Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computational Materials Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/commatsci

Simulation of the thermomechanical and metallurgical behavior of steels by using

ABAQUS software
Mahmoud Yaakoubi ⇑, Mounir Kchaou, Fakhreddine Dammak
Unit of Mechanics, Modeling and Production (U2MP), Department of Mechanics, ENIS, POB W. 3038 Sfax, Tunisia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Simulation is a very helpful and valuable work tool in the field of heat treatment of steels. It allows
Received 15 June 2012 behavior laws and algorithms to be learned and tested. Simulation provides a low cost, secure and fast
Received in revised form 17 September 2012 analysis tool. For a fine assimilation of the microstructure and distortion evolution concepts which char-
Accepted 1 October 2012
acterize the surface hardening process, a simulation of the thermo-metallurgical and mechanical cou-
Available online 7 December 2012
pling is elaborated by using ABAQUS software linked to phase transformation and elastic–plastic
modules which we developed taking into account of interactions between these fields. The application
Keywords:
of this method makes it possible to highlight the metallurgical and mechanical behavior laws and proce-
Surface quenching
Phase transformation
dures used to calculate phase fractions, austenite grain size, hardness, microstructure effect on physical
Hardness properties, transformation latent heat, deformation progress, and stress genesis during a surface harden-
Residual stress ing; which cannot be feasible by using standard software based simulation. Predicted thermo-metallur-
ABAQUS gical results and residual stress have been compared with measured ones; the coincidence between
simulated and experimental values confirms the validity of the chosen simulation tool.
Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction martensite. Chemical composition variation especially that of car-

Surface quenching is a commonly used heat treatment process
employed to optimize mechanical properties of low alloyed carbon
steel components [1–3]. Indeed, critical automotive and machine
applications such as propulsion shafts, crankshafts and steering
knuckles require high mechanical resistance and wear strength.
The superficial hardening process consists to make a quick heating
by induction, by laser beam or by electron beam to get an austenite
superficial layer, then follows this heating by a fast cooling, so that
a martensitic transformation occurs, which generate a distribution
of residual compressive stresses in this zone so a superficial hard-
ened layer is obtained [4–6].
During the heating, the initial structure (ferrite–pearlite) of
hypoeutectoid steel begins transforming to austenite above the
temperature Ac1. This transformation is achieved when tempera-
ture reaches the Ac3 value. These tow parameters Ac1 and Ac3 de-
pend strongly on heating rate [7]. Distribution of carbon content in
the obtained austenite depends also on heating rate and reached
maximum temperature. The degree of the heterogeneity of the
austenite is defined by its carbon content. So, when this later
reaches the carbon content of the base steel, austenite becomes
homogeneous [8,9]. According to the cooling rate, austenite is
decomposed in its turn to ferrite, pearlite, bainite and/or
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mahmoud_yaakoubi@yahoo.fr (M. Yaakoubi), mounir.kchaou
@issatgb.rnu.tn (M. Kchaou), fakhreddine.dammak@enis.rnu.tn (F. Dammak).
bon; affects phase transformations. Indeed, carbon proportion
increasing in the prior austenite leads to decrease in temperatures
of beginning of transformation and delays kinetics of phase change
during cooling; so, carbon is an agent that stabilizes the austenite
[10]. Especially, lower carbon content in the austenitic matrix leads
to an increase in the transformation temperature for martensite
formation during the subsequent quenching process. This has a
great impact on the final martensite morphology and the mechan-
ical properties of the hardened structure [9]. Temperature of mar-
tensite starting Ms increases with increasing of grain size of the
austenite that transforms to martensite. During short-time austen-
itization, austenite grain size (AGS) increases with both increasing
of austenitization temperature and the declining of heating rate
[8]. Hardness of multiphase material can be computed by accumu-
lating the contributions of the different constituents formed during
cooling and can be estimated using a simple mixture rule [11]. For
the diffusional components (ferrite, pearlite and bainite), hardness
increases with decreasing of temperature of their formation while
martensite hardness depends principally on carbon content in the
prior austenite. So, martensite is increasingly hard as carbon con-
tent augments in the prior austenite [9,12]. Contrary, AGS growth
makes produced martensite more and more soft [13].
Phenomenological aspects of quenching involve couplings be-
tween different physical processes. Basically, there are three prin-
cipal phenomena: thermal gradients, phase transformation and
stresses and strains genesis. These phenomena and couplings
which intervene between them are evoked in Fig. 1. Thermal

0927-0256/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.001
298 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306
gradients induce thermal dilatations, stresses and phase transfor-
mations into the workpiece. Phase transformations affect the tem-
perature field through latent heat of transformation and
microstructure dependent thermo-physical properties [12,14].
They are also at the origin of additional deformations: volume
changes (spherical deformations) due to the difference in compact-
ness between microstructures a and c and transformation induced
plasticity (TRIP) which is considered proportional to both produced
phase fractions during cooling and deviatoric stress tensor what-
ever the type of transformation is [15]. Furthermore, stresses and
strains affect phase transformations through modifying transfor-
mation temperatures. For example, temperature Ms decreases with
applying hydrostatic pressure on the workpiece during cooling but
it increases with applying uniaxial stress. Applied stresses lead also
to time temperature transformation curves (TTT) moving to small
times and an increasing of transformation rate [15,16].
Thermomechanical behavior of a material undergoing phase
transformation includes thermo-elastic and plastic behavior of
multiphase material and the effects of phase transformations
[15]. Material properties (Young modulus, Poisson ratio, yield
stress, plastic modulus, thermal conductivity, density, etc.) are to
be considered as temperature and microstructure dependent; mix-
ture rule is commonly used.
There are many codes which can be used to simulate concepts
characterizing surface hardening process. However, when utilizing
standard software such as SYSWELD, HEARTS, and DEFORM on a
one hand, user cannot assimilate precisely the implemented mod-
els and does not know exactly how is carrying out the processing.
On the other hand, user cannot change modeling or formulation
because he has not access to the code source. This article deals
with the extension of the ABAQUS software (which does not have
of standard phase transformation module) to simulate concepts
characterizing the quenching process of steels. Indeed, Thermo-
metallo-mechanical modeling and interactions between physical
phenomena is linked to ABAQUS standard through external rou-
tines so the processing covers the whole numerical problem.
Therefore post-processing enables the simulation of thermal, met-
allurgical and mechanical variables. The proposed general proce-
dure of simulation is applied to the steel sample. Numerical
results show that the proposed model and the suggested simula-
tion tool are able to capture the general behavior depicting the
quenching process of steels. Besides, numerical results present a
good agreement with those of experimental data.
2. Modeling
During thermal processing, parts are usually subjected to con-
tinuous heating and cooling cycles during which microstructural
and mechanical evolutions occur simultaneously at different
Fig. 1. Physical fields and interactions during quenching of steels.
length and time scales. Modeling of these processes necessitates
dealing with inherent complexities such as large material proper-
ties variations, complex couplings and complex boundary condi-
tions. In this study, a finite element method based mathematical
framework capable of predicting temperature evolution, solid
phase histories and internal stress genesis during the whole heat
treatment process of low alloy carbon steel is developed. In the fol-
lowing sections, mechanical modeling is especially treated explic-
itly. The overall modeling is integrated into the commercial FE
software ABAQUS via user subroutines.
2.1. Thermal modeling
The distribution of the temperature into the workpiece under-
going heat treatment process can be calculated by the resolution
of the heat transfer equation with Dirichlet boundary condition
by using ABAQUS software:
@T
qC p ¼ divðk gradðTÞÞ þ q_ ð1Þ
@t
T s ¼ f ðtÞ ð2Þ
with T is the temperature, t the time, k the thermal conductivity, q
the density, Cp the specific heat, and q_ is the thermal power released
or absorbed during phase transformation
The initial condition is the following one:
For t = 0 and for each material point:
T ¼ T0 ð3Þ
where T0 is the initial temperature of the workpiece. The boundary
condition is given by the Eq. (2) where Ts is the surface temperature
which evolves through time. Temperature Ts describing the thermal
cycle applied on the surface; is obtained by experimental measure.
Thermal properties of multiphase material depending on tempera-
ture and microstructure are evaluated by linear mixture law. They
are introduced into the ABAQUS Standard via user subroutine
USDFLD.
2.2. ABAQUS software extension for phase transformation modeling
and its effects on mechanical behavior
In order to increase the functionality of several ABAQUS capa-
bilities, many user subroutines which they furnish an extremely
powerful and flexible tool for analysis are provided. Numerical
modeling of heat treatment process must include laws and algo-
rithms describing thermal evolution, phase transformation, genesis
of internal stress and interactions between them. Indeed, user sub-
routines allow developing special constitutive behavior of a mate-
rial which is not predefined in ABAQUS Standard to be available.
Moreover, user subroutines permit especially to define solution-
dependent state variables (SDVs), user defined fields (FIELD(n); n
is the required number of defined fields) and heat flux (FLUX)
due to internal heat generation in a material; for example as might
be associated with phase changes occurring during the solution
[17]. User subroutines are typically written as FORTRAN code and
must be included in a model when executing the analysis. They
should be written with great care and must include the statement
‘‘include ‘aba_param.inc’’’ as the first statement after the argument
list in order to ensure the linkage with ABAQUS Standard analysis
case. The file ‘‘aba_param.inc’’ is installed on the system by the
ABAQUS installation procedure and contains important installation
parameters. This statement tells the ABAQUS execution procedure;
which compiles and links the user subroutine with the rest of ABA-
QUS, to include the aba_param.inc file automatically. It is not nec-
essary to find the file and copy it to any particular directory;
ABAQUS will know where to find it.
 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306
2.2.1. User subroutine ‘‘UMAT’’
The modeling of the heat treatment residual stresses, distor-
tions and phase transformation during the quenching process is
governed principally by time and temperature evolution. So, user
subroutine ‘‘UMAT’’ provides several variables ‘‘passed in for infor-
mation’’ such as time, time increment, temperature at the start of
increment, increment of temperature, step number, and increment
number which characterize a transient analysis. Therefore,
mechanical and metallurgical variables such as thermal strain,
elastic strain, plastic strain, phase fractions, transformation tem-
peratures, carbon proportion, and austenite grain size are defined
as solution dependent state variables ‘SDVs’. At each time incre-
ment, user subroutine UMAT is called at all material integration
points of elements then solution dependent state variables ‘SDVs’
will be updated by following the algorithm imposed by the user.
Therefore, this user subroutine is used to model most physical phe-
nomena which characterize quenching process and interactions
between them:
 The effect of field temperature on phase transformation (metal-
lurgical modeling).
 The effect of field temperature on the carbon distribution (car-
bon diffusion).
 The evaluation of the new hardness profile.
 The evolution of thermal strains and stresses (mechanical
modeling).
 The evaluation of deformations due to phase transformation
then introducing them to the mechanical modeling.
 The effect of carbon content and applied stresses on beginning
and ending of transformation temperatures and on kinetics of
phase transformation during quenching.
The summarization of metallurgical modeling is given briefly as
follow: austenitization and diffusive kinetics are determined
respectively by using the algorithm of Farias et al. [8] basing on
the extension of (JMAK) isotherm kinetic to anisotherm transfor-
mation law by applying the additive concept which consists in
making discretization of the continuous temperature time curve
to a succession of isothermal elementary transformations then cal-
culating new phase fraction during each one of them by introduc-
ing the fictitious time notion [18–20]. Except that for the diffusive
transformations, the growth of the phases is preceded by an incu-
bation stage which its duration is evaluated by the Scheil sum
[21,22]. The formulation usually used to model martensitic trans-
formation is the one of Koistinen and Marburguer [21–23]. Carbon
content in the austenite is modeled according to the variation in
temperature DT = Tmax  Ac1 where Tmax is the austenitization
temperature and Ac1 is heating rate dependent [8]. Carbon heter-
ogeneity and applied stresses effects on transformation tempera-
tures and on transformation kinetics are modeled by the formula
given by Aliaga and Denis [12,15]. Austenite grain size (AGS) af-
fects considerably martensitic start temperature (Ms) and mar-
tensite hardness; then the relation of Leblond and Devaux [24] is
chosen to evaluate the growth of AGS during heating. Temperature
(Ms) is estimated by a developed empirical formula which intro-
duces carbon proportion, austenite grain size and applied stress
as variables basing on approaches given by Denis et al. [15,25–
27]. We suppose that martensite hardness depends on the carbon
proportion when prior austenite is heterogeneous and on (AGS)
when prior austenite is homogeneous. The dependence of martens-
ite hardness on carbon content in the parent phase is estimated by
using the equation given by Aliaga [12]. While the reduction of
homogeneous martensite hardness regardless the growth of AGS
is modeled by using Hall–Petch relationship [13].
The mathematical model of the mechanical problem is based on
the dynamic equilibrium equation in the continuous mediums, the
299
equation of compressibility, the mechanical loading imposed on
surface (boundary conditions) and the constitutive equations
which provide relationship between stresses and strains. Some
assumptions are made in this study such that small strain incre-
ment theory is applicable, viscous effect during high temperature
is neglected, the yielding of the material is governed by Von Mises
yield criterion with the associated hardening rules, the material is
hardened isotropically and kinematically (Chaboche hypothesis),
all material parameters (yield stress, Young modulus, hardening
parameters, etc.) are to be considered as temperature and micro-
structure dependent (mixture rule is generally assumed). The
integration of the behavior law on each time increment during
mechanical computing will be done at unvarying temperature;
the temperature being able to evolve in each point from a time
increment to another. Strain increment composition is given by
Prandtl–Reuss rule. During the heat treatment process, phase
transformation is a source of deformation so the phase transforma-
tion–stress interaction leads to an additional deformation which it
can be decomposed in two parts: spherical part and deviatoric part.
The first is called phase transformation strain; it is one of main
factors causing local deformation of the steel part while the
microstructural plastic strain (second part) is called transformation
induced plasticity (TRIP). TRIP is a plastic deformation which
appears during quenching under external applied stresses even
they are lower than the yield stress of the weak phase. It has been
well investigated experimentally and theoretically so it has
been observed that this transformation induced plasticity incre-
ment is proportional to the generation rate of each obtained phase
during cooling and deviatoric stress tensor [15,28,29]. The total
strain rate increment generated during thermal processing can
be decomposed into various individual strain increments as
follows:
e_ ij ¼ e_ th _ e _ p _ tr _ pt
ij þ eij þ eij þ eij þ eij ð4Þ
Eq. (4) defines the increment of total strain (left hand side). In the
right hand side, the first term is the thermal expansion rate:
e_ th _
ij ¼ aðTÞTdij ð5Þ
The parameter a(T) is the linear thermal expansion coefficient
related to the multiphase material, dij is the Kronecker delta. The
second term is the elastic strain rate which is related to the stress
rate by Hooke’s law:
1þm m
e_ eij ¼ r_  Trðr_ Þdij ð6Þ
E E
The third term is related to the plastic strain rate. It is calculated
by using the classical theory of plasticity with the associated hard-
ening rules. A superposition of isotropic and kinematic hardening
is supposed in this modeling since non monotonous loads are im-
posed on the workpiece during the heat treatment because of the
transition traction–compression. Furthermore, Chaboche proved
that in the field of small deformations, hardening is rather of kine-
matic type with a weak isotropic expansion [30]. According to that
preceded, the Von Mises yield function and the plastic strain rate
tensor are defined respectively as follows:
 1=2
3
f ¼ req  rp ¼ n:n  ry ðTÞ  Rðp; TÞ ð7Þ
2
@f
e_ p ¼ k_ ð8Þ
@r
where n = s  x, T is the temperature, req is the equivalent stress, s
is the deviatoric stress tensor, and x is the linear kinematic harden-
ing tensor (back-stress); it is defined versus plastic strain tensor:
300 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306

x_ ¼ ð2=3ÞC e_ p ð9Þ classical elastoplastic scheme because in this modeling we take

into account of the transformation induced plasticity increment
With C is a material parameter. ry (T) is the yield stress, R is the
which is proportional to deviatoric stress tensor. Finally, once Dp
hardening function and k_ is the plastic multiplier. Applying the nor-
is obtained, strains and stresses must be updated and stored as
mality rule which affirms that the direction of plastic flow is normal
SDVs. Others variables should be defined such as global Jacobian
to the tangent to the yield surface at the yielding point, we can
matrix of the elastic–plastic-transformation plasticity constitutive
determine the plastic strain rate tensor:
model (DDSDDE) and volumetric heat generation caused by
@f 3 k_ mechanical working (RPL).
e_ p ¼ k_ ¼ n ð10Þ
@ r 2 req
2.2.2. User subroutine ‘‘HETVAL’’
The equivalent plastic strain rate is defined by: This user subroutine is used to define internal heat generation
p_ ¼ ðð2=3Þe_ p : e_ p Þ1=2 ð11Þ (FLUX) which is associated with phase transformation and intro-
P
duce this amount of heat power q_ ¼ k DHk DDztkj in the heat transfer
If we substitute Eq. (10) into (11) we obtain: equation which is resolved by ABAQUS Standard at each time
!1=2  1=2 increment for all material points of elements in order to determine
2 3 k_ 3 k_ k_ 3 the instantaneous temperature repartition. Indeed, the austenitic
p_ ¼ n: n ¼ n:n ¼ k_ ð12Þ
3 2 req 2 req req 2 transformation is endothermic, whereas the diffusive and martens-
itic transformations are exothermic. In presented model, DHk (J/
So, for a Von Mises material, the plastic multiplier k_ turns out
m3) is the enthalpy of phase transformation ‘k’ and Dzk is the vol-
simply to be the equivalent plastic strain rate. We can then rewrite
umetric increment of the phase ‘k’ formed during the time incre-
the flow rule in Eq. (10) as:
ment Dtj. Phase volumetric increment Dzk is passed in this user
3 p_ subroutine for information at each time increment by using solu-
e_ p ¼ n ð13Þ
tion dependent state variables. This user subroutine provides also
2 req
time, time increment, temperature, etc. as variables passed in for
The unit vector defining the flow direction is given by: information.
n n
ne ¼ ¼ ð14Þ 2.2.3. User subroutine ‘‘USDFLD’’
knk ðn : nÞ1=2
This user subroutine allows to define field variables FIELD(n) in
So, Eqs. (9) and (13) can be written as the following manner: a material point as functions of time and of any of the available
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi material point quantities or state variables defined by other sub-
x_ ¼ 2=3C p_ ne ð15Þ
routines such as ‘UMAT’. Consequently, solution-dependent mate-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rial properties can be introduced in the modeling since these
e_ p ¼ 3=2 p_ ne ð16Þ properties can be easily defined as functions of temperature and
The fourth term is related to volumetric expansion associated field variables. For our case, thermal properties such as thermal
with phase transformation from a parent phase, it can be defined conductivity, specific heat and density are calculated according
as: to the temperature and to the microstructure by a mixture rule
X at every time increment. So, the evaluation of a material property
e_ trij ¼ T
z_ k fk ref dij ð17Þ P
P for the material point i at the moment j is given by Pi,j = k zi,j,k
k
Pi,j,k(T) with zi,j,k and Pi,j,k(T) are respectively the fraction and ther-
T
where z_ k is the transformation rate of the phase k and fk ref is a mate- mal property of phase k for the material point i at moment j. Thus,
rial property related to volume change of the phase k given at ref- fields in user subroutine ‘USDFLD’ can be defined as follow:
erence temperature Tref. Finally, the last term is denoted as field(k) = zk, with k = 1, 2, 3, 4.
transformation induced plasticity strain rate (TRIP) being the result
of several physical mechanisms related to local plastic strain pro- 2.2.4. Thermo-metallurgical and mechanical coupling diagram
moted by the phase transformation [19]: The diagram in Fig. 3 recapitulates thermo-metallurgical and
mechanical simulation procedure by using ABAQUS software
3 X
4
e_ pt _
CðTÞ jk u0k ðzk Þz_ k sij ; k ¼ 1 : ferrite; 2 : perlite; 3 linked to external routines. Indeed, three user subroutines (UMAT,
ij ¼
2 k¼1 USDFLD, and HETVAL) are mainly needed. The first is used to elab-
orate three modules. The first is the data acquisition module
: bainite; 4 : martensite
needed to acquire metallurgical and mechanical variables which
where C is the Heaviside function, jk is a material parameter re- some of them should be introduced as tables to take into account
lated to phase k; it is homogenous with stress inverse, u0k ðzk Þ ex- their dependence on time, temperature and microstructure. The
presses the transformation process dependence and sij is the second is the metallurgical module allowing the prediction of crit-
deviatoric stress. It should be emphasized that this plastic strain ical temperatures, microstructure kinetics, carbon content in the
may be related to stress states that are inside the yield surface [19]. austenite, AGS and hardness profile. The third is the mechanical
A flowchart showing the various steps in the computational module authorizing the forecast of strains fields and heat treat-
scheme employed to determine residual stresses and strains is gi- ment residual stresses. Interactions between metallurgical and
ven in Fig. 2. Initially, the increment of hydrostatic deformation is mechanical phenomena characterizing reciprocal effects are mod-
subtracted from the whole increment deformation DSTRAN pro- eled through state dependent variables and variables passed in for
vided by ABAQUS since the Von Mises yield function is indepen- information. The evolution of fields which thermal properties de-
dent of the hydrostatic stress. Secondly, the elastic predictor is pend on is determined by user subroutine USDFLD. These fields de-
carried out through the elastic stiffness matrix Ce. Thirdly, in case pend on microstructure progress. User subroutine HETVAL is used
of plastic yielding, the equivalent plastic strain increment is to evaluate the latent heat which is absorbed or released during
computed basing on consistency condition by using an iterative phase transformation. The heat transfer problem is resolved by
Newton Raphson procedure. We note here that the yield criterion taking into account of this latent heat amount. Of course, we must
function at consistency condition differs from one found in introduce geometry, mesh, material characteristics, loads, initial
 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306 301

Fig. 2. Overall procedure for obtaining the solution for mechanical problem.

conditions, boundary conditions, etc. to ABAQUS by using an input
file. Then, the analysis results such as temperature field, micro-
structure repartition, carbon proportion, hardness profile, stresses,
and distortion fields are stored in the output database (o.d.b.) file.
3. Simulations and discussions
In order to validate the numerical modeling procedure pro-
posed in this study to simulate the heat treatment phase transfor-
mations and internal stresses during the quenching process, the
predicted temperature history, the solid phase history and stress
distribution were compared to the experimental data available in
the literature for a parallelepiped massive solid of AISI 4140 steel
which was laser surface hardened [2]. Thermal and mechanical
properties such as thermal conductivity, density, specific heat, la-
tent heat of transformation, thermal expansion coefficient, Young’s
modulus, hardening modulus, and yield stress of the material were
dependent on the temperature and microstructure. In this analysis,
material parameters given by Bailey and de Oleivera [2,19] for the
AISI 4140 steel were used. Tables 1–8 summarize these parameters
which were interpolated from experimental data and described by
polynomial expressions. Simulations consider initial conditions of
volume fraction distributions as 45% of pearlite and 55% of ferrite
and initial bulk material hardness as 240 Vickers.
The workpiece which is a rectangular block measuring
50  50  18 mm using a Nuvonyx 4 kW high power direct diode
laser. The laser has a rectangular beam profile with a size of
12  8 mm. The laser track coincides with the center of the work-
piece as shown in Fig. 4. So maximum temperature reached in the
center of the top surface (point a) is about 1215 °C. Thermal cycles
recorded on points ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, ‘d’, ‘e’, ‘f’, and ‘g’ which were given by
Bailey [2] and shown in Fig. 5, were used as boundary conditions to
carry out the simulation. Indeed, thermal evolutions in these
302 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306

Fig. 3. Thermo-metallurgical and mechanical coupling diagram using ABAQUS software.

Table 1
Specific heat.

Phase qc (J/m3 °C) Temperature range

6
Austenite 4.29  10 T < 200 °C
4.019  106 + 4.034  101 200 °C 6 T 6 900 °C
T2 + 2.015  104 T0.5
Ferrite, 3.42  106 + 1.347  101 19 °C 6 T 6 900 °C
pearlite T2.5  3.745  103
T3 + 2.698  102 T0.5
Bainite 3.487  106 + 1.404  103 19 °C 6 T 6 600 °C
T + 5.715  103 T0.5
Martensite 3.41  106 + 3.215  103 19 °C 6 T 6 400 °C
T3 + 2.919  104 T0.5

Table 2
Thermal conductivity.

Phase k (W/m °C) Temperature range

Austenite 18 T < 200 °C
10.41 + 2.51  10–8 T2.5 + 4.653  10–1 T0.5 200 °C 6 T 6 900 °C
Ferrite, pearlite 44.01  3.863  10–5 T2  3.001  10–7 T2.5 19 °C 6 T 6 900 °C
Bainite 44.04  4.871  10–4 T1.5  1.794  10–8 T3 19 °C 6 T 6 600 °C
Martensite 44.05  5.019  10–4 T1.5  1.611  10–8 T3 19 °C 6 T 6 400 °C

Table 5
Yield stress.
Table 3
Latent heat. ry (Pa) Temperature range

Phase transformation DH (J/m )3

7.52  108 + 2.37  105 (T + 273)  5.995  102(T + 273)2 20 °C < T < 450 °C
2 – 1.598  1010  2.126  107 (T + 273) 450 °C 6 T 6 475 °C
Austenite to ferrite 1.082  10  0.162(T + 273) + 1.118  10
4 1.595  108  1.094  105 (T + 273) T > 475 °C
(T + 273)2 – 3.0  10–8
(T + 273)3  3.501  104 (T + 273)–1
Austenite to pearlite or 1.56  109  1.50  106 T points were estimated versus time by polynomial functions of or-
bainite der four. Afterward, temperature of a given material point was
8
Austenite to martensite 6.40  10
evaluated through linear interpolation between last points of such

Table 4
Young modulus.

Phase E (Pa) Temperature range

Austenite 1.985  1011  4.462  107 T  9.09  104 T2  2.059 T3 19 °C 6 T 6 900 °C
Ferrite, pearlite, bainite and martensite 2.145  1011  3.097  107 T  9.208  10–4 T2  2.797 T3 19 °C 6 T 6 700 °C
 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306 303

Table 6
Hardening modulus.

R (Pa) Temperature range

8 7 4 2
2.092  10 + 3.833  10 (T + 273)  3.459  10 (T + 273) 20 °C < T < 450 °C
2.259  1011  2.988  108 (T + 273) 450 °C 6 T 6 475 °C
5.064  109  3.492  106 (T + 273) T > 475 °C

Table 7 registered in the point ‘a’ then it decreases progressively with mov-
Coefficient of thermal expansion. ing away from the center of the top surface. Simulation shows also
Phase a (1/°C) that the temperatures of beginning and ending of austenitization
Ferrite 1.61  10–5
increase with increasing heating rate; a fact which characterize
Pearlite 1.53  10–5 short time austenitization [8]. Central zone limited by the ellipse
Austenite 2.20  10–5 that going by point ‘f’ was totally austenitized as shown in Fig. 8.
Martensite 1.15  10–5 Point ‘g’ with distance of 4 mm from the center underwent partial
austenitization since maximum temperature here (765 °C) did
not reach Ac3. The quenching was applied to the specimen using
Table 8 fast cooling rate. Consequently, austenite in heat affected zone
Volume change. (HAZ) was transformed mainly to martensite which makes this
Phase transformation f = DV/3V (%) zone harder than unaffected base material. Elliptical shape of iso-
thermal contours on top surface of the workpiece were inherited
Pearlite to austenite 0.110
Ferrite to austenite 0.126 for the distribution of both austenite and martensite during heat-
Austenite to martensite 0.342 ing and cooling respectively what led subsequently to obtain an
elliptical hardened region as shown in Fig. 9. Maximum hardness
value (720 Hv) was obtained in zone characterized by austenitiza-
tion temperature slightly greater than temperature Ac3; so the
kind material points located on the same elliptical line would have homogeneous austenite grain was still small (about 6 lm). The
the same temperature. In order to satisfy to the condition that the increasing of the AGS during heating and the subsequent decreas-
size of the rectangular beam profile was of 12  8 mm, ellipses ing of martensite hardness obtained after quenching was illus-
with large-axis equal to three half of small-axis were chosen to trated in central region corresponding to austenitization
be coaxial with the laser beam profile as shown in Fig. 6. This algo- temperature between 950 and 1215 °C; region where AGS grows
rithm is accessed into ABAQUS code through user subroutine DISP. from 8 to 22 lm while hardness declines from 700 to 650 Hv.
Thermal cycles recorded on deeper points ‘h’ and ‘j’ were utilized to Vickers microhardness tester is used to measure the microhard-
validate the numerical curves. So, Fig. 7 gives the temperature dis- ness in the HAZ. Fig. 10 illustrates the comparison of predicted
tribution in two different positions beneath the top surface: point hardness with measured one through the depth at the center of
‘h’ 0.5 mm and point ‘j’ 1.25 mm under higher surface of the block the specimen; the hardened depth is about 1.2 mm. The predicted
solid. The close conformity between the numerical results and results are in excellent agreement with the microhardness mea-
experimental measurements should be noted. Table 9 shows pre- surements. Great laser thermal power applied on top surface of
dicted transformation temperatures Ac1 and Ac3 and heating rates specimen during heating makes temperature in the middle of the
for points a, b, c, d, e, f, and g. The highest heating rate (405 °C/s) is top surface largely overshooting the temperature Ac3 that leads

Fig. 4. Schematic of laser hardening process showing the location of points for temperature survey.
304 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306

1200 Table 9
point a Predicted heating rate and austenitic transformation temperatures for points a, b, c, d,
point b e, f, and g.
point c
1000 Points Distance from the center Heating rate (°C/ Ac1 Ac3
Temperature (°C)

point d
(mm) s) (°C) (°C)
point e
point f a 0 405 758.5 860.5
point g b 1 400 758 860
800
c 2 390 757.5 859
d 2.5 367 756.5 855
e 3 330 755 850
600 f 3.5 235 753 846
g 4 170 751 –

400
10 12 14 16
Time (s)
100
Fig. 5. Recorded temperature history of superficial points shown in Fig. 4 given by
Bailey that used as boundary conditions for this study.

Austenite content (vol-%)

80

60
Top surface of
the block solid
40

20

0
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5
Time (s)

Fig. 8. Austenitization kinetics for points a, b. . . f and g.

near the surface regardless martensite hardness obtained in deeper

zone slightly heated above the temperature Ac3 where AGS re-
mains finer. Hardness in the transition zone decreases gradually
with declining of martensite content; residual ferrite that did not
Fig. 6. Interpolation scheme of the temperature imposed on the top surface from
the experimental thermal cycles of points a, b. . . f and g provided by Bailey:
transform into austenite makes softer this zone. Hardness of the
isothermal contours should have elliptic shapes coaxial to the laser beam profile. base material outside of the HAZ stays unchangeable.
Using a Siemens D500 X-ray Diffractometer, residual stresses
were measured by Bailey on two points on the surface of the spec-
1200 imen: one measurement at the center of the laser track and one
Experience: pt. h
measurement 2.5 mm away from the center of the laser track. Dur-
Experience: pt. j
Simulation ing the simulation of laser superficial hardening heat treatment
1000
process, numerical modeling allows the follow-up of deformations
Temperature (°C)

progress and stresses genesis. Residual stress values were pre-

dicted within the top surface of the workpiece and into the depth
of the workpiece as shown in Fig. 11. The comparison between the
800 calculated and measured residual stress distribution within the
surface and through the depth of the workpiece after quenching
appears in Fig. 12a and b respectively. It was found out that numer-
600 ically obtained values of residual stresses were in good agreement
with the data available by Bailey [2]. As can be seen in Fig. 12a and
b, martensite transformation during quenching; leads to a high
compressive stress region of about 215 Mpa on the top surface of
400
10 12 14 16 the workpiece and close to the laser track center. This fact is ex-
plained by that the martensite transformation is accompanied by
Time (s)
large and local volumetric expansion which is the main contributor
Fig. 7. Comparison between simulated and experimental temperature histories for in phase transformation stresses. Indeed, volume change during
points h and j shown in Fig. 4. austenite to martensite transformation (10.26  103) is about
three times volume change during austenite to ferrite/pearlite
to get homogeneous austenite surface layer with coarse grain size transformation (3.4  103). Residual stresses within the surface,
therefore hardness of subsequent martensite decreases somewhat as well as residual stresses into the workpiece depth, show an
 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306 305

Fig. 9. Distribution of the hardness on the top surface of the workpiece after surface laser quenching: (a) full model and (b) zoom.

800
measure

700 Simulation

600
Hardness (Hv)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
Depth from surface (mm)

Fig. 10. Comparison between predicted and measured hardness into the depth
beneath the center of the top surface of the workpiece. Fig. 11. Residual stress value reporting scheme in the finite element model.
306 M. Yaakoubi et al. / Computational Materials Science 68 (2013) 297–306

during phase transformation and introducing this amount of

(a) 200
Measure power in thermal field calculation in order to find out precisely
Bailey temperature history during thermal process. Temperature and
100 Simulation
microstructure dependent physical properties of multiphase mate-
Residual stress (MPa)

rial are modeled through user subroutine USDFLD. The accuracy of

0 the simulation procedure was verified by simulating the laser sur-
face quenching of the parallelepiped block of AISI 4140 steel mea-
suring 50  50  18 mm. Simulation results were compared with
-100
experimental and numerical ones available in the literature.
According to the best coincidence between them, we can conclude
-200 that the model can effectively predict the trends in the distribution
of temperature, microstructure, hardness and residual stresses
with significant accuracy. Moreover, the assumption related to
-300
thermal boundary conditions assuming that temperature contours
0 5 10 15 20 25
on the top surface of the workpiece should have elliptical shapes
Distance from center of laser track (mm) seems awfully sufficient. The advantage of utilizing this simulation
tool resides firstly in the best assimilation of the concepts charac-
(b) 300 terizing quenching process, secondly in the possibility of the inves-
Measure tigation of the sensibility of the results to theoretical approach and
Bailey
200 introduced variables values.
Residual stress (MPa)

Simulation

100
References

[1] S.A.J. Jahromi, A. Khajeh, B. Mahmoudi, Mater. Des. 34 (2012) 857–862.

0 [2] Neil.S. Bailey, Wenda. Tan, Yung.C. Shin, Surf. Coat. Technol. 203 (2009) 2003–
-100
-200
-300
0 5 10 15
Distance from surface (mm)
Fig. 12. Residual stresses perpendicular to the laser travel: (a) along the surface of
the workpiece and (b) into the depth of the workpiece.
important compressive stress zone, then a small tensile stress re-
gion, followed by a feeble stressed region. This distribution of
residual stresses depends on whether phase transformation strains
or thermal strains are dominant. Surface compressive stressed
workpiece which is produced after laser surface hardening resists
better to fatigue, wear and corrosion.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, a method to extend the finite element code
ABAQUS capabilities to simulate heat treatment phase transforma-
tions histories and residual stress distribution is proposed. Essen-
tially, three user subroutines are needed to be linked to ABAQUS
standard in order to make available the modeling of phase trans-
formation, its effects on temperature field and mechanical behav-
ior, the modeling of reverse effects and carbon concentration
effects. Most parts of this modeling were developed in user subrou-
tine UMAT since it provides time, temperature and their incre-
ments as variables passed in for information. User subroutine
HETVAL permits the computation of heat generation produced
2012.
[3] S.H. Kang, Y.T. Im, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 49 (2007) 423–439.
[4] M. Kchaou, D. Durand, F. Dammak, Metal Sci. Heat Treat. 52 (2010) 157–162.
[5] M. Kchaou, M. Yaakoubi, F. Dammak, Effect of the superficial hardening on
distortion and stress state: application on bearing race, I.RE.M.E. 3 (2009) 451–
455.
[6] Y.S. Yang, S.J. Na, Surf. Coat. Technol. 38 (1989) 311–324.
[7] F.L.G. Oliveira, M.S. Andrade, A.B. Cota, Mater. Charact. 58 (2007) 256–261.
[8] D. Farias, S. Denis, A. Simon, Trait. Ther. 237 (1990) 63–70.
[9] T. Mioković, V. Schulze, O. Vo } hringer, D. Lo
} he, Mater. Sci. Eng. 435 (2006) 547–
555.
[10] S. Denis, P. Archambault, C. Aubry, A. Mey, J.C. Louin, A. Simon, J. Phys. IV Fr. 9
(1999) 323–332.
[11] B. Smoljan, S. Smokvina Hanza, N. Tomašić, D. Iljkić, J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf.
Eng. 24 (2007) 275–282.
[12] C. Aliaga, Simulation numérique par éléments finis 3D du comportement
thermomécanique au cours du traitement thermique d’aciers: application à la
trempe de pièces forgées ou coulées, Thesis, ENSMP, 2000.
[13] J. Huang, X. Ye, J. Gu, X. Chen, Z. Xu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 532 (2012) 190–195.
[14] E. Feulvarch, J.M. Bergheau, Numer. Heat Transfer, Part B 51 (2007) 585–610.
[15] S. Denis, J. Phy. 6 (1996) 159–174.
[16] H. Li, G. Zhao, S. Niu, C. Huang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 452 (2007) 705–714.
[17] ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual for Version 6.5.1, Hibbitt, Karlsson and
Sorensen Inc., 2004.
[18] S. Phadke, P. Pauskar, R. Shivpuri, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 150 (2004) 107–
115.
[19] W.P. de Oleivera, M.A. Savi, P.M.C.L. Pacheco, L.F.G. de Souza, Mech. Mater. 42
(2010) 31–43.
[20] C. Li, Y. Wang, B. Han, Opt. Las. Eng. 49 (2011) 530–535.
[21] Caner SIMSIR, Cemil Hakan GUR, Comput. Mater. Sci. 44 (2008) 588–600.
[22] Caner Simsir, C. Hakan Gur, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 207 (2008) 211–221.
[23] S.M.C. van Bohemena, J. Sietsma, Mate. Sci. Eng. A 527 (2010) 6672–6676.
[24] J.B. Leblond, J. Devaux, Acta Metall. 32 (1984) 137–146.
[25] A.G. Junceda, C. Capdevila, F.G. Caballero, C.G. Andre, Scr. Mater. 58 (2008)
134–137.
[26] J. Yue, Y. Zhong-da, K.P. Chao, L. Yong, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. – Mater. Sci. Ed.
19 (2004) 106–109.
[27] J. Wang, P.J. van der wolk, S. van der Zwaag, Mater. Trans., JIM 41 (2000) 761–
768.
[28] L. Taleb, S. Petit-Grostabussiat, Int. J. Plast. 22 (2006) 110–130.
[29] J.B. Leblond, Int. J. Plast. 5 (1989) 573–591.
[30] J.L. Chaboche, Int. J. Plast. 5 (1989) 247–302.