Australian Journal of Mechanical Engineering

ISSN: 1448-4846 (Print) 2204-2253 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmec20

Performance analysis of heat treated AISI 1020

steel samples on the basis of various destructive
mechanical testing and microstructural behaviour

Saurabh Dewangan, Neha Mainwal, Manwi Khandelwal & Prateek Sunil

Jadhav

To cite this article: Saurabh Dewangan, Neha Mainwal, Manwi Khandelwal & Prateek Sunil
Jadhav (2019): Performance analysis of heat treated AISI 1020 steel samples on the basis of
various destructive mechanical testing and microstructural behaviour, Australian Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/14484846.2019.1664212

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14484846.2019.1664212

Published online: 11 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmec20
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/14484846.2019.1664212

ARTICLE

Performance analysis of heat treated AISI 1020 steel samples on the basis of
various destructive mechanical testing and microstructural behaviour
Saurabh Dewangan , Neha Mainwal, Manwi Khandelwal and Prateek Sunil Jadhav
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Automobile, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present work deals with assessment of heat treated AISI 1020, a low carbon steel (0.2%- Received 11 July 2019
C), on the basis of various destructive testing and microstructural behaviour. The steels Accepted 30 August 2019
samples were heated above the lower critical temperature range, i.e. up to 750°C. The cooling KEYWORDS
rate of all the samples was different. Mainly, three different cooling medium were taken. They AISI 1020; heat treatment;
are: water, air and sand. These three heat treated samples were compared with as received mechanical tests;
sample. Hence the final condition of all the four samples is: as received; normalised; sand microstructural study
cooled; water quenched. After a proper preparation, samples were undergone through
various mechanical tests, such as, tension test, shear test, hardness test, and impact test. In
addition, the microstructural images, captured by an optical microscope, of all the samples
were observed and analysed. The mechanical properties and microstructural attributes
obtained in ‘heat treated’ samples were compared with those results of ‘as received’ samples.
From the present experimental analysis, it was found that heat treatment processes signifi-
cantly changed/improved the desired properties of the AISI 1020 steel samples.

1. Introduction properties by using heat treatment processes.

Properties like tensile strength, toughness, Young’s
AISI 1020 is known to possess a good combination of
modulus, hardness, machinability, percentage elonga-
strength and ductility. Therefore, it is widely used in
tion, ductility, wear resistance, etc. can be altered by
piping, construction and sheet steel industries. Since
heat treatment process with no simultaneous change
1020 grade imparts a good combination of machin-
in product shape. It happens because heat treatment
ability, weldability, formability and hardness, this
alters the types of phases present, percentage weight
grade is called general purpose low carbon steel and
of phases and average size of grains of the material.
it is extensively manufactured all over the world. The
Heat treatment processes can be classified as: proces-
tensile strength of AISI 1020 varies between 410 and
sing heat treatment of steel; heat treatment to
790 MPa. As steels are extensively used in construc-
improve strength; heat treatment to improve surface
tion purposes all over the world, most of the research
hardness; tempering of martensite.
works are mainly focused on different kinds of steels
and their alloys. Conventional heat treatment pro-
cesses are old but still widely used methods to 1.1. Processing heat treatment of steel
improve the properties of structural steel. In heat
In general, processing heat treatment can be termed
treatment of steel, critical temperature range is very
as annealing which is employed to improve tough-
important. The lower critical temperature, i.e. 727°C
ness, restore ductility, and remove residual stresses.
is fixed for each type of steels but the upper critical
Annealing process can be further divided into five
temperature zone of hypo-eutectoid and hyper-
different methods: full annealing, normalising, pro-
eutectoid steels vary with carbon concentration.
cess anneal, stress relief anneal, and spheroidization.
Upper critical and lower critical temperature lines
A brief explanation of above five annealing methods
are shown in Figure 1.
is given below:
To enhance the properties of steel, various heat
treatment methods have always been important
● The temperature range of full annealing process
approach. To change the properties of steel according
is different for hypo-eutectoid and hyper-
to application is the beauty of heat treatment meth-
eutectoid steels. The hypoeutectoid steel, con-
ods. Although heat treatment of steels is being fol-
taining less than 0.8% C, is heated to 30–50°C
lowed for many decades, still research is continuously
above the A3 temperature for some hours of
going on towards the improvement of material’s
time to allow conversion of original structure

CONTACT Saurabh Dewangan saurabh22490@gmail.com

© 2019 Engineers Australia
2 S. DEWANGAN ET AL.
Figure 1. Indication of upper and lower critical temperature
range in iron-carbon binary system (Callister 2007).
to homogeneous austenite phase. After some
time, this single phase structure is allowed to
cool slowly, usually in furnace, through the
lower critical temperature line A1. In this way,
the resulting structure possesses coarse pearlite.
This process makes the steel soft and malleable.
All the above processes for hyper-eutectoid steel
are similar except heating temperature range. In
this case, heating is done above A1 but within
austenite + cementite zone.
● Normalising process imparts heating the steel
samples above upper critical temperature (A3
and Acm) and cooling them in atmospheric tem-
perature. The microstructural size will be smaller
than that of produced by full annealing process.
● Process anneal is mainly applied for low carbon
steel to improve its ductility and toughness to
a good extent. Steel is heated in a temperature
range between lower critical temperature and
upper critical temperature and then it is allowed
to cool at a given rate of cooling. This process
completely changes the size and shape of origi-
nal microstructures.
● Stress relief anneal is adopted for welded, formed,
and cast products to reduce their residual stresses
during assembly and processing operations. In this
process, the steel samples are heated below A1
temperature line for a specified period of time so
as to remove all the residual stresses induced in the
steel product.
● Spheroidization process is accomplished below
lower critical temperature line (A1). In this,
cementite part is dispersed as spheres or glo-
bules in ferrite region after a prolonged heating
of steel samples.
1.2. Heat treatment to improve strength
There are mainly six methods of strengthening heat
treatment: solid solution strengthening; strain hardening;
grain size refinement; precipitation hardening; dispersion
hardening; phase transformations. All these methods are
done to arrest the slip along slip plane to avoid plastic
deformation. Generally, fine microstructure makes the
material strong.
1.3. Heat treatment to improve surface hardness
A special technique, named, surface hardening is
employed to make the surface hard, stiff and wear
resistant. These are done by three methods: (1) selec-
tive hardening of the surface; (2) by changing the
surface chemistry; (3) addition of extra layer of sur-
face to parent material. In all these processes, the
surface becomes hard but properties of the core part
are unchanged.
1.4. Tempering of martensite
It is usually performed in industries to get the desired
properties in structural steels. As the hot rolled or
cast steel products are quenched in water, martensite
is formed in overall product. It makes material very
hard and relatively brittle. Therefore, its engineering
applications become very limited. To make the mate-
rial strong and tough, tempering is done in marten-
sitic structure. The tempered product has bainite as
final microstructure (Callister 2007).
A number of research work was already done by
using above heat treatment processes to improve the
properties of different kinds of steel. In many of the
research works, the heat soaking time and soaking
temperature were selected as main experimental cri-
teria (Olabi and Hashmi 1996; Min-xian et al. 2012;
Hossain, Islam, and Bhuyan 2014; George et al. 2018;
Guo et al. 2016). Steel samples, heated at different
soaking temperatures and subsequently cooled at dif-
ferent rates, were analysed for mechanical property
variation and microstructural changes. Hence, on this
basis, the optimum heat treatment method was sug-
gested as the suitable one for given steel samples. In
contrary, the present work made an attempt to alter
the properties of AISI 1020 steel samples by applying
various heat treatment processes. Different cooling
rates for various samples were the main experimental
criteria behind this work. All the steel samples were
heated up to a common temperature range, i.e. above
lower critical temperature, but the cooling rates were
different for all of them. Mainly, varying mechanical
properties were obtained after choosing different
cooling rates for equally heated steel samples at
a common temperature.
2. Recent research on heat treatment
From past two decades, AISI 1020 and various other
grades of steels were considered for heat treatment

analysis. Some of them are summarised here. To
reduce the effects of residual stress in welded samples
of AISI 1020 steel, Olabi and Hashmi (1996) did post
weld heat treatment process on the welded samples.
In the study, different soaking temperatures and var-
ious cooling rates were adopted to carry out the heat
treatment processes. It was noticed that the tempera-
ture of 650°C was most effective in diminishing resi-
dual stresses. In addition, the longer heating time and
slower cooling rates were found suitable for good
results (Olabi and Hashmi 1996). Machado (2006)
investigated the effect of voltage on heat treatment
of carbon steels like AISI 1020 and AISI 52,100. The
samples applied with voltage, through a power
source, showed different mechanical and microstruc-
tural characteristics. The Vickers hardness values
were found three times higher in the steel samples
when voltage was applied during heat treatment.
Also, as per the prediction, the iron–carbon equili-
brium diagram was affected by the voltage application
(Machado 2006). Calik (2009) investigated the effects
of different cooling rates on hardness and microstruc-
tural behaviour of three different types of steels, such
as, AISI 1020, AISI 1040, and AISI 1060. He found
a dramatic change in microstructures of the specimen
as the cooling rate varies. Also, the hardness was
found to increase as the cooling rate increases
(Çalik 2009). The tool steels like AISI D2 was also
considered for heat treatment processes to provide
the dimensional stability. For the purpose, the speci-
men was undergone through deep cold treatment in
a temperature range of −120°C to −150°C. It was
observed that the greatest dimensional stability was
achieved at −150°C (Surberg, Stratton, and
Lingenhole 2008). Htun et al. (2008) used oil quench-
ing and tempering processes as major heat treating
methods for property improvement of heavy duty
spring steels. For hardening, steel samples were
heated at austenitic temperature of 870°C and then
quenched in oil. After getting cooled, the samples
were tempered at a temperature range of 450–550°C
for a few hours. It was noticed that martensite with
unstable retained austenite were mainly formed after
quenching. As soon as tempering was done, all the
structure converted into bainite. In this test, various
mechanical properties were analysed before and after
heat treatment. It was concluded that hardness and
ultimate tensile strength decreased with an increment
in tempering time and temperature. In addition, duc-
tility gets increased (Htun, Kyaw, and Lwin 2008).
Xian et al. (2012) studied about selection of heat
treatment process for die steel so as to provide high
wear resistance to it. Wear resistance of steel
increased with increasing austenitising temperature
from 920°C to 1120°C. After this range of tempera-
ture, a decrease in wear resistance was observed up to
1220°C. According to microstructural point of view,
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 3
bainite showed higher wear resistance than bainite
+martensite structure. Only martensite presented
the poorest wear resistance of the steel (Min-xian
et al. 2012). Hossain et al. (2014) did a case study
on heat treatment of AISI 1020 steels. They analysed
mainly hardness of the specimens after three heat
treatment processes such as annealing, normalising
and hardening. They concluded that annealed speci-
men with ferrite microstructure gave the lowest hard-
ness value (Hossain, Islam, and Bhuyan 2014).
According to the results obtained by George et al.
(2018), tensile strength was the highest for brine
quenched specimen whereas it was lowest for
annealed specimen. Similarly, the highest and the
lowest hardness values were obtained in brine
quenched and annealed specimen, respectively. In
contrary, with regard to the toughness, the annealed
specimen showed higher value than that of quenched
specimen (George et al. 2018). ASTM A-36 (mild
steel) was selected to analyse variation in tensile
strength after heat treatment. It was observed
quenching improved the tensile strength to a great
extent (Hasan 2016). Steel EN 9, graded AISI 1015,
was also taken under various heat treatment pro-
cesses like annealing, normalising, and hardening.
Mainly, three different mechanical properties, such
as, hardness, tensile strength and impact strength
were analysed before and after heat treatment pro-
cess. It was observed that there was a substantial
improvement in hardness after hardening heat treat-
ment. An increase in percent elongation was observed
for annealed specimen. The impact strength was
found comparatively higher for normalised sample
and the lowest for hardened sample (Kini et al.
2017). Guo et al. (2016) studied the variation of
microstructure and mechanical properties of a high-
chromium cast iron (HCCI) after adopting tempering
heat treatment process. The microstructural study of
as-cast HCCI consisted of M7C3 carbide, M23C6 car-
bide, martensite, and retained austenite. When the
sample was heated to austenitic range of
1020°C, M23C6 carbide transformed to M7C3 carbide
and then gets dissolved in austenite. After quenching
this structure, it was observed that resulting micro-
structure contained more amount of M7C3 carbide
than M23C6 carbide and hardness became too high.
For improving the impact toughness, quenched pro-
duct was tempered. A reduction in hardness was also
reported in later stage. This process made the HCCI
wear resistant too (Guo et al. 2016). Sanusi and
Akinlabi (2018) took AISI 1040 steel under study.
They performed annealing at 950°C, stress relief
annealing at 590°C, normalising at 899°C and tem-
pering at 316°C. after the testing and analysis, they
found a good modification in physical and mechan-
ical properties of steel. The ultimate tensile strength
was found to increase after annealing but ductility
4 S. DEWANGAN ET AL.

gets reduced in this process (Sanusi and Akinlabi quenched and tempered condition. The manufac-
2018). Gurumurthy et al. (2018) focused on special tured material was found to possess much higher
hardening techniques for dual phase structure of AISI hardness than the quenched material because the
4340 steel. At the end, the mechanical properties and manufactured material consisted already tempered
micro-structural behaviour of the steel sample were martensite with a high amount of retained austenite.
assessed. Dual phase heat treatment of the samples In addition, the fracture toughness of directly manu-
was performed in two ways. First, heating the original factured material was comparable to heat treated
sample to the inter-critical temperature range for two specimen (Deirmina et al. 2019). Failure analysis of
hours and then keeping it isothermally in sodium heat treated steel was also performed by researchers.
nitrate mixed salt bath for half an hour followed by Sattar et al. (2015) performed isothermal heat treat-
cooling in room temperature. It resulted a mixture of ment of ultra-high strength bolts and they used these
ferrite and bainite in final microstructure. Second, bolts under magnetic particle testing. Based on the
following the similar process discussed above but various mechanical tests and characterisation through
with a very little isothermal holding period of 10 s scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive
in salt bath. This process gave a mixture of ferrite and X-ray results, it was finalised that the heat treated
martensite as final microstructure. In both the bolts are unqualified in further designing (Sattar
cases, second procedure resulted in a harder structure et al. 2015).
than that of first one. It was also discussed that steel AISI 1020 is in high demand across the globe,
possessed comparatively higher toughness after especially, for construction purpose. Although 1020
a tempering process of conventionally hardened steels were extensively considered under various heat
steel samples (Gurumurthy et al. 2018). Hofinger treatment processes, a continuous research for quality
et al. (2019) performed microstructural assessment enhancement are still going on all over the world. In
of a dual hardening steel during various heat treat- this direction, the present work focuses on how the
ment. In dual hardening steels, there is a combined properties of 1020 steels can be modified by various
effect of both secondary hardening carbides and heat treatment processes.
intermetallic phases in a martensitic matrix. Due to
this combined effect, carbon content reduced and
resulted in decrement of formation of large and brit- 3. Materials and method
tle carbides. EBSD spot measurements were used to
AISI 1020 steel was selected for experiment. It con-
characterised the Carbides present in various heat
tains 0.20% carbon which can be designated as low
treating conditions. It was noticed that amount of
carbon steel. The chemical composition of AISI 1020
carbides and thereby secondary hardness gets signifi-
is given in Table 1. It is general purpose grade of
cantly increased with an increase in austenitic tem-
steel, usual application includes construction, piping,
perature (Hofinger et al. 2019).
angle, channel, bars, etc. Therefore, it is widely man-
Measurement and quantification of undesirable
ufactured all over the world. The mechanical proper-
strain and residual stresses, caused by quenching
ties of AISI 1020 are listed in Table 2.
process, was analysed numerically by using finite ele-
In this work, total 20 steel samples were selected for
ment methods (FEM). The undesirable stresses and
experiment. These 20 samples impart 4 standard sized
strains are inevitable and this problem can be
specimens for toughness test, 4 standard sized specimens
enhanced due to microstructural phase transforma-
tion. Due to unavailability of efficient experimental
procedure, authors used numerical techniques to Table 1. Chemical composition of AISI 1020 steel.
quantify these effects (Barroqueiro et al. 2016). Sr. No. Element Content (Wt%)
Deirmina et al. (2019) chose the H13 hot-worked 1. Carbon (C) 0.141
2. Silicon (Si) 0.246
tool steel, fabricated by additive manufacturing, for 3. Manganese (Mn) 0.820
heat treatment analysis. The samples were analysed in 4. Phosphorous (P) 0.008
5. Sulphur (S) 0.025
three conditions: after direct tempering, during 6. Chromium (Cr) 0.075
quenching and during tempering. In this paper, the 7. Nickel (Ni) 0.083
8. Molybdenum (Mo) 0.019
microstructure, and some properties of H13 hot work 9. Copper (Cu) 0.269
tool steel fabricated by selective laser melting (SLM) 10. Aluminium (Al) 0.003
have been evaluated after direct tempering and in 11. Titanium (Ti) 0.001

Table 2. Typical mechanical properties of AISI 1020.

Property Tensile strength Yield strength Modulus of elasticity Poisson’s ratio Elongation Hardness (BHN) Impact strength Shear modulus
Metric 420 MPa 350 MPa 205 GPa 0.29 36.5% 121 123.4 J 80 GPa

for tension test, 4 standard sized specimens for shear test,
4 samples for hardness test, and 4 samples for micro-
structure analysis. Hence, there were total five different
tests, four destructive mechanical tests and one micro-
structural analysis, in this work to analyse the perfor-
mance of steel samples. Out of 4 samples in each
category of test, 3 samples were selected for heat treat-
ment and remaining 1 sample was kept in original/given
condition. So, total 15 samples were undergone through
heat treatment process and remaining 5 samples were
kept in original state. The unaffected five samples formed
a pair, named, ‘As received’. For heat treatment, 15 sam-
ples were heated above the lower critical temperature
(727°C) in furnace for a certain period of time. The
heated samples were, then, cooled at different rates in
various cooling media like water, air, and sand. Hence,
three other pairs, five different samples in each pair, were
categorised on the basis of heat treated conditions,
namely, ‘Water quenched’, ‘Normalized’, and ‘Sand
cooled’. The explanations behind how the conditions of
four samples in each pair were decided are explained as
follows:
3.1. As received condition
All the samples under this category were used in as
received state. In other words, they were not under-
gone through any heating and cooling operations.
Hence, all the mechanical properties and microstruc-
ture are unchanged. Therefore, this condition can be
assumed as reference for all other conditions.
3.2. Normalised condition
Normalising is basically a type of annealing pro-
cess. In this, specimen is heated in austenitic
range for some time and then is allowed to cool
in atmospheric air. In the present work, four
mechanical tests, i.e. tensile test, impact test, hard-
ness test, and bending test were performed. In
addition, microstructure was also assessed in nor-
malised sample. For the purpose, the standard
sized samples, according to ASTM, were heated
in open hearth furnace for a period of 20 min.
The heating temperature was approximately 750°C
which belongs to austenitic range. For measure-
ment of temperature, pyrometer was used. After
a certain period of heating, all the five samples
required for four mechanical tests and
a microstructural study were taken out of the
furnace and they were put in floor for cooling in
air. All the samples took nearly 45 min to reach at
room temperature. The samples were cleaned
properly for further analysis. For microscopic
observation, the sample was mirror polished by
using polishing papers of 300 and 500 grit sizes.
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 5
3.3. Sand-cooled condition
Building sand, mixed with clay, was used for this
work. The average grain size of the sand particles
was 1.6 mm. As sand offers less thermal conductivity,
a slow cooling rate could be achieved by this method.
All the samples were heated in a similar manner as
for normalised samples. Only the cooling media of
the samples were changed. In this case, samples were
kept inside the sand. The initial temperature of sand
was 26°C. Therefore, a very slow cooling rate was
achieved. All the samples took nearly one and
half hour to cool down to room temperature.
3.4. Water quenched condition
Water quenching was done to achieve a very fast
cooling rate. As quenching process suddenly cools
down the heated sample, production of very fine
grains (martensite) was aimed in this process. Initial
temperature of water was measured as 24°C. All the
heated samples were dipped into water for 15 min.
The schematic diagram of samples selection, heat
treatment and pair formation for performance analy-
sis is shown in Figure 2. Also, the photographic
images of heating process in furnace and cooling
into various medium are shown in Figure 3.
4. Performance analysis and result discussion
The performance of all heat-treated samples were
determined and compared with the performance of
as received samples. For this purpose, four mechan-
ical tests were conducted which are explained here:
4.1. Tensile test
A metal tensile test machine (Model: MT-001; Make:
SunLabTek, India) of 600 kN capacity was used for
tension tests of all the samples. In this work, all the
test samples were in cylindrical size with length and
diameter of 450 and 12 mm, respectively. The gauge
length of 180 mm was kept for the test. The max-
imum load and extension for as received sample were
65.1 kN and 11.1 mm, respectively. For normalised
sample, the maximum load and extension values were
noted down as 51 kN and 45.3 mm, respectively.
Similar experimental results for sand cooled sample
(60.5 kN and 29 mm) and water-quenched sample
(85.3 kN and 15 mm) were noted. On the basis of
load and extension results obtained during tension
tests, stress-strain graphs were drawn (Figure 4). The
nature of all the graphs is different.
In ‘As received’ sample, the yielding has occurred at
load value of 40 kN. A properly defined yield strength,
i.e. 362 MPa is noted for this sample. During yielding,
the samples get elongated with a strain value from
6 S. DEWANGAN ET AL.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of samples selection, heat treatment and pair formation for performance analysis.
0.0822 to 0.0977. The overall displacement of 11.1 mm
(strain 0.2466) is observed in the as received sample
up to failure point. The ultimate tensile strength
(576.5 MPa) is slightly higher than the failure strength
(575.6 MPa). These observations of ‘As received’ sam-
ples are considered as reference for heat treated speci-
mens. In ‘Normalized’ sample, the stress-strain
diagram properly explains the behaviour of a ductile
material. Yield strength is properly defined. Yield
strength remains constant, i.e. 300 MPa for incremen-
tal change in strain values from 0.2244 to 0.2333. The
ultimate tensile strength for normalised sample was
noted as 451 MPa which is lower than that of ‘as
received’ sample. Hence it can be concluded that nor-
malising process made the material ductile. The stress-
strain diagram of ‘Sand cooled’ sample shows a similar
trend as normalised sample. As sand provides a very
low cooling rate, the grain size of the specimen is
probably coarse which tends to make the material
soft and ductile. As a result, the yield strength of
sand cooled product reaches 410 MPa which is higher
than the yield strengths of as received and normalised
sample. This properly defined yield strength of
410 MPa remains constant for incremental change in
strain rate from 0.1666 to 0.1866. The ultimate tensile
strength of the specimen is noted as 535 MPa which is

Figure 3. Experimental set up; standard sized steel samples were heated in open hearth furnace and cooled samples were kept
ready for further analysis.
quit higher than that of normalised sample and lower
than that of as received sample. It can be stated that
sand cooling process makes the material more ductile
than air cooling process. Also, it is clear that both the
processes, i.e. normalising and sand cooling improves
the tensile properties of the AISI 1020 steels. With
regard to ‘Water quenched’ sample, nature of stress –
strain graph is completely different from other condi-
tions. Starting from no load condition to a tensile
stress value of 22 MPa, a high degree of strain (elon-
gation) up to 0.05 was observed. After this, there is
linear relationship between stress and strain was
observed. The yield strength is not properly defined.
At the stress value of 750 MPa, yielding occurs until
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 7
failure. The ultimate tensile strength reaches up to
754 MPa with an extension value of 0.2200 until
fracture. Beginning from a low stress (with high
strain) to high value of ultimate tensile strength
(with comparatively lower extension) shows that
a high degree of strain hardening has happened in
this sample. It can be seen that water quenching
improves the strength of material with a loss of
yielding.
4.2. Shear test
A shear test was performed in each cylindrical sample
with dimension of 450 mm length and 8 mm diameter.
8 S. DEWANGAN ET AL.
Figure 4. Tension test results of all specimens.
The universal testing machine (UTM) with maximum
loading capacity of 600 kN was used for this purpose.
This UTM was manufactured by SunLabTek
Equipment, India with a model name of MT-001. By
applying vertical gradual loading, the sample is first
plastically deformed and finally gets shear off from
two zones. Therefore, it is sometimes called double
shear testing. The vertical load and extension is con-
tinuously measured by data acquisition system attached
with UTM. A sketch of shear test is shown in Figure 5.
According to shear tests performed on each sam-
ple, the load vs extension graph was plotted. In case
of as received sample, initial extension was up to
1 mm at the load of 5 kN. After this point, a very
Figure 5. Schematic of double shear test.
high increment of the load (38 kN) values could be
observed with a less amount of extension (2 mm).
Strain hardening phenomenon played an important
role to increase the strength of the sample. In further
analysis, the extension suddenly increases with com-
paratively lesser values of load application in the
specimen. Finally, the sample sheared off at maxi-
mum load value of 43.9 kN with an extension of
3.6 mm. In normalised sample, the load vs. extension
graph is almost linear in nature. The maximum load
for shearing (36 kN) is lower as compared with as
received sample. In addition, the extension value
(4.3 mm) is little higher than that of as received
material. Normalising process made the specimen
comparatively softer and more ductile. The sand
cooled specimen showed a similar graph of load vs.
extension as shown by normalised sample. Also, the
maximum load and extension (37.5 kN and 4.5 mm)
of sand cooled sample are similar to those results of
normalised samples. The maximum load of 52.3 kN
was noted in water quenched sample which was the
highest value among all samples. In addition, the
lowest amount of extension was observed in water
quenched sample. Due to formation of fine micro-
structure, the tendency to get deformed is reduced in
water quenched sample. From this test, the shear
strengths of ‘as received’, ‘normalized’, ‘sand cooled’
and ‘water quenched’ samples are 437, 358, 373, and
520 MPa, respectively. Water quenched sample

Figure 6. Shear test results of all the samples; Load vs displacement graph of (a) As received sample, (b) Normalised sample, (c)
Sand cooled sample, (d) Water quenched sample.
showed the highest shear strength among all samples.
The load vs. extension graphs of each sample are
shown in Figure 6. Also, a comparison of maximum
load and maximum extension among all samples are
shown in Figure 7.
4.3. Impact test
Charpy impact test was performed to measure the
toughness of each sample. For this, an impact testing
machine made by SunLabTek Equipments Pvt. Ltd.,
India was used. The model name of this machine is
SUN-30 (ASTM) Charpy Test. It has maximum capa-
city and minimum scale graduation as 300 and 2 J,
respectively. Toughness is defined as energy absorbed
by the material up to fracturing. Hence, toughness
imparts area under the stress–strain curve. In general,
toughness depends on ductility of material means
highly ductile material shows high toughness value.
It is usually measured in Joule. In this experiment,
a freely falling hammer hitting technique was used to
measure the toughness. As the samples were already
prepared according to ASTM standard prior to heat
treatment, cleaning of the samples was only remain-
ing work for impact testing. Initially, to check any
error of the machine, the hammer was freely fall
without putting any sample. An error of 5 J was
recorded in the impact machine which was consid-
ered for finding the exact value of toughness. The
impact test results and their analysis are shown in
Figure 8.
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 9
The order of samples according to their toughness
values are: As received > Sand cooled > Normalised >
Water quenched. In comparison with as received sample,
it was found that heat treatment reduced the toughness of
actual material. In three different heat treatment meth-
ods, sand cooling method gave the highest toughness
among all. In other words, sand cooling method was
found better than normalising method in order to
improve the ductility of 1020 steel. The material with
high ductility imparts coarse microstructure which
allow occurrence of slip and thereby plastic deformation.
4.4. Hardness test
Hardness can be defined as resistance to penetration.
In other words, material will be highly wear resistant
if its hardness is high. This mechanical property is
opposite to toughness. In general, highly hard mate-
rials are relatively brittle. In this experiment, Brinell
hardness test was done to find out hardness of differ-
ent samples. A tester manufactured by SunLabTek
Equipments Pvt. Ltd. India with model number
MT-007 was used in this work. Brinell hardness test
includes a steel ball indenter which is allowed to
create depression on the sample by the help of exter-
nal loads. The time period of indentation is decided
by the users. In this experiment, a total of eight
indentations were made on each sample. An external
load of 3200 kgf was applied for 12 s to create every
indentation. The diameter of every indent was mea-
sured by using microscope. Based on average value of
10 S. DEWANGAN ET AL.
Figure 7. Comparison of maximum load and extension in various samples during shear test.
depression diameter, Brinell hardness number was
found for each sample. All the reading obtained dur-
ing hardness measurement is given in Table 3. Also,
a comparative analysis of hardness of various speci-
mens is shown in Figure 9.
The comparative analysis of hardness obtained in
various samples reveals that heat treatment process
improves the hardness. Hardness value of as received
sample is 224 BHN which is lower than that of all other
heat treated samples, i.e. normalised (289 BHN), sand
cooled (261 BHN), and water quenched (357 BHN). The
highest hardness obtained in water quenched sample is
due to formation of very fine microstructure, i.e. marten-
site. Based on usual aspects, it can be stated that water
quenching provides a wear resisting property, although
no wear test was performed in this experiment.
Normalising process provides more hardness than sand
cooling process.
4.5. Microstructural analysis
All the specimen undergone through various heat
treatment processes were analysed through an optical
microscope Motic Images Plus 3.0(x64) make
Germany. The purpose of the analysis was to observe
the microstructural changes in various samples after
heat treatment processes. Initially, the microstructure
of as received sample was observed and it was taken
as a reference for all other samples. All the samples
under study were properly polished. Picral reagent
was used as an etchant for AISI 1020 steel. Acid was
applied on the polished surface of the samples for
a few minutes prior to microscopic observation. Each
sample was observed under same magnification value
of 50×. The samples and their microscopic images are
shown in Figure 10.
When the steel, being heated at austenitic range, is
cooled below lower critical temperature, the resulting
microstructure is termed as pearlite. Pearlite is
a lamellar structure of ferrite and cementite. All the
microstructures, which are shown in Figure 10, pos-
sess a combination of bright and dark parts. Darks
parts are available due to presence of cementite.
Cementite gets mixed with ferrite structure to form
pearlite. Based on cooling rate, the dispersion of
cementite phase over ferrite phase changes. With
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 11

Figure 8. Toughness values of various samples and their comparison.

Table 3. Hardness test analysis of all the samples.

Depression diameter, d (mm)
Sample Steel ball diameter, D (mm) d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 Average value of d (mm) Load, P (kgf) BHN
As received 10 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.2 4 3.9 4.1 4 4.037 3200 224
Normalised 10 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.575 3200 289
Sand cooled 10 3.8 3.3 4 3.9 3.8 3.6 4 3.6 3.750 3200 261
Water quenched 10 3 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3 3.225 3200 357

regard to Figure 10, the microstructure of as received
sample is taken as reference for other heat-treated
samples. The pearlite structure in the steel samples
could be easily observed, as indicated in black circular
area and rounded rectangular part. Although the
lamellar structure could not be reported in this
work, clear differences among microstructural sizes
in all samples was properly observed. In normalised
sample, dispersion of Fe3C in ferrite is more in some
areas. As indicated by circles, the size of ferrite +
cementite zone is bigger than that of as received
sample. Figure 10(c) belongs to the microstructure
of sand-cooled sample. The size of pearlite formed in
sand cooling process is coarser than that of above
discussed two micrographs. Sand cooling process
provides a very slow rate of cooling in which the
final microstructure becomes coarse in size. In other
words, there is a less amount of cementite precipita-
tion in ferrite structure. Therefore, the gap between
ferrite + cementite lamella is comparatively higher
than normalising process. In addition, cementite is
dispersed as spherical shapes in ferrite parts. In case
of water quenching process, it is very difficult to
identify the cementite precipitates over α-ferrite. In
this very fast cooling rate, the formation of lamellar
structure is usually prevented thereby a fine or nee-
dle-like structure can be seen in microscopic images.
The final structure contains very fine pearlite and also
unstable austenite because water quenching phenom-
ena generally provide high cooling rate which allows
12 S. DEWANGAN ET AL.

Figure 9. Comparison of hardness in various samples.

Figure 10. Samples with applied etchant; microstructure of (a) as received sample, (b) normalised sample, (c) sand cooled
sample, (d) water quenched sample.

to miss the nose of time temperature transformation 5. Conclusion

curve. Due to presence of a high amount of Fe3C in
The present work deals with comparative analysis of
ferrite, the final microstructure resulted by water
heat treated AISI 1020 steel samples on the basis of
quenching process is very hard. This hard structure
mechanical properties and microstructural behaviour.
is rarely used in various engineering applications as it
Conventional annealing was used as heat treatment
lacks required toughness. To overcome this issue,
process. Steel samples were heated at nearly 750°C for
tempering of martensite is usually carried out.

20 min and then they were cooled up-to room tem-
perature in three different media, namely, air, water,
and sand. Hence, three different conditions, such as,
Normalised, Sand cooled, and Water quenched, were
obtained through heat treatment processes. To ana-
lyse the properties of samples, four different destruc-
tive mechanical tests, such as, tension test, shear test,
toughness test, and hardness test, were carried out. In
addition, the microstructural observation into the
samples was done by using an optical microscope.
The properties of heat-treated samples were com-
pared with those of ‘as received’ samples so that the
variation in material’s behaviour could be marked.
Previous research works mainly dealt with heating
period and soaking time to analyse the variation in
material’s characteristics. In this work, the various
cooling rates were considered as main experimental
criteria rather than heat soaking time. The outcomes
of this experiment are concluded as follows:
● The results of all mechanical tests revealed that
the properties like yield strength, toughness,
hardness, and shear strength got affected by
heat treatment processes. Also, a good corro-
boration was observed between microstructural
behaviour and mechanical properties of the steel
samples.
● With regard to tension test, the stress-strain
behaviour of all the samples are different with
each other. The yield strengths of ‘as received’,
‘normalized’, and ‘sand cooled’ samples are 362,
300, and 410 MPa, respectively. In ‘water
quenched’ sample, the yield strength is not prop-
erly defined. A sudden high displacement in the
sample started at the stress value of 751 MPa
which finally resulted in fracture of the material.
Taking a reference of ‘as received’ sample,
a reduction of 17% in yield strength was
observed in ‘normalized’ sample whereas the
‘sand cooled’ sample showed an increment of
13% for the same. The stress–strain curve of
‘water quenched’ sample revealed a significant
reduction in ductile behaviour.
In addition, a significant improvement in overall elon-
gation (or strain) was observed after heat treatment.
Normalising process enhanced the strain value by 308%
whereas this increment was 161% for sand-cooled sam-
ple. As an evidence of brittleness, the water quenched
sample showed a reduction of 12% in overall elongation.
The ultimate tensile strength was found highest
(754 MPa) in water quenched sample.
● Shear test results revealed that the water
quenched sample possessed the highest shear
strength among all samples. With reference to
as received sample, an increment of 19% in shear
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 13
strength was noted in water quenched sample
whereas reduction of the same results by 18%
and 15% was observed for normalised sample-
and sand-cooled sample, respectively. In addi-
tion, sand cooled sample showed the highest
ductility among all samples as it reached up to
maximum extension with an application of less
amount of load. In contrary, a high load was
applied to shear off the water-quenched sample.
It showed a little elongation prior to fracture.
● The maximum and minimum toughness were
noted for as received sample (101 J) and water
quenched sample (29 J), respectively. The annealed
samples showed a medium range of toughness
values, i.e. 65 J for normalised sample and 91 J
for sand-cooled sample. The toughness results of
heat-treated samples of this experiment presented
exception conditions. As the sand cooled and nor-
malised samples possessed higher ductility than
others, they should be more tough than as received
sample. The toughness result of water quenched
sample was quite satisfactory.
● Heat treatment process significantly improved the
hardness of the samples. As per the results
obtained by Brinell hardness test, water quenched
sample was found hardest among all samples. In
comparison with ‘as received’ sample, heat treated
samples – ‘sand cooled’, ‘normalized’, and ‘water
quenched’ showed an increment of hardness by
16%, 29%, and 59%, respectively. From this study,
it is concluded that hardness depends on cooling
rate of the sample. A fast-cooling rate resulted in
high hardness and vice-versa.
● The microstructures of all the samples were
observed through an optical microscope. The effect
of cooling rate on microstructural sizes was mainly
analysed. The slow cooling rate, i.e. sand-cooling
method resulted in formation of coarse pearlite. In
other words, the ferrite and the cementite regions
could be observed separately. The size of pearlite
microstructure in ‘sand cooled’ and ‘normalized’
samples is coarser than ‘as received’ sample. In
water-quenched sample, a very fine microstructure
was observed means there was a dense precipitation
of cementite over ferrite.
According to the present investigation, a fine
microstructure provides high shear strength, high
ultimate tensile strength and high hardness but
a loss of ductility. As the microstructure become
coarse, the properties like ductility and yield strength
get improved.
Acknowledgments
The authors used basic information about heat treatment
from a book entitled “Callister’s Materials Science and
14 S. DEWANGAN ET AL.
Engineering”. All the information, given in introduction
section of this paper, are referred from the above stated
book. For this purpose, authors are thankful to the writer
(W. D. Callister) and publisher (John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2007) of this book.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr. Saurabh Dewangan (PhD) is currently working as an
Assistant Professor and Researcher in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur, India.
Ms. Neha Mainwal is an undergraduate student (B. Tech) in
the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Manipal
University Jaipur, India.
Ms. Manwi Khandelwalis an undergraduate student (B. Tech) in
the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Manipal University
Jaipur, India.
Mr. Prateek Sunil Jadhav is an undergraduate student
(B. Tech) in the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Manipal University Jaipur, India.
ORCID
Saurabh Dewangan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8649-
5053
References
Barroqueiro, B., J. Dias-de-Oliveira, J. Pinho-da-Cruz, and
A. Andrade-Campos. 2016. “Multiscale Analysis of Heat
Treatments in Steels: Theory and Practice.” Finite
Elements in Analysis and Design 114: 39–56.
doi:10.1016/j.finel.2016.02.004.
Çalik, A. 2009. “Effect of Cooling Rate on Hardness and
Microstructure of AISI 1020, AISI 1040 and AISI 1060
Steels.” International Journal of Physical Sciences 4 (9):
514–518.
Callister, W. D. 2007. An Introduction to Materials Science
and Engineering. New York: John Wiley and Sons .
Deirmina, F., N. Peghini, B. AlMangour, D. Grzesiak, M.
Pellizzari. 2019. “Heat treatment and properties of a hot
work tool steel fabricated by additive manufacturing.”
Materials Science and Engineering: A 753: 109-121.
doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2019.03.027.
George, A. R., M. R. Samson, K. Ottoor, and
T. Geethapriyan. 2018. “The Effects of Heat Treatment
on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of
EN19 Steel.” International Journal of Materials Science
and Engineering 6 (2): 56–66.
Guo, Z. H., F. Xiao, S. Lu, H. Li, and B. Liao. 2016. “Effects
of Heat-Treatment on the Microstructure and Wear
Resistance of a High-Chromium Cast Iron for Rolls.”
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering Article ID
9807685: 7. doi:10.1155/2016/9807685.
Gurumurthy, B. M., S. Sharma, U. A. Kini, A. Hegde,
and A. Patil. 2018. “Mechanical Characteristics
Evaluation of Dual Phase and Related Hardening
Techniques on AISI 4340 Steel.” Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Sciences 12 (4):
4018–4029. doi:10.15282/jmes.12.4.2018.03.0349.
Hasan, M. F. 2016. “Analysis of Mechanical Behavior and
Microstructural Characteristics Change of ASTM A-36
Steel Applying Various Heat Treatment.” Journal of
Materials Science and Engineering 5: 2. doi:10.4172/
2169-0022.1000227.
Hofinger, M., M. Staudacher, M. Ognianov, C. Turk,
H. Leitner, and R. Schnitzer. 2019. “Microstructural
Evolution of a Dual Hardening Steel during Heat
Treatment.” Micron 120: 48–56. doi:10.1016/j.
micron.2019.02.004.
Hossain, S. S., M. M. Islam, and M. S. A. Bhuyan. 2014.
“A Case Study of Heat Treatment on AISI 1020 Steel.”
Global Journal of Researches in Engineering:
A Mechanical and Mechanics Engineering 14 (5):
Version 1.0.
Htun, M. S., S. T. Kyaw, and K. T. Lwin. 2008. “Effect of
Heat Treatment on Microstructures and Mechanical
Properties of Spring Steel.” Journal of Metals, Materials
and Minerals 18: 191–197.
Kini, U. A., S. S. Sharma, S. Y. Nayak, and S. S. Heckadka.
2017. “Mechanical Characterization of Heat Treated EN
9 Steel.” International Conference on Engineering and
Information Technology, 17-18 March 2017, Malaysia,
ISBN: 9788193137314 25.
Machado, I. F. 2006. “Technological Advances in Steels Heat
Treatment.” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 172:
169–173. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.09.007.
Min-xian, W., W. Shu-qi, W. Lan, C. Xiang-hong, and
C. Kang-min. 2012. “Selection of Heat Treatment
Process and Wear Mechanism of High Wear Resistant
Cast Hot-Forging Die Steel.” Journal of Iron and Steel
Research International 19 (5): 50–57. doi:10.1016/S1006-
706X(12)60099-5.
Olabi, A. G., and M. S. J. Hashmi. 1996. “Stress Relief
Procedures for Low Carbon Steel (1020) Welded
Components.” Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 56: 552–562. doi:10.1016/0924-0136(95)
01869-7.
Sanusi, K. O., and E. T. Akinlabi. 2018. “Experiment on
Effect of Heat Treatment on Mechanical and
Microstructure Properties of AISI Steel.” Materials
Today: Proceedings 5: 17996–18001.
Sattar, A., M. Abbas, H. J. Hasham, and Y. Baig. 2015.
“Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Steel
Bolts Failed after Isothermal Heat Treatment.” Journal
of Failure Analysis and Prevention 15 (2): 327–333.
doi:10.1007/s11668-015-9938-3.
Surberg, C. H., P. Stratton, and K. Lingenhole. 2008. “The
Effect of Some Heat Treatment Parameters on the
Dimensional Stability of AISI D2.” Cryogenics 48:
42–47. doi:10.1016/j.cryogenics.2007.10.002.