JMEPEG (2016) 25:1041–1046 ASM International

DOI: 10.1007/s11665-016-1895-9 1059-9495/$19.00

Hot Ductility of the 17-4 PH Stainless Steels

V. Herrera Lara, L. Guerra Fuentes, O. Covarrubias Alvarado, A. Salinas Rodriguez, and E. Garcia Sanchez

(Submitted May 5, 2015; in revised form December 24, 2015; published online January 21, 2016)

The mechanisms of loss of hot ductility and the mechanical behavior of 17-4 PH alloys were investigated
using hot tensile testing at temperatures between 700 and 1100 °C and strain rates of 1024, 1022, and
1021 s21. Scanning electron microscopy was used in conjunction with the results of the tensile tests to find
the temperature region of loss of ductility and correlate it with cracking observed during processing by hot
upsetting prior to ring rolling. It is reported that 17-4 PH alloys lose ductility in a temperature range
around 900 °C near to the duplex austenite + ferrite phase field. Furthermore, it is found that niobium
carbides precipitated at austenite/ferrite interfaces and grain boundaries have a pronounced effect on the
mechanical behavior of the alloy during high-temperature deformation.

in solid solution may also have detrimental effects on hot

Keywords 17-4 PH, ductility trough, hot cracking, hot ductility,
hot tensile tests, mechanical behavior
1. Introduction
Precipitation hardening steels may be used as an alternative
material when normal stainless steels cannot provide adequate
strength and toughness for service conditions at relatively high
temperatures. The 17-4 PH is one of the most popular steels
used in a wide range of industrial applications. Its ability to
develop very high strength without undue loss of ductility and
its superior corrosion resistance in comparison with other steels
of similar strength have made it a very attractive material (Ref
1, 2). However, under certain processing conditions, loss of
ductility has been observed and there is not a unique
mechanism to explain this behavior (Ref 3).
The study of hot ductility of metals is of relevance for
industrial processes such as hot rolling, ring hot rolling, hot
forging, etc. The loss of hot ductility is a serious problem
during forging of high-alloy steels. Several mechanisms have
been associated with cracking during the hot forging of low-
alloy steels (Ref 3-7). However, just a few investigations have
been reported on the hot working behavior of 17-4 PH alloy
(Ref 1, 2, 8). The hot ductility loss at relatively low
temperatures in low carbon advanced high-strength steels is
associated with microvoid nucleation, growth, and coalescence
at precipitates and/or inclusions, particularly MnS (Ref 9, 10),
CuS, V(C, N), and AlN (Ref 11, 12), which play an important
role on the crack nucleation mechanism (Ref 4, 13). Elements
V. Herrera Lara, L. Guerra Fuentes, and E. Garcia Sanchez,
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, FIME-CIDET, Av.
Universidad s/n. Cd. Universitaria, San Nicolás de los Garza, NL,
México, C.P. 66451; O. Covarrubias Alvarado, Universidad
Autónoma de Nuevo León, FIME-CIDET, Av. Universidad s/n. Cd.
Universitaria, San Nicolás de los Garza, NL, México, C.P. 66451, and
Exova, Monterrey, N. L., México, C.P 66367; A. Salinas Rodriguez,
Centro de Investigacióny de Estudios Avanzados del IPN
(CINVESTAV), Unidad Saltillo Carretera Saltillo-Monterrey km
13.5, Ramos Arizpe, Coahuila, México, C.P. 25000. Contact e-mail:
egs7710@gmail.com.
ductility, for example, Cu and Sn promote loss of ductility (Ref
9, 14). In steels containing large amounts of C, Al, and Nb, the
ductility is degraded when the steel also contains P (Ref 15,
16). The high-temperature ductility of steels with large amounts
of Si is affected negatively near 1050 C due to the formation
of Si-Fe oxides (Ref 11).
The 17-4 PH alloy is used for the manufacture of seamless
rings by hot forging. However, hot cracking can occur during
one-step upsetting leading to the entire scraping of the material.
Actually, there is very limited information regarding the loss of
ductility in these steels; consequently in this paper, the effects
of steel composition, deformation temperature, and strain rate
on the hot ductility of 17-4 PH stainless steel, as estimated from
measurements of reduction of area at fracture during hot tensile
tests, are presented and discussed in terms of their microstruc-
ture before and after hot testing. This is expected to contribute
to the understanding of the causes of loss of ductility in 17-4
PH during high-temperature deformation.
2. Experimental Procedure
17-4 PH steels were obtained from two different suppliers;
samples of both steels were obtained directly from forged bars.
Materials are identified as E (Vacuum arc re-melting) and U
(Electro-slag re-melting), respectively. The materials were
machined to produce standard tensile test specimens,
25.4 mm in diameter and 76.2 mm in length, with tensile axes
parallel to the usual forging direction. Initial microstructure and
Vickers microhardness were measured and compared. The test
specimens were sectioned after tensile testing, mounted,
ground, and polished using standard metallographic technics.
The microstructure was characterized after etching the surfaces
with Gliceregia (60% HCl, 20% HNO3, and 40% glycerol)
during 30 s. Microhardness values were obtained using a 500 g
load by 20 s. Table 1 shows the chemical composition of the
steels and the nominal composition of 17-4 PH.
Hot tensile test was performed at temperatures from 700 to
1100 C and at initial strain rates of 10 4, 10 2, and 10 1. All
tests were carried out under an atmosphere produced by flowing
Ar to reduce the oxidation of the samples during the tests. After
fracture, percentage area reduction (%RA) measurements were

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume 25(3) March 2016—1041

performed using stereoscopic and secondary electron SEM
images from the fracture surfaces (Fig. 1). In addition,
longitudinal sections obtained from the tensile samples were
polished and characterized by SEM to investigate microstruc-
tural details and the nature of the failure mechanisms.
3. Results and Discussion
Figure 2 shows a comparison between the microstructures
of steels E and U in the as-received condition.
As can be observed, the microstructure of both steels (E and
U) consists of the d-ferrite islands and stringers in a martensitic
matrix. Quantitative estimation by image analysis techniques
showed that the d-ferrite content in steel U (3.16%) is about 2.5
larger than that observed in steel E (1.12%). In addition, the
sizes of the d-ferrite islands, stringers, and the martensite
packets and blocks are larger in steel U than in steel E. This last
observation indicates that the austenite grain size from which
they were produced was larger in steel U than in steel E.
According to Table 1, the potential for d-ferrite formation
during solidification (Ni and Cr equivalents) is quite similar for
both steels. Using the Schaeffler-DeLong diagram with Ni and
Cr equivalents of 8.2 and 16.5, respectively, a microstructure
consisting of martensite with approximately 5-10% d-ferrite is
predicted. It appears then that the as-received materials are in
the solution-treated condition and, considering the differences
in prior austenite grain size, steel U was heat treated at a higher
temperature prior to cooling to room temperature. Despite these
microstructural differences, the average hardness values for
steels E and U were similar, 32.4 Rc and 33.7 Rc, respectively.
Figure 3 shows the dilatometric curves for steels E and U
obtained using a heating rate of 10 C/min. As can be seen, the
transformation to austenite on heating starts at Ac1 = 681.9 C
and finishes at Ac3 = 739 C for steel E. These temperatures
are slightly higher for steel U, Ac1 = 698.1 C and
Ac3 = 749.4 C. Ms temperatures were calculated from the
chemical composition using the AndrewÕs equation (Ref 17)),
Ms (C) = 539 423(%C) 30.4(%Mn) 17.7(%Ni) 12.1
(%Cr) 7.5(%Mo). This equation gives the Ms temperature
of steel E as 286 C and of U steel as 284 C. From these
results, it is clear that the tensile tests performed in the
present investigation were carried out at temperatures within
the range of stability of the austenite phase (except the test
performed at 700 C).
The maximum strength obtained in tensile tests depends of
many factors; the most important are the strain rate and
deformation temperature. Figure 4 illustrates the effects of
strain rate and temperature of deformation on the maximum
tensile strength of steels E and U. As can be seen, the general
trends are similar, the maximum tensile strength increases as
the strain rate increases and the deformation temperature
decreases. Increasing the strain rate causes a significant
reduction of the time needed for microvoid nucleation during
tension and dynamic precipitation of carbides and nitrides; on

Table 1 Chemical composition of the experimental steels

C Cr Ni Cu Nb Mn S P

E (vacuum arc re-melting) 0.045 15.45 4.59 3.33 0.33 0.29 0.001 0.022
U (electro-slag re-melting) 0.028 15.69 4.36 3.27 0.28 0.79 0.003 0.019
Nominal (Min-Max). 0.070 15.5 3.00 3.00 0.15 1.00 0.030 0.040
17-5 5.00 5.00 0.45

Si Mo Co V Ti Al N Sn

0.49 0.23 0.15 0.05 0.01 <0.01 0.013 0.005

0.27 0.17 <0.05 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.035 0.0085
1.0 … … … … … … …

Fig. 1 (a) SEM and (b) stereographic images used to measure the diameter of the fracture surfaces for the estimation of %RA after tensile test-
ing. Comparative measurement

1042—Volume 25(3) March 2016 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

Fig. 2 Photomicrographs of the microstructures of a longitudinal section of (a) steel E and (b) steel U
Fig. 3 Ac1 and Ac3 transformation temperatures for steels E and U
determined by dilatometry
the other hand, increasing the deformation, thermally activated
strain-producing mechanisms promote the plastic flow and
tensile strength reduction, modifications in this behavior are
normally related with the changes in the active deformation
mechanisms (Ref 18).
The slope of the r- e_ curves also depends on temperature as
shown in Fig. 4. There is a rapid decrease in the strain rate
dependence of the strength as the temperature increases. It is
also possible to observe major data dispersion in temperatures
below 900 C, it could be because of the results of the
dilatometric tests presented in Fig. 3, below this temperature,
the microstructure is composed by austenite and d-ferrite, and is
not possible to separate the contributions of each phase in the
mechanical response of the steel. At temperatures of 900 C
and above, deformations were carried out in the fully austenite
region and at this temperature, it is noteworthy that the
minimum slope of r- e_ straight lines is reached. In general, the
decrease in the rate of change of tensile strength with the
increase of the deformation temperature may be associated with
increased stability in tension and with the increase in the rate at
which thermally assisted dynamic recovery mechanisms can
take place.
Figure 5 illustrates the effects of deformation temperature
on the maximum tensile strength for each of the strain rates
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Fig. 4 Effect of strain rate on the maximum tensile strength at dif-
ferent deformation temperatures for the steels E and U
tested. As can be seen, the r-T curve corresponding to the strain
rate of 10 4 s 1 exhibits a ‘‘hump’’ centered precisely at
900 C. This type of behavior has been reported for some
stainless steels as a manifestation of dynamic aging and, in
general, this phenomenon disappears with increasing strain rate
(Ref 19). In the present steels, it appears that dynamic
precipitation in austenite during deformation may lead to the
strength ‘‘hump’’ observed in the r-T relationship as illustrated
in Fig. 5.
Therefore, the flow strength ‘‘hump’’ and the ductility
minimum observed in steel U could be evidence of a change in
the deformation mechanism normally associated with phase
transformations (Ref 20).
The most effective method to evaluate the ductility of metals
by means of high-temperature tensile testing uses measure-
ments of percentage of area reduction (%RA) after fracture.
Figure 6 illustrates the effects of strain rate on the %RA-T
relationship for the steels E and U. As can be observed, steel U
exhibits ductility troughs for all the strain rates tested, while
steel E only exhibits a ductility trough at 10 4 s 1. In the case
of steel E tested at higher strain rates, the ductility increases as
temperature increases. The ductility minima observed in the
data for steel U take place at about 900 C for strain rates of
10 4 and 10 2 s 1, in the single-phase austenite region in
Volume 25(3) March 2016—1043
Fig. 5 Effect temperature on the maximum strength in the steels E and U
Fig. 6 Hot ductility curves for the 17-4 PH steel
accordance with the dilatometric studies and occur at 1000 C
for testing at a strain rate of 10 1 s 1. It is also noteworthy that
the %RA at the ductility minimum decreases significantly as
the strain rate decreases. Although a ductility minimum is
observed for steel E tested at 900 C and 10 4 s 1, the values
of %RA for all testing conditions were all superior to 80%.
Therefore, the mechanisms of ductility loss active in steel U do
not appear to take place in steel E and this material keeps its
high ductility for all the different conditions evaluated. The
ductility reduction in this steel tested at 10 2 and 10 1 s 1 can
be associated solely with the decrease in testing temperature
(Ref 11).
As shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b), the initial (prior to
deformation) microstructure of steel U exhibits small particles
at d-ferrite/martensite interfaces. EDS (Fig. 7c and d) analysis
of these particles showed evidence of the presence of Nb. The
effect of the presence of fine Nb(C,N) precipitates on the
ductility is more pronounced when the test temperature is in the
low austenite region rather than at the austenite plus ferrite
1044—Volume 25(3) March 2016
region, since the ferrite layers have an overriding effect when
austenite and ferrite coexist. It has been shown that the
coarsening of precipitates is quite effective in improving the hot
ductility of various steels (Ref 21).
Increasing the C content in the steel moves the ductility
trough to lower temperatures due to the decrease in the Ac3
temperature. This effect affects the starting point of the
decrease in hot ductility and has been observed when the
carbon content increases in the range of 0.06 and 0.1 wt.%
(Ref 22). In the materials used in the present investigation, the
difference in C contents is 0.017 wt.% and apparently does not
affect the position of the ductility minima when testing is
performed at a strain rate of 10 4 s 1.
The mechanisms of loss of ductility at elevated temperature
have been reported by Mintz et al. (Ref 18); all these
mechanisms can affect the ductility behavior in a synergistic
manner depending on the processing conditions and microstruc-
tural characteristics of the steel (Ref 3, 18, 23). In the case of the
17-4 PH steel investigated in the present work, the observed loss
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Fig. 7 (a,b) Particles and microvoids near to the fracture surface in a polished longitudinal section. (c,d) EDS analysis
of ductility at temperatures above A3 could be associated with
the formation of precipitate-free zones (PFZ) in the grain
boundaries of austenite, and below of A3 (c + d-ferrite) could be
related with development of strain concentration at the austenite/
d-ferrite interfaces and microvoid nucleation, growth, and
coalescence; it is due to the difference in ductility between
these phases and the presence of Nb-rich precipitates. These
precipitates similar to AlN (Ref 11, 24) and others (Ref 4, 25)
promote the nucleation of microvoids during the deformation
and finally their growth and coalescence generating cracking
and fracture (Ref 11). Additionally, it has been reported that
decreasing the strain rate during high-temperature deformation
increases the amount of precipitates (Ref 26). Also the Nb(C,N)
precipitation is affected by deformation and cooling rate, and
has been reported dynamic precipitation and more detrimental
effect during high-cooling rates (Ref 13, 27). Additionally, the
precipitation of Nb(C, N) can be performed dynamically and is
more extensive in these steels. Solution temperature in Nb steels
has been reported to be about 1100 C; however, this temper-
ature also coarsens the precipitates without taking any signif-
icant volume fraction back to solution (Ref 18).
The amount of N is higher in the steel U (0.035%) and
consequently the amount of precipitates is superior and the
ductility reduced in all different conditions of evaluation.
Finally, the effect of Nb(C, N) on the hot ductility depends of
the chemical composition. For 0.015%Nb increasing the
amount of N from 0.002 to 0.006% markedly reduces the
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
plasticity (Ref 18, 28), the amount of N should be reduced as
low as possible to avoid cracking (Ref 28). Also has been
reported the combined effect of Nb with other alloying
elements, and in most of the cases it reduce hot ductility
during deformation (Ref 16, 25).
Increasing the strain rate improves the hot ductility, in both
steels in spite of the evident low ductility observed in the steel
U. This effect has been related with the reduced time for the
formation and diffusion-controlled growth of voids around the
precipitates in the grain boundaries and interfaces (Ref 18).
4. Conclusions
Under the testing conditions, the 17-4 PH steel showed a
decrease in the ductility, starting over the region of Ac3. This is
associated with the difference in the resistance of each phase,
and the concentration of the strain in more ductile regions of d-
ferrite and their interaction with the precipitates in the
interphases. This behavior was observed in the steel with
major amount of N and reduced level of C. The steel with lower
levels of N and consequently low amount of Nb(C, N)
presented high ductility in the range of temperatures evaluated
(700-1100 C) and in the range of strain rates. The worst
ductility was observed in the austenitic region about 900 C to
10 4 s 1 and 1000 C in samples deformed at 10 1 s 1.
Volume 25(3) March 2016—1045
 The reduction in the ductility was associated with the
interaction of the Nb(C, N) precipitatesin austenite grain
boundaries promoting deformation concentration and conse-
quently generating sites for microvoids nucleation, these
precipitates also promote the nucleation of d-ferrite during
cooling after tensile tests. Increasing the strain rate, the ductility
is improved in both steels. The temperature of the ductility
minima also increased in higher strain rates.
References
1. H. Mirzadeh, A. Najafizadeh, and M. Moazeny, Flow Curve Analysis
of 17-4 PH Stainless Steel Under Hot Compression Test, Metall. Mater.
Trans., 2009, 40, p 2950–2958
2. H. Mirzadeh and A. Najafizadeh, The Rate of Dynamic Recrystalliza-
tion in 17-4 PH Stainless Steel, Mater. Des., 2010, 31, p 4577–4583
3. M. Yazdani, S.M. Abbasi, A. Momeni, and A. KarimiTaheri, Hot
Ductility of a Fe–Ni–Co Alloy In Cast and Wrought Conditions, Mater.
Des., 2011, 32, p 2956–2962
4. I. Mejı́a, A. Bedolla-Jacuinde, C. Maldonado, and J.M. Cabrera, Hot
Ductility Behavior of a Low Carbon Advanced High Strength Steel
(AHSS) Microalloyed with boron, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2011, 528,
p 4468–4474
5. F. Equihua-Guillen and A. Salinas-Rodriguez, Role of the austenite-
ferrite transformation start temperature on the high-temperature
ductility of electrical steels, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2011, 20(1),
p 102–107
6. K.R. Carpenter, R. Dippenaar, and C.R. Killmore, Hot Ductility of Nb-
and Ti-Bearing Microalloyed Steels and the Influence of Thermal
history, Metall. Mater. Trans., 2009, 40, p 573–580
7. G.I.S.L. Cardoso and S. Yue. Hot Ductility of Three Low Carbon Steels
in Continuously Cast Slabs. Iron and Steel Society, Inc, p. 585–593,
1990
8. J. Wang, H. Zou, C. Li, S. Qiu, and B. Shen, The Spinodal
Decomposition in 17-4PH Stainless Steel Subjected to Long-Term
Aging at 350ºC, Mater. Charact., 2008, 59, p 587–591
9. J. Calvo, J.M. Cabrera, and J.M. Prado, Ductilidad en caliente y
mecanismos de fractura de un acero de construcción, Rev. Metal., 2006,
42(1), p 11–17
10. R. Abushosha, S. Ayyad, and B. Mintz, Influence of Cooling Rate on
Hot Ductility of C-Mn-Al and C-Mn-Nb-Al Steels, Mater. Sci.
Technol., 1998, 14, p 346–351
11. E.O. Garcı́a-Sánchez, E.A. Treviño-Luna, A. Salinas-Rodrı́guez, and
L.A. Leduc-Lezama, Mecanismos de fractura a alta temperatura en
1046—Volume 25(3) March 2016
aceros eléctricos no-orientados, Rev. Metal. Madrid, 2007, 43(4),
p 272–277
12. S. Serejzadeh and A. KarimiTaheri, An Investigation on the Effect of
Carbon and Silicon on Flow Behavior of Steel, Mater. Des., 2002, 23,
p 271–276
13. K. Banks, A. Koursaris, F. Verdoorn, and A. Tuling, Precipitation and
Hot Ductility of low C-V and Low C-V-Nb Microalloyes Steels During
Thin Slab Casting, Mater. Sci. Technol., 2001, 17, p 1596–1604
14. H. Matsuoka, K. Osawa, M. Ono, and M. Ohmura, Influence of Cu and
Sn on Hot Ductility of Steels with Various C Content, ISIJ Int., 1997,
37(3), p 255–262
15. B. Mintz, A. Tuling, and A. Delgado, Influence of Silicon, Aluminum,
Phosphorus and Boron on Hot Ductility of Transformation Induced
Plasticity Assisted Steels, Mater. Sci. Technol., 2003, 19, p 1721–1726
16. B. Mintz, A. Cowley, C. Talian, D.N. Crowther, and R. Abushosha,
Influence of P on Hot Ductility of High C, Al, and Nb Containing
Steels, Mater. Sci. Technol., 2003, 19, p 184–188
17. K.W. Andrews, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1965, 203, p 721
18. B. Mintz, S. Yue, and J.J. Jonas, Hot Ductility of Steels and Its
Relationship to the Problem of Transverse Cracking During Contin-
uous Casting, Int. Mater. Rev., 1991, 36(5), p 187–217
19. S. Nemat-Nasser, W.-G. Guo, and D.P. Kihl, Thermomechanical
Response of AL-6XN Stainless Steel Over a Wide Range of Strain
Rates and Temperatures, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 2001, 49, p 1823–1846
20. J. Lewis, J.J. Jonas, and B. Mintz, The Formation of Deformation
Induced Ferrite During Mechanical Testing, ISIJ Int., 1998, 38(3),
p 300–309
21. S.K. Kim, J.S. Kim, and N.J. Kim, Effect of Boron on the Hot Ductility
of Nb-Containing Steel, Metall. Mater. Trans, 2002, 33A, p 701–704
22. S.C. Seo, H.J. Kim, B.H. Park, K.S. Son, S.K. Lee, S.B. Kang, and D.
Kim, Effect of Low-Cycle Fatigue on the Hot Ductility of Plain Carbon
Steel, Metal. Mater. Int., 2006, 12(3), p 273–277
23. N.A. Viktorov, Hot Ductility of Steel 08kh18n10t, Met. Sci. Heat
Treat., 2011, 53(5–6), p 263–264
24. C. Yin-li, W. Yan, and Z. Ai-min, Precipitation of AlN and MnS in
Low Carbon Aluminium-Killed Steel, J. Iron Steel Res. Int., 2012,
19(4), p 51–56
25. K.C. Cho, D.J. Munb, Y.M. Koo, and J.S. Lee, Effect of Niobium and
Titanium Addition on the Hot Ductility of Boron Containing Steel,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2011, 528, p 3556–3561
26. Y. Maehara, H. Tomono, and Y. Ohmori, Stress Relaxation and Hot
Ductility of Steels in Intermittent Tensile Deformation at Temperatures
from 700 to 1300 C, ISIJ Int., 1987, 73(9), p 1170–1177
27. R. Abushosha, S. Ayyad, and B. Mintz, Influence of Cooling Rate and
MnS Inclusions on Hot Ductility of Steels, Mater. Sci Technol., 1998,
14, p 227–235
28. B. Mintz, Influence of Nitrogen on Hot Ductility of Steels and Its
Relationship to Problem of Transverse Cracking, Ironmak. Steelmak.,
2000, 27(5), p 343–347
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance