.

Eng., A, 2012, vol. 548, pp. 18388.
20. S.B. Lee, J.G. Speer, and D.K. Matlock: Proceedings of Conference on Advanced High Strength Steels, AIST, Warrendale, 2004,
pp. 38394.
21. S.B. Lee, D.K. Matlock, and J.G. Speer: Proceedings of 19th
Conference on Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Korean Institute
of Metals and Materials, Seoul, Korea, 2005, pp. 18397.
22. E. Ahmad, T. Manzoor, M.M.A. Ziai, and N. Hussain: J. Eng.
Mater. Perform., 2012, vol. 21, pp. 38287.
23. T. Kunio, M. Shimizu, K. Yamada, and H. Suzuki: Eng. Fract.
Mech., 1975, vol. 7, pp. 41117.
24. E. Ahmad, T. Manzoor, N. Hussain, and N.K. Qazi: Mater. Des.,
2008, vol. 29, pp. 45057.
25. E. Ahmad, T. Manzoor, and N. Hussain: Mater. Sci. Eng., A,
2009, vol. 508, pp. 25965.
26. J. Gerbase:, Structure and Properties of Dual Phase Steels, R.A.
Kot and J.W. Morris, eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1979, pp. 118
44.
27. G. Avronovik-Cingara, Y. Osokov, M.K. Jain, and D.S. Wilkinson: Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2009, vol. 516, pp. 716.
28. J. Kadkhodapour, A. Butz, and S. Ziaei Rad: Acta Mater., 2011,
vol. 59, pp. 257588.
29. M. Ergodan: J. Mater. Sci., 2002, vol. 37, pp. 362330.
30. A.F. Szewcyk and J. Gurland: Metall. Trans. A, 1982, vol. 13A,
pp. 182126.
31. V. Uthaisangsuk, U. Prahl, and W. Bleck: Eng. Fract. Mech.,
2011, vol. 78, pp. 46986.
32. H.J. He, N. Terao, and A. Berghezan: Met. Sci., 1984, vol. 18,
pp. 36773.
33. D.L. Steinbrunner, D.K. Matlock, and G. Krauss: Metall. Trans.
A, 1988, vol. 19A, pp. 57989.
34. B.S. Levy and C.J. Van Tyne: J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2012,
vol. 21, pp. 120513.
35. B.S. Levy and C.J. Van Tyne: J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2008,
vol. 17, pp. 84248.
36. S.B. Lee, J.G. Speer, D.K. Matlock, and K.G. Chin: Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Structural Steels,
Korean Institute of Metals and Materials, Seoul, Korea, 2006, pp.
84149.
37. A. Dalloz, J. Besson, A.F. Gourgues-Lorenzon, T. Sturel, and A.
Pineau: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2009, vol. 76, pp. 141124.
38. Y. Takahashi, O. Kawano, and Y. Tanaka: Proceedings of MS&T,
2009.
39. M. Sudo, S.-I. Hashimoto, and S. Kambe: Trans. ISIJ, 1983,
vol. 23, pp. 30311.
40. M. Sudo and I. Kokubo: Scand. J. Metall., 1984, vol. 13, pp. 329
42.
41. B.S. Levy and C.J. Van Tyne: J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2012,
vol. 21, pp. 214754.
42. S. Sriram, C. Wong, M. Huang, B. Yan, and D. Urban: Formability Characterization of a New Generation of High Strength
Steels, Report No. 0012, AISI Technology Roadmap Program
Oce, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.
43. A. Koniecyny and T. Henderson: in Steel Innovations, Fatigue
Research, Sheet/Hydro/Gas forming Technology and Advanced
High Strength Steel Development, SP-2103, SAE International,
Warrendale, PA, 2007, pp. 4150.
44. S.B. Lee: Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
CO, 2005.
45. X. Fang, Z. Fan, B. Ralph, P. Evans, and R. Underhill: J. Mater.
Process. Technol., 2003, vol. 132, pp. 21518.
46. A. Karelova, C. Krempaszky, E. Werner, P. Tsipouridis,
T. Habedberger, and A. Pichler: Steel Res. Int., 2009, vol. 80,
pp. 7177.
47. N. Fujita, T. Nonaka, T. Tomokiyo, H. Taniguchi, K. Goto, and
K. Yamazaka: Proceedings SAE World Congress, Paper No. SAE
2007-01-0341.
48. R.D.K. Misra, S.W. Thompson, T.A. Hylton, and A.J. Boucek:
Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2001, vol. 12A, pp. 74559.
49. R.G. Davies: Metall. Trans. A, 1979, vol. 10A, pp. 11318.
50. C. Chiriac: Steel Processing Products Metallurgy and Applications,
Proceedings of MS&T, 2010, pp. 18401851.
51. Standard Test Methods for Determining Grain Size: ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.

VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 20133647

52. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials:

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006.
53. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing for Plastic Strain
Ratio R for Sheet Metal: ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
54. ASM Handbook: Mechanical Testing and Evaluation, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 2000, vol. 8, p. 283.
55. Z. Milosevic and F. Moussy:, Advanced Technology of Plasticity,
K. Lange, ed., Springer, Berlin, 1987, vol. II, pp. 697702.
56. G. Dieter: Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, New
York, NY, 1986, p. 525.

3648VOLUME 44A, AUGUST 2013

57. G. LeRoy and J.D. Embury:, Formability Analysis and Modeling,

S. Hecker, A.K. Ghosh, and H.L. Gegel, eds., AIME, New York,
NY, 1978, pp. 183207.
58. B.S. Levy, M.J. Gibbs, and C.J. Van Tyne:, Proceeding of Forming
Technology Forum Zurich 2012Advance Failure Prediction
Methods in Sheet Metal Forming, P. Hora, ed., ETH, Institute of
Virtual Manufacturing, 2012, pp. 12124.
59. E.C. Bain and H.W. Paxton: Alloying Elements in Steel, 2nd ed.,
ASM, Metals Park, OH, 1961, p. 37.
60. Thermo-Calc Tcw5.0.2.30: Computer Software. Thermo-Calc
Software AB, PC, 2009.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Copyright of Metallurgical & Materials Transactions. Part A is the property of Springer

Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.