The influence of heat treatment on the microstructure and

machinability of a prehardened mold steel

H. Hoseinya, F. G. Caballerob, R. M’Saoubic, B. Högmana, J. Weidowd, H.-O. Andrénd

a
Research and Development, Uddeholms AB, SE-683 85 Hagfors, Sweden
b
National Center for Metallurgical Research (CENIM-CSIC), Avda. Gregorio del Amo 8, E-
28040 Madrid, Spain
c
Research and Development, Seco Tools AB, SE-737 82 Fagersta, Sweden
d
Department of Applied Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Göteborg,
Sweden

Abstract
The machinability performance of a modified AISI P20 steel, heat treated to have the same

hardness but three different microstructures, lower bainite, tempered martensite, and primary

spheroidized carbides in a tempered martensite matrix, was studied. The microstructures were

characterized using light optical and scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction, and

mechanical properties were compared by means of tensile and Charpy-V notch impact tests. The

influence of microstructure and the resultant mechanical properties on machinability was studied

in the context of single tooth end milling operation. The results showed that the material

containing primary spheroidized carbides exhibited a superior machinability at the expense of a

marginal loss of tensile strength and impact toughness, with comparable yield strength to that of

the material containing tempered martensite. By contrast, the material with bainitic

microstructure showed the lowest yield strength and the poorest machinability performance

while having the highest uniform elongation.

Keywords: Machinability, Microstructure, Mechanical Properties, Bainite, Tempered

martensite, Carbide morphology

1
1. Introduction

It is well known that higher economic efficiency can be achieved using mold steels in

prehardened condition. Today, more than 80% of the mold steels are used in the prehardened

condition [1]. The range of hardness defined for the prehardened condition is 38 – 40 HRC but

there is a tendency to increase this hardness to ensure higher strength, wear resistance and

polishability, properties of great importance for plastic mold steels [2]. In addition, toughness

and ductility are also essential to prevent deformation of the mold during service [1, 3-4].

Among the complex properties demanded from mold steels, machinability has the most practical

and economical significance. Due to the high volume of material removal, machining accounts

for more than 60 % of the overall cost of mold manufacturing [1]. Since hardness has an inverse

effect on the machinability of materials [5], machining in prehardened condition is more

challenging, and machinability becomes crucial in prehardened mold steels.

Microstructure plays an important role in the machinability of a material [6]. The studies by

Chandrasekaran and M’Saoubi [7] on the machinability of P20 type steel and AISI H13 hot work

tool steels in hardened condition have shown that the influence of the microstructure

(precipitates and carbide distribution) on machinability can be stronger than that of machinability

enhancing additives. Hence, investigating the influence of microstructure on machinability of

mold steels has attracted much attention [7]. Although the role of microstructure on the

machinability of steels is widely reported in the literature, machining in prehardened condition (≥

35 HRC) has not been adequately addressed [8]. In addition, the independent effect of

microstructure (without changing the chemical composition) is hardly found in the literature,

mainly because changes in microstructure usually results in a variation of hardness, which has a

2
strong influence on the machinability of materials. Hence, a systematic study of the independent

role of microstructure on the machinability of prehardened mold steels is still lacking.

Modified AISI P20 is an AISI P20 medium carbon low alloyed tool steel in which 1 percent Ni is

added to increase the hardenability and has been commonly used for molding applications. Due

to its high hardenability, this steel is used particularly for large mold cross sections in the

automotive industry. The common hardening process for this steel type consists of

austenitization at 840˚C – 880˚C followed by quenching and double tempering in the range of

520˚C – 600˚C, depending on the required final hardness [1, 9]. This process results in a

tempered lath martensite microstructure which in most cases contains primary carbides and a

certain amount of bainite [10]. Pearlite may also be formed in the center of large cross sections

as confirmed by Firrao et al. [9].

Tu et al. [11] reported that lower bainite in a JIS SK5 tool steel showed a higher toughness and

higher tensile strength than tempered martensite at equivalent hardness. It is also well known that

spheroidizing of carbides improves the machinability of steels [12]. However, the annealing

treatment that results in spheroidization of carbides reduces the hardness of steel to a much lower

value than what is required for a prehardened mold steel. Hence, design of a suitable heat

treatment which brings about finely spheroidized carbides in a hardened matrix may be

advantageous compared to conventional quenching and tempering. In this work, a modified AISI

P20 steel has been subjected to conventional quench and tempering, to an austempering

treatment and also to a spheroidizing annealing prior to quenching and tempering treatment, to

achieve three different microstructures, tempered martensite, lower bainite, and primary

spheroidized carbides in a tempered martensite matrix, all at the same hardness level. The

machinability performance of these microstructures is compared in terms of cutting forces and

3
tool life in end milling as one of the most applicable machining operations in mold making, and

the results are related to differences in the microstructure and mechanical properties subsequent

to the heat treatments.

2. Experimental procedures

2.1 Material and heat treatments

Table 1 lists the chemical composition of the steel used in this study. The steel is a modified

AISI P20 which is the most commonly used mold steel. It has been hot rolled to a cross section

of 100 mm × 400 mm at 1000˚C – 900˚C, followed by a stress relieving treatment at 650˚C for 9

hours and air cooling to room temperature. For machinability and mechanical tests, workpieces

of 50 mm × 100 mm × 200 mm were cut and hardened through three different heat treatments

(HT) as follows:

- Austempering consisting of austenitization at 900˚C for 10 min followed by isothermal

holding in salt bath at 335˚C for 5 hrs (the martensite start temperature of the studied

steel, Ms, is 260˚C).

- Conventional quenching and tempering (QT treatment) consisting of austenitization at

900˚C for 10 min followed by quenching in oil bath at 50˚C and subsequent double

tempering at 475˚C for 2 + 2 hrs. This treatment is the conventional process employed for

hardening of the studied material and is the reference heat treatment for this work.

- Spheroidizing plus quenching and tempering (S-QT treatment) consisting of continuous

heating in a furnace to 850˚C, followed by quenching in oil bath (at 50˚C) and subsequent

double tempering at 475˚C for 2 + 2 hrs.

4
The heat treatment procedures are illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. It is worth to be mentioned

that the heating rate for S-QT treatment was lower than that for the other two treatments in order

to allow spheroidization of pearlite when heating through a range of temperatures below Ac1.

Regarding the austempering, although the calculations based on the dilatometric simulation

curves showed the completion of the bainitic transformation after 1 hour of isothermal holding at

335˚C, the salt bath treatment was continued for a few extra hours to assure the maximum

possible transformation through the whole cross section of the workpieces.

2.2. Microstructural characterization

A 3% Nital etching solution was used to reveal the microstructure by light optical microscopy

(LOM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in a JEOL JSM-6500F field emission gun

scanning electron microscope operated at 7 kV. The volume fraction of martensite in bands in

the bainitic microstructure was determined by an image analysis software in LOM micrographs

at low magnification (×100), whereas the volume fraction of martensite/austenite (M/A)

constituent inside bainite sheaves was estimated by the same procedure on SEM micrographs at a

magnification of ×5000. The M/A constituent is a mixture of untempered martensite embedded

in carbon-enriched austenite [H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, Proceedings of the International Seminar

on Welding of High Strength Pipeline Steels, CBMM and TMS, 2013].

The size and morphology of carbides were estimated from SEM micrographs at a magnification

of ×15000 using an image analysis software. Carbides smaller than 9 pixels were excluded from

the estimations.

The volume fraction of pearlite in the microstructure of the S-QT treated material, which

consisted primarily of spheroidized carbides in a tempered martensite matrix, was also measured

by a point counting method on LOM micrographs.

5
Quantitative X-ray diffraction analyses were used to determine the fraction of retained austenite.

For this purpose, 15 mm × 35 mm × 10 mm (width × length × thickness) samples were cut from

the workpieces and machined. After grinding and final polishing using 1 μm diamond paste, the

samples were electropolished to obtain an undeformed surface. They were then step-scanned in a

XRD 3003 PTS diffractometer using unfiltered Cr Kα radiation. The scanning speed (2θ) was

less than 0.3 degree/min. The machine was operated at 40 kV and 30 mA. The volume fraction

of retained austenite was calculated from the integrated intensities of (111), (200) and (220)

austenite peaks, and those of (110), (200) and (211) peaks of ferrite. For each heat treatment

three samples were examined and the mean value is reported.

In order to determine the volume fractions of carbides in the heat treated specimens, the polished

specimens were etched in a 4% Picral solution for 30 s. The etched surface was inspected by

SEM in the secondary electron mode to reveal the surface topography. The etching time was then

optimized by trial and error to give a flat surface of the specimen, as longer or shorter etching

times may result in over or under estimation of the volume fraction the carbides, respectively.

The specimens were imaged by a Leo Ultra 55 FEG-SEM using 20 kV, 3.0 mm working

distance, high current mode, and 60 µm objective aperture at ×20000 magnification using the

back scatter detector. The volume fraction of the carbides was measured using ImageJ image

analysis software.

2.3. Mechanical testing

The tensile properties and Charpy-V impact toughness were measured. Quasi-static tensile tests

were performed at room temperature according to EN 10002–1:2001 standard on a Zwick

Z250/SW5A machine with a maximum load of 250 kN. Longitudinal samples were cut in the

rolling orientation. Three tests were performed for each heat treatment at room temperature.

6
Charpy-V notch impact tests were performed in a Roell Amsler RK150 machine with nominal

energy of 150 J and release angle of 150˚, according to standard EN 10045. The impact tests

were carried out at room temperature for longitudinal and transverse specimens and repeated

three times for every heat treatment. The values reported are the average of the two orientations.

Micro-hardness measurements were performed in Vickers scale using a Matsuzawa MXT50

digital micro-hardness tester at a load of 100 gr. A least ten measurements are done for each

microconstituent and the average value plus the standard deviation is reported.

2.4. Machinability tests

The machinability tests were conducted by end milling in a three axis CNC, Modig 7000

Machining Center, with maximum power of 10 kW and spindle speed of 15000 rpm. The cutting

tool was a Sandvik Coromant R390-016A16-11L with a diameter (Dc) of 16 mm, tool cutting

edge angle (κr) of 90˚ and inclination angle (λs) of 13.43˚. The inserts were of Coromant R390-

11 T3 08M-PL cemented carbide type with a PVD TiAlN multilayer coating. The cutting

parameters for the machining experiments are given in Table 2.

The cutting forces were measured with the help of a piezoelectric three-component Kistler

dynamometer type 9257A at a sampling rate of 25.6 kHz. The measurements were done on 38

mm long pieces cut from the heat treated specimens using a new insert to eliminate any influence

from wear on the cutting forces. The cutting forces were measured two times for each condition

in order to check the repeatability of the results.

Tool life tests were performed on the heat treated blocks with the criterion of 0.2 mm flank wear

(VBmax = 0.2 mm). Subsequently, the wear behavior of the cutting tools were characterized using

stereo LOM, SEM and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDS) linked to the SEM. In this

regard the worn surfaces (rake face and flank face) of the inserts were checked at different stages

7
of machining under stereo LOM to measure the wear size and observe the type of wear. After the

wear criterion was reached or the cutting tools were failed to continue the machining, the worn

surfaces were observed in SEM for more detailed study of the wear type and the effect of

material characteristics on the cutting tool. In addition, In order to observe further possible

differences in other aspects of wear, e.g. abrasion, new inserts were used to cut similar

workpieces for only five minutes at the cutting speed of 170 m/min. The inserts were then etched

in boiling hydrochloric acid to remove the adhered layer of work material. The etched inserts

were then observed using SEM.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microstructure
Figure 2 shows the microstructure of the austempered samples. The LOM micrographs in Figs.

2(a) and 2(b) show a microstructure consisting of a bainitic matrix and martensitic bands

(marked as Band). The SEM micrograph in Fig. 2c shows the bainite sheaves consisting of

bainitic ferrite plates and plate-like cementite precipitates within the ferrite laths at a special

angle (usually ~ 60˚) against the long axis of plates of ferrite, which are the typical

characteristics of lower bainite [13]. The length of these cementite particles varies between a few

tens of nanometer and about 1 μm. It can be seen in the micrographs that cementite scarcely

formed on the lath and prior austenite grain boundaries but is mostly dispersed within the laths.

The dispersion of M/A constituents within the bainitic sheaves is clearly observed as well in this

micrograph. These M/A constituents mainly have a blocky morphology. The bands illustrated in

detail in Fig. 2(d) contain large areas of untempered martensite and a high amount of primary

carbides. The primary carbides are mainly of type Cr-rich M7C3 as confirmed in previous work

by Hoseiny et al. [10]. They possess mainly spherical morphology and remained undissolved

8
during the austenitization process due to the short austenitization time. The concentration of

higher amount of Cr-rich primary carbides in the bands suggests that the microstructural banding

is due to the segregation of chromium during the solidification. The volume fraction of different

micro-constituents observed in this microstructure is listed in Table 3. The microhardness of

different micro-constituents of an austempered sample is presented in Table 4. The higher

hardness of the bands is an indication of the presence of as-quenched martensite within these

regions. The microhardness in the bainitic areas within the bands is also higher than the bainitic

sheaves outside of the bands. This is attributed to the high amount of primary carbides

accumulated in the former areas. The microhardness results show inhomogeneity in the hardness

and consequently the mechanical properties of the austempered material.

The sample treated by QT had a typical tempered martensite microstructure consisting of lath

martensite with an extensive precipitation of carbide films at the lath boundaries as well as very

fine cementite particles in the interior of the martensitic laths (Fig. 3). Figure 3(a) clearly

illustrates that the microstructure is homogeneous and there is no evidence of banding or

segregation. It can be seen in Fig. 3(b) that the fraction of interlath carbides is larger than the

intralath ones in the sample treated by QT, while the interlath carbides are barely seen in the

microstructure of the austempered samples. Comparison of Figs. 2 and 3 shows that the intralath

carbides in the QT sample are finer than those in the austempered sample. The volume fraction

and size of undissolved Cr-rich primary carbides should be rather similar in the samples heat

treated by austempering and QT since both are austenitized for a similar temperature and time.

No retained austenite is detected by X-ray diffraction in the microstructure of the sample treated

by QT as is expected due to the double tempering process.

9
The microstructure of the sample after S-QT treatment (Fig. 4) consists of a network of

spheroidized cementite particles (spheroidites) and some pearlite in a tempered martensite

matrix. The presence of undissolved Cr-rich M7C3 carbides is clearly seen in Fig. 4(c). The slow

heating of the material within the spheroidization annealing temperature range, i.e. up to just

below Ac1, has resulted in spheroidization of lamellar pearlite into spheroidites. It should be

mentioned that the initial microstructure of the samples consisted of large amount of spheroidal

carbides, but further spheroidization of the pearlitic regions happened during the heating up stage

before austenitization. Subsequently, due to the short holding time in the austenite region, the

carbides (primary carbides and cementite particles) were partially dissolved. Upon the

subsequent tempering treatment, new carbides were formed within the martensite laths as well as

on the prior austenite grain and martensite lath boundaries. As is mentioned in Table 3, some

pearlite still remained in the microstructure after the hardening process. The microstructure is

rather homogenous and no retained austenite was detected by the X-ray diffraction method.

The size (determined as equivalent circle diameter) and morphology (determined as elongation

factor) of the carbides after hardening treatments are compared in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the

carbides were generally coarser in the microstructure of the sample prehardened through S-QT

compared to the other two heat treatments (Fig. 5(a)). However, the distribution of carbides by

elongation factor (Fig. 5(b)) confirms the more rounded morphology of the carbides formed after

the S-QT treatment.

3.2. Mechanical properties

The mechanical properties of the heat treated workpieces of the material are listed in Table 5 and

the stress-strain curves are illustrated in Fig. 6. The hardness was nearly identical between the

different heat treated samples and therefore there is no concern about the effect of a difference in

10
hardness when comparing the machinability of the materials. The yield stress of the austempered

sample was substantially lower than the other two heat treated variants while its ultimate tensile

stress (Su) is above and close to that of samples prehardened through S-QT and QT, respectively.

The two parameters of work hardening, i.e. the work hardening ratio (∆S/Su) and work hardening

exponent (n), indicate a considerably higher work hardening associated with the deformation of

the austempered sample compared to the two quenched and tempered samples. Both the lower

yield stress and the larger work hardening in the austempered sample are mainly due to the

presence of certain amount of retained austenite in the microstructure. Low values of yield

strength/tensile strength is directly correlated to the large amount of retained austenite [13]. In

addition, Bhadeshia [13] has correlated the rather low yield stress of bainitic steels also to the

mobile dislocations formed by internal strains as a consequence of the displacive transformation.

The well-known strain-induced transformation (SIT) of retained austenite to martensite is

accounted for a large part of the work hardening associated with deformation of the austempered

sample [14-15]. The rapid increase of the flow stress at the early stage of the deformation just

above the yield stress (Fig. 6) is an evidence for this phenomenon.

Although the work hardening ratio and exponent of the sample treated by QT is low, it is still

higher than that of the sample treated by S-QT. This can stem from different factors e.g. the

difference in concentration of solute atoms in the matrix and/or distribution and morphology of

the precipitates. The austenitization at rather higher temperature and for a longer time in QT heat

treatment has caused dissolution of higher amount of carbides in the austenite and hence in the

martensite after quenching. Subsequently due to the presence of a lower amount of carbides (as

shown in Table 3) in the final microstructure of the sample treated by QT it can be deduced that

the concentration of C and Cr atoms in its matrix is higher than in the matrix of the sample

11
treated through S-QT. It is established in the literature [16-17] that the solute atoms hinder the

movement of dislocations and therefore can enhance the work hardening. On the other hand, as it

can be seen in Fig. 3 in the microstructure of the sample treated by QT, most of the lath

boundaries are covered by carbides and hence can be counted as effective obstacles for slip of

dislocations [18]. This, together with the fine precipitates that are distributed in the interior of the

martensite laths can confine the dislocation slip length to shorter distances than in the sample

treated by S-QT, which although it consists of higher volume fraction of carbides, should have a

larger interparticle spacing due to the coarser size of the carbides. It should also be noticed that

the precipitates in the sample treated by QT are dominantly plate-like in shape, which can more

efficiently hinder the dislocations than the spheroidal precipitates (which are more dominating in

the sample treated by S-QT) since the dislocations can bypass the spheroidal precipitates more

easily by cross slip [19]. This latter factor can be an additional reason for the higher work

hardening for the austempered sample. In summary, the work hardening parameters of the heat

treated samples are influenced by three different microstructural factors: 1. The amount of

retained austenite and consequently SIT of retained austenite to the martensite; 2. The

concentration of solute atoms in the matrix; 3. The distribution and morphology of the

precipitates. The higher amount of retained austenite as well as high concentration of solute

atoms in the matrix of the samples results in higher work hardening, while, the finer distribution

as well as a more lath-like morphology of carbides results in a larger work hardening.

The total elongation (eT) resulting from the different heat treatments is not significantly different.

In fact the total elongation of the austempered sample is slightly lower than that of the one

treated by QT, while the reverse is true regarding the uniform elongation. The reason is that

uniform elongation is controlled principally by the hardening exponent [20] or work hardening

12
rate [21] and it is very clear that the work hardening exponent of the austempered sample is

larger than of the other two heat treated samples. However, despite the substantial difference in

the work hardening, the difference between the uniform elongation of the samples treated by

austempering and QT is not very large. This can be explained by that, as mentioned before, a

large part of the work hardening in the austempered sample arises from the SIT of retained

austenite to martensite. However, as was reported by Sandvik and Nevalainen [15] and later by

García-Mateo and Caballero [22], the retained austenite can more efficiently improve the

elongation only if it is mechanically stable enough to postpone the necking instability during the

tensile test. Generally the retained austenite with blocky (rather than thin film) morphology (as is

the case for most of the retained austenite in the microstructure of the austempered sample) has a

low stability, although its chemical composition is also a factor influencing its stability.

Nevertheless, it is believed that the presence of untempered martensite in the microstructure of

the austempered sample has decreased its total elongation to be somewhat lower than that of the

sample treated by QT. Since voids nucleate first at the untempered martensite regions [13] which

are more concentrated in the bands, voids coalesce more rapidly than in the two quenched and

tempered samples in which voids form at the precipitate-matrix interface.

The somewhat lower total elongation of the sample treated by S-QT can be correlated to the

coarser carbides and also the presence of some amount of pearlite (which is well known to

deteriorate the ductility) in its microstructure beside its low work hardening exponent.

Similar to the ductility, the difference between the impact toughness of the heat treated samples

is not very large. Although the spheroidization of carbides is favorable for the toughness, similar

to the ductility, the coarser size of the carbides and the rod-like carbides from incomplete

spheroidization of pearlite as well as some amount of pearlite in the microstructure of samples

13
treated by S-QT can account for their slightly lower toughness than samples treated by

austempering and QT.

It is well established that the mechanically unstable retained austenite and the untempered

martensite deteriorate the toughness in bainitic structures [23]. Hence, the presence of some

amount of both of these features in the microstructure of the austempered sample could worsen

its toughness. Yet, the difference between the impact toughness of the austempered sample and

the sample treated by QT, with a pure tempered martensite structure, is marginal. Thus, it can be

expected that tempering of the austempered sample subsequent to the isothermal bainitic

transformation and quenching in water can improve its impact toughness to over that of tempered

martensite (of the sample treated QT). This needs further studies which are not considered in the

present work. However, it worth to bear in mind that the early findings of Holloman et al. [24]

showed a slightly lower impact toughness in bainite than tempered martensite at equivalent

hardness in a steel containing 0.35% C (close to the carbon content of the present steel) although

the bainitic specimen was cryogenically quenched and then tempered to eliminate the retained

austenite and untempered martensite. But the bainitic transformation temperature in that study

was higher than in the present work. There are many other parameters that can influence the

toughness of steel, such as size of the effective grain size and the size and type of precipitates.

Whether bainite or tempered martensite has superior toughness has been a matter of controversy

between the researchers for a long time. Holloman et al. [24], Herres and Lorig [25] investigating

two alloy steels with 0.27%C, and Sachs et al. [26] studying an AISI 5140 steel, all obtained a

higher toughness in tempered martensite than in bainitic samples at the same hardness. On the

other hand, Davenport et al. [27], and Liu [28] found a higher toughness in bainite compared to

tempered martensite in a wide range of steel alloys.

14
To obtain further details about the effect of different features on the mechanical properties of the

studied structures would require the examination of fracture surfaces and other microstructural

features such as martensite packet size and size of bainitic ferrite plates, which is outside the

scope of this paper.

3.3. Machinability

Cutting force
For comparison of the cutting forces in end milling of the heat treated workpieces, the resultant

cutting forces (FR) are calculated by the following expression:

FR =ටF2x + F2y + F2z (2)

where Fy, Fx and Fz are the cutting force components acting on the cutting tool in the direction of

feed, normal to the feed (in the plane of cutting) and normal to the plane of cutting, respectively.

The variations of resultant cutting forces of heat treated work materials with cutting speed are

illustrated in Fig. 7. It can be seen that at the lowest tested cutting speed, i.e. Vc = 170 m/min, the

cutting forces of the different heat treated materials are nearly the same. However, as cutting

speed increases the workpieces treated by austempering and QT display a different behavior

from the workpiece treated by S-QT. With increasing cutting speed from 170 m/min to 200

m/min, the cutting forces for both workpieces treated by austempering and QT increases while

the cutting force of the workpiece treated by S-QT decreases, hence, the difference between the

cutting forces of the former workpieces and latter one enlarges with cutting speed. This can be

explained by the fact that as the cutting speed increases the cutting temperature rises which may

lead to thermal softening of the work material resulting in decrease of flow stress and increment

15
of shear angle and consequently a decrease of cutting force [29-30]. On the other hand, increase

of the strain and strain rate with cutting speed will result in a rise in flow stress [31], work

hardening and strain-rate hardening of the work material, hence, an increase of the cutting force.

Thus, whether this interplay may lead to an increase or a decrease of the cutting force is

dependent on the work material properties and the cutting conditions. As is shown in Table 5 and

already discussed in the previous section, the work hardening ratio of the workpiece treated by S-

QT is very low and considerably lower than that of the other two heat treated workpieces (almost

one half of and one sixth of that of workpieces treated by QT and austempering, respectively).

As a consequence, for the workpiece treated by S-QT the increase of cutting speed led to that the

effect from thermal softening dominated over the work hardening, resulting in a decrement of the

cutting force. For the other two workpieces, the increase of flow stress dominated during the first

increase of cutting speed. Yet, a further increase of cutting speed resulted in a further increase of

the cutting temperature overriding the work hardening effect and leading to a decrease in cutting

force.

It is widely established in the literature that the yield stress and work hardening characteristic of

the work material are the main properties that influence the cutting forces [32]. A higher yield

stress normally results in higher cutting forces; however, as it is shown here, despite the

considerably lower yield strength of the austempered workpiece its cutting force is almost

identical (especially at the lowest cutting speed) to the cutting forces of the other two heat treated

workpieces, due to the higher work hardening in the austempered workpiece. Work hardening

reduces the shear plane angle, the strain in the chip and chip thickness. A smaller shear plane

angle results in higher cutting force [32-33]. This indicates the substantial influence of work

hardening on the cutting forces. However, König and Essel [34] reported a correlation between

16
the specific cutting force and the ultimate tensile strength in a wide range of steels which

corresponds to the present results as well. In fact this correlation is feasible, since although the

force required to deform the work material plastically in the chip formation process depends on

yield stress, further straining is associated with an increase in flow stress due to work hardening.

Hence, the ultimate tensile strength can be counted as a more reliable parameter for a rough

correlation of mechanical properties with the cutting force.

It should also be considered that the extreme plastic strain (> 2), strain rate (> 102 s-1) and

temperature (> 300˚C) involved in the chip formation process [35-36], are far beyond the tensile

or compressive tests in quasi-static condition (or other lab deformation tests) which were done in

the current study. Yet, the results obtained by tensile or compressive tests are useful for

understanding the behavior of materials in machining, as also mentioned by Childs et al. [33].

Tool life and wear behavior

Figure 8 compares the tool life in end milling of different heat treated workpieces at different

cutting speeds. It is clear that the tool life for the workpiece treated by S-QT is considerably

longer than for the other heat treatments. The tool life for the workpiece treated by QT is also

longer than that of austempered workpiece at the lowest and highest cutting speeds, i.e. 170

m/min and 230 m/min, by 45% and 50%, respectively. But at the cutting speed of 200 m/min a

longer tool life was obtained with austempered workpiece. To check the repeatability of this

result the tool life tests of workpieces treated by austempering and QT at the cutting speed of 200

m/min were repeated and the same difference was observed. Yet, the difference in tool life for

the workpieces treated by austempering and QT at this cutting speed (20%) is less significant

than the difference at the other two cutting speeds. Thus, it can be concluded that the QT treated

material is superior to the austempered workpiece as long as tool performance is concerned.

17
Figures 8(b-d) illustrate that the flank wear was stable under a certain time followed by a

substantial rise leading to the end of tool life by the defined flank wear criterion VBmax = 0.2

mm. For both austempered and QT treated workpieces the latter stage was preceded by removal

of a rather large part of the coating on the flank face of the cutting tool (Figs. 9(a) and (c)).

Subsequently, the flank wear progressed rapidly over the uncoated area during the following few

minutes of milling (Figs. 9b and d).

This was not the case for the workpiece treated by S-QT, however, the tool suffered a

catastrophic failure at the end of tool life and this was associated with significant crater wear on

the rake face of the cutting tool as illustrated in Fig. 10. It should be noticed that since this has

happened after a longer time in cut than for the other two workpieces, this should not be

interpreted as a more intensive crater wear for the cutting tool used for workpiece treated by S-

QT. As it is shown in Fig. 8(d), the continuation of the cutting after a VBmax of 0.1 mm, has led

to breakage of a large part of the cutting edge and a sudden increase of VBmax to 0.2 mm.

For a better understanding of the mechanism of wear progress, SEM micrographs of the cutting

tools are provided after different stages of cutting. It can be seen in Fig. 11(a) and (b) that after

only 30 seconds cutting of the austempered workpiece, the coating was removed in some areas of

the cutting edge, but this did not happen in the case of the other two work materials. Also it is

clear that the width of flank wear was the largest and the smallest for the cutting tools used for

the austempered workpiece and the workpiece treated by S-QT, respectively. Moreover, the

adhesion of work material to the cutting edge is observed only on the tools used for cutting of the

austempered and the QT treated workpieces, which indicates the higher affinity of adhesion for

these workpieces than the one treated by S-QT. This is confirmed by the SEM-EDS elemental

maps of iron (Fe) and tungsten (W) as are shown in Fig. 12.

18
Figure 13 shows SEM micrographs of the cutting edge of the inserts that were etched in boiling

hydrochloric acid after cutting the heat treated workpieces for five minutes at the cutting speed

of 170 m/min. It can be seen that at this stage the coating is removed and the WC carbides of the

substrate of tool material are exposed in some regions on the cutting tool used for milling of the

workpieces heat treated by S-QT and QT. This exposure was, however, more severe for the

cutting tool used for cutting of the austempered workpiece. Due to the high atomic number of W

in the substrate material of the cutting tool, the regions without coating appear bright in the

corresponding backscattered micrographs in Fig. 13.

The adhesion of the chip to the cutting tool can account for the more intensive and earlier

removal of the coating from the edge of the cutting tool used for milling of the austempered

workpiece. The higher work hardening can result in stronger adhesion between the tool and the

work material and the stronger bonding of work material to the cutting tool brings about the

removal of small pieces of coating with the flow of the material.

Figures 13(a) and 14(a) more clearly show that this phenomenon (removal of coating) has

happened at the edge more towards the rake face rather than on the flank face.

Larger work hardening results in higher cutting temperatures that increase the affinity to

adhesion. On the other hand, plastic deformation of the cutting tool is more likely at higher

cutting temperatures, under such high compressive stresses involved in the machining at the

hardness level involved in this study [32]. Hence, the flaking of a large part of the coating of the

cutting tools used for milling of the austempered and QT workpieces after a certain time (as is

shown in Fig 9), can be due to the plastic deformation, which becomes more plausible as the

flank wear increases. Moreover, the adhesion of work material to the cutting tools after 30

seconds cutting of the austempered and QT workpieces (Fig. 12) can be an indication for the

19
higher cutting temperatures associated with cutting of these two workpieces that possess a higher

tendency for work hardening.

It has to be mentioned here that the tendency to adhesion between the work material and the

coating of cutting tool increases with ductility of the work material [37]. As it is shown in Table

5 and already discussed in section 3.2., the uniform elongation of the workpieces reduces in the

order of austempered, QT and S-QT, which can be another reason for higher affinity of the

austempered workpiece to adhesion to the cutting tool followed by the QT workpiece.

A closer view of the cutting tools (Fig. 14), shows evidence of abrasive wear tracks. It seems that

the abrasion scratches on the tools used for cutting of the austempered and S-QT workpieces are

the most and the least severe, respectively. This can be due to the morphology of carbides which

are mainly spheroidized in the S-QT workpiece while more plate-like (elongated) in the

austempered and the QT workpieces. The size distribution of carbides in Fig. 5(a) is measured as

equivalent circle diameter. Thus, although the carbides are rather coarser in the S-QT workpiece,

their more spheroidized morphology results in a finer actual length, which can explain the

smoother abrasive scratches observed in Fig. 14(c). Furthermore, the presence of untempered

martensite which is a considerably harder phase than the bainitic matrix (as is shown in Table 4)

in the austempered workpiece increases its abrasiveness.

Here it is also shown, that although the volume fraction of carbides in the S-QT workpiece is

considerably higher, its machinability in terms of tool life is higher than the other two

workpieces. Chandrasekaran and M’Saoubi [7] have found carbide density and area fraction of

carbides as the main factors correlating to the tool life. The present study suggests that the

carbide morphology has a stronger effect on the machinability.

4. Conclusions

20
The influence of three different heat treatments on microstructure, mechanical properties and

machinability of a modified AISI P20 mold steel in prehardened condition was examined. The

heat treatments were austempering, conventional quenching and tempering (QT), and

spheroidization plus quenching and tempering (S-QT), and the resultant microstructures were

lower bainite, tempered martensite, and spheroidized carbides in a tempered martensite matrix,

respectively. The following conclusions were obtained from the results:

 The S-QT treatment brought about the best machinability (in terms of cutting force and

tool life) at an identical hardness with a little loss of total elongation, impact toughness

and tensile strength.

 The machinability of the QT treated workpiece was superior to that of austempered in

terms of tool life but the resultant cutting forces were almost the same.

 The austempered material possessed the lowest yield strength while showing a

significantly higher work hardening and somewhat larger uniform elongation.

 At an identical hardness, work hardening can be regarded as the most important

mechanical characteristic that adversely influences the machinability of the steel.

 The work hardening parameters (work hardening ratio and work hardening exponent)

decreased in the work materials in the order of austempered, QT treated and S-QT

treated.

 The tool wear for the austempered workpiece was associated with adhesion and early

removal of the coating from the cutting edge. Also the catastrophic tool wear was

preceded by flaking of the coating for both austempered and QT treated workpieces.

 The abrasion scratches were smoother on the tool used for cutting of S-QT treated

workpiece, due to the round morphology of the carbides rather than the dominantly plate-

21
like carbides in the austempered and QT treated workpieces. Also the presence of some

amount of untempered martensite in the austempered workpiece is believed to increase its

abrasiveness.

22
5. References

1. F Hippenstiel (ed.): Handbook of Plastic Mould Steels, Edelstahlwerke Buderus AG,

2004.

2. R. A. Mesquita and Celso Antonio Barbosa: In 18th International Congress of

Mechanical Engineering, Ourto Preto, MG, 2005.

3. F. B. Pickering: In Tool Materials for Molds and Dies, eds. G. Krauss and Nordberg H.,

Colorado School of Mines: St. Charles, Illinois, 1987, pp 3-29.

4. H. Hoseiny, B. Högman, U. Klement and A. Kinnander: Int. J. Mach. Mach. Mater.,

2012, vol. 11, pp. 327-341.

5. M.E. Finn: Machining, In ASM Handbook, ASM International, Ohio, 1989, pp 708-732.

6. H. Chandrasekaran: Report No. IM-3664, Swedish Institute for Metals Research,

Stockholm, August 1998.

7. H. Chandrasekaran and R. M'Saoubi: CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol., 2006, vol. 55, pp.

93-96.

8. H. Chandrasekaran, U. Gudmunds-Olsson and R. M'Saoubi: Report No. 2008-KIMAB-

519, Swerea KIMAB AB, Stockholm, May 2008.

9. D. Firrao, R. Gerosa, A. Ghidini, P. Matteis, G. Mortarino, M. R. Pinasco, B. Rivolta, G.

Silva and E. Stagno: Int. J. Fatigue, 2007, vol. 29, pp. 1880-1884.

10. H. Hoseiny, U. Klement, P. Sotskovszki and J. Andersson: Mater. Des. 2011, vol. 32, pp.

21-28.

11. M.-Y. Tu, Ch.-A. Hsu, W.-H. Wang and Y.-F. Hsu: Mater. Chem. Phys. 2008, vol. 107,

pp. 418-425.

23
12. Ch. R. Brooks: Principles of the heat treatment of plain carbon and low alloy steels,

,ASM International, OH, United States of America, 1996, pp. 237-242.

13. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Bainite in Steel: Transformations, Microstructures and

Properties. 2nd ed., The Institute of Materials, London, 2001.

14. D. Kalish, S. A. Kulin and M. Cohen: J. Met., 1965, pp. 157-164.

15. B. P. J. Sandvik and H. P. Nevalainen: Met. Technol., 1981, pp. 213-220.

16. G. V. S. S. Prasad, M. Goerdeler and G. Gottstein: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2005, vol. 400-

401, pp. 231-233.

17. M. Goerdeler, M. Crumbach, M. Schneider, G. Gottstein, L. Neumann, H. Aretz and P.

Kopp: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2004, vol. 387-389, pp. 266-271.

18. J. Daigne, M. Guttmann and J. P. Naylor: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1982, vol. 56, pp. 1-10.

19. E. Chang, C. Y. Chang and C. D. Liu: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1994, vol. 25, pp. 545-

555.

20. J. R. Davis (ed.): Metals Handboon Desk Edition, ASM International, Materials Park,

OH, 2004.

21. A. Ohmori, Sh. Torizuka and K. Nagai: ISIJ Int., 2004, vol. 44, pp. 1063-1071.

22. C. García-Mateo and F. G. Caballero: Mater. Trans., JIM, 2005, vol. 46, pp. 1839-1846.

23. F. G. Caballero, J. Chao, J. Cornide, C. García-Mateo, M. J. Santofimia and C.

Capdevila: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2009, vol. 525, pp. 87-95.

24. J. H. Hollomon, L. D. Jaffe, D. E. McCarthy and M. R. Norton: Trans. ASM, 1947, vol.

38, pp. 807-847.

25. S. A. Herres and C. H. Lorig: Trans. ASM, 1948, vol. 40, pp. 775-812.

26. G Sachs, L. J. Ebert and W. F. Brown: Trans. AIME, 1948, vol. 176, pp. 424-435.

24
27. E. S. Davenport, E. L. Roff and E. C. Bain: Trans. ASM, 1934, vol. 22, pp. 289-310.

28. Y. H. Liu: Trans. ASM, 1969, vol. 62, pp. 55-63.

29. N. A. Abukhshim, P. T. Mativenga and M. A. Sheikh: Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf., 2006,

vol. 46, pp. 782-800.

30. M. Bäker: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2006, vol. 176, pp. 117-126.

31. W. F. Hosford: Mechanical Behaviour of Materials. 2nd ed., Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, 2010.

32. E. M. Trent and P. K. Wright: Metal Cutting. 4th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston,

2000.

33. T. Childs, K. Maekawa, T. Obikawa and Y. Yamane: Metal Machining, Theory and

Applications. Arnold, London, 2000.

34. W. König and K. Essel: Verlag Stahleisen M.B.H., Düsseldorf, 1973.

35. H. Chandrasekaran: Report No. IM-2001-523, Swedish Institute for Metals Research,

Stockholm, 2001.

36. S. P. F. C. Jaspers and J. H. Dautzenburg: J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2002, vol. 121, pp.

123-135.

37. J.-E. Ståhl: Metal Cutting-Theory and Models, Lund University, Lund, 2008.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Uddeholms AB, Vinnova within
Vinnpro program and CAPE research center. Rickard Sundström (Sandvik Tooling) is thanked
for providing the cutting tools and helpful recommendations regarding machining tests. In
addition, the assistance of Staffan Gunnarsson and Lars-Göran Nordh of Uddeholms AB is
greatly appreciated.

25
Table 1
Chemical composition of studied material (wt%)
C Si Mn P S Cr Ni Mo V Fe
0.39 0.27 1.36 0.017 0.006 1.95 1.0 0.27 0.06 bal.
Table 2
Cutting conditions used for the machining experiments
Cutting speed, Vc (m/min) 170, 200, 230
Feed per tooth, fz (mm/rev) 0.1
Number of inserts, Nt 1
Axial depth of cut, dc (mm) 1
Radial depth of cut, ae (mm) 14
Coolant Dry
Table 3
Mean volume fractions (in %) of different micro-constituents in the heat treated samples. N/A =
not applicable, N/D = not detected.
Constituent Austempered QT S-QT
Retained austenite 6±2 <2 <2
Carbides 4.1 ± 0.9 4.9 ± 0.8 6.1 ± 1.6
Martensite in the bands 2.7 ± 1.1 N/A N/A
M/A within bainite 4.1 ± 0.7 N/A N/A
Pearlite N/D N/D 3.4 ± 1.1
Table 4
Microhardness (HV0.1) of different micro-constituents in the austempered sample.
Bainitic sheaves 451 ± 22
Martensite in the bands 569 ± 42
Bainite in bands 495 ± 14
Table 5. Mechanical properties of the heat treated samples. The error is the 95% confidence
interval of the mean value.
Heat S0 Su e eu CVN Hardness
∆S/Su T n
treatment [MPa] [MPa] [%] [%] [J] [HRC]
Austempered 1030 ± 11 1491 ± 13 0.31 10 ± 3 6 ± 1 15 ± 1 0.19 44 ± 1
QT 1350 ± 1 1526 ± 2 0.11 11 ± 1 5 ± 1 15 ± 2 0.08 45 ± 1
S-QT 1337 ± 20 1409 ± 22 0.05 9±1 4±1 13 ± 1 0.04 44 ± 1
S0: Yield stress; Su: Ultimate tensile stress; ∆S: (Su-S0); ∆S/Su: Work hardening ratio; eT: Total
elongation; eu: uniform elongation; CVN: Charpy V-notch impact energy (average of two
orientations); n: work hardening exponent.