www.steel-research.

de

FULL PAPER
Evolution of Microstructure and Properties of Steel
22MnB5 due to Short Austenitization with Subsequent
Quenching
Anatolii Andreiev, Olexandr Grydin, and Mirko Schaper

In this work, the influence of rapid heat treatment with short low-temperature
austenitization at different soaking temperatures on strength properties of tool-quenched
low-carbon steel is presented. Two different modes of heat treatment for 22MnB5 have
been carried out: conventional austenitization for 300 s at 950 8C and short austenitization
for 2 s at soaking temperatures from 830 to 900 8C with subsequent quenching in water-
cooled dies. Subsequently, the mechanical properties of the heat-treated material have
been analyzed by means of tensile testing and hardness measurements. Furthermore, the
effect of the initial microstructure upon the mechanical properties and the resulting
microstructure after short time austenitization have been studied. It has been shown that
hardness, yield, and tensile strength are higher after all modes of rapid heat treatment with
involving short time austenitization in comparison with conventional furnace heat
treatments. Steels with an initial microstructure consisting of ferrite, bainite, as well as
pearlite exhibit improved mechanical properties after short austenitization comparing to
steels with an initial microstructure consisting of solely ferrite and pearlite.

1. Introduction steel. Due to the addition of boron, the transformation

Nowadays, there is a trend of using of new materials, i.e.,
alloys of aluminum or magnesium and fiber-reinforced
plastics (FRP) instead of steel for elements of the car
body.[1] These materials exhibit the equal specific strength
properties as the high-strength steel while their density can
be up to five times lower. This enables light materials well
attractive for decreasing the vehicle weight. On the other
hand, an application of the above-mentioned materials
causes a significant increase of production costs. Further-
more, the complete production of the “body-in-white”
elements from, e.g., FRP is distinctly more time intensive
in comparison with the same elements made from steel. In
addition, due to the development of steel components with
tailored properties, weight reduction is feasible through a
shape optimization of these elements. Based on the
previous aspects, steel is still the most favorable material
for production of cost-effective car components.
The typical material for the production of crash-
relevant elements of “body-in-white” is manganese–boron
[] O. Grydin, A. Andreiev, M. Schaper
Chair of Materials Science, Paderborn University, Warburger Strasse
100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany
Email: olexandr.grydin@uni-paderborn.de
DOI: 10.1002/srin.201600086
of a completely martensitic microstructure with cooling
rates higher than 30 K s 1 is possible.[2]
The most common steel grade from this group of steels
is 22MnB5. This alloy exhibits excellent strength but
also low ductility and toughness properties after press
hardening.
For the production of “body-in-white” components
made from this grade of steel conventionally a thermo-
mechanical treatment press hardening is used.[3] The
possibility of simultaneous forming and quenching in
water-cooled dies of the previously heated blank is
implemented in this process.
Heating of blanks before press hardening is usually
performed in electric or gas furnaces with heating rates of
approximately 12 K s 1 up to 950 8C with a subsequent
soaking time at this temperature.[4] Such heating parameters
ensure the transformation of the initial microstructure
in the austenite phase and its complete homogenization
which is mostly optimal for attaining high-strength proper-
ties with a martensitic microstructure after hot metal
forming and quenching by press hardening.[5]
However, the above-described conventional heating
stage has some significant disadvantages. Among them are
high investment and operating costs, large spaces, and
long heating times, which cause significant oxidation of
steel blanks when special protection coatings are not
employed.[6] In addition, the demand of reducing energy

ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 1

FULL PAPER
costs and of an environment-friendly production process
stimulates the development of new heating methods.
During the last decade, the following rapid heating
concepts have been developed with which the above-
mentioned drawbacks can be avoided:
1. Conduction heating: it was proposed by Mori et al. to
heat the blank in the same tool as the forming press
while a direct current was applied to the blank.[7] The
heating of the blanks results from the electric resistance
of blank. Then, the heated sheet is deformed in water-
cooled dies within a forming press. Extremely high
heating rates can be realized in this case. The major
disadvantage of this method is the nonuniform heating
of blanks along the length.[8]
2. Induction heating: Kolleck et al. determined that the
most uniform temperature distribution in flat blanks
is achieved by using an induction heating with two
inductors.[9] At first, a blank is preheated up to the
Curie temperature by a longitudinal inductor and is
then heated up to the austenitization temperature by
a face inductor. Such heating technology requires
smaller floor space in comparison with conventional
heating technology and allows a significant reduction
of heating time, a reduction of investment costs, as
well as production of press-hardened components
with tailored properties.[8] The main downside of this
heating concept is the high complexity of the induc-
tion heating equipment and the difficulty in achieving
a uniform heating through the blank with complex
shape.[6]
3. Contact- or press-heating: for a contact heating the
material is placed between two plates, which previously
can be preheated by resistance heating, by induction, or
by conduction.[6,10,11] This type of heating is relatively
new in comparison with other methods and seems like
the best procedure for substituting conventional
furnaces. The main advantages of this heating method
are the homogeneity of temperature distribution in the
whole blank and the relatively simple realization of
partial heating for production of load-bearing compo-
nents with tailored properties.
As another significant advantage of rapid heating
technologies an improvement of the mechanical proper-
ties for “body in white” components can be achieved.
The effect of rapid heating on the mechanical properties
of steels is studied since the middle of the 20th century.
For example, Kidin showed a correlation between the
increasing hardness of steel 1.1645 and the increasing
heating rates up to austenitization temperature.[12] The
samples were heated up to 860–1000 8C with five different
heating rates ranging from 1 to 200 K s 1 and were
subsequently immediately quenched in water. The highest
increase of hardness up to 5% in comparison with
conventional heat treatment was achieved at heating up
to 970 8C with a heating rate of 200 K s 1.
2 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
Another study of Gridnev et al. illustrates the depen-
dence of prior austenite grain size from heating rate
and austenitization temperature.[13] The samples from the
investigated steel 1.0511 were heated with heating rates
ranging from 0.03 to 1000 K s 1 up to 900 and 1000 8C
and were then immediately quenched in water. The finest
grain size was achieved at a heating rate of 1000 K s 1
up to a temperature of 900 8C. The austenite grain size of
this sample was 0.002 mm while the austenite grain size
of the sample heated with heating rate 0.03 K s 1 up to
950 8C was about 0.025 mm.
Grange displayed the positive effect of combination of
rapid heating and short dwell durations of steel 1.0402 at
the temperature of 870 8C on the austenite grain size.[14]
Rose et al. investigated the effect of rapid heating,
austenitization temperature, and soaking duration upon
the austenite grain size and hardness of steel after
quenching.[15] This relation between heating parameters
and properties of microstructure after quenching in water
is summarized with the help of the so-called isothermal
and continuous time–temperature–austenitization dia-
grams for a wide range of steels.
Lolla et al. and Vigilante et al. revealed that the rapid
heating of low-carbon steel up to 1100 8C with heating
rates up to 410 K s 1 and soaking durations at this
temperature of 2 s with following cooling in water causes
an increase of strength, ductility, and toughness in
comparison with conventional heat-treated material.[16,17]
Holzweissig et al. investigated the rapid press heating of
steel 22MnB5 which also showed that the mechanical
properties are improved after short time austenitiza-
tion.[11] The observed material was heated in a heating
tool with temperatures of 1000 and 1100 8C, respectively.
The heating rate was about 220 K s 1 and dwell durations
varied from 3 to 15 s. Cooling was performed in a water-
cooled die with a locking pressure of about 3 MPa. The
authors found that the material has the most optimal
relation of strength and ductility by heating the specimens
in a tool with a temperature of 1000 8C and at low dwell
durations. The minimal dwell duration of 6 s was deter-
mined as a sufficient duration for a complete austenitiza-
tion of the microstructure. In the case of very low dwell
durations, e.g., of 3 s, the austenitic transformation was
incomplete and which causes a dramatic decrease of
strength. However, evaluation of austenitization conditions
based on results of the study is complicated due to absence
of data on real metal temperature before quenching.
Furthermore, some other studies confirm the influence
of the steel’s initial microstructure upon the a-g transfor-
mation when the microstructures are rapidly heated and
soaked shortly. This issue influences the properties of the
microstructure after press hardening.
For example, Grange observed the influence of different
martensitic and ferritic–pearlitic microstructures of steel
1.7035 on the minimum temperature needed for a
complete austenitization after rapid heating in liquid
lead.[14] The soaking duration for both types of the initial
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
microstructures at the minimum temperature for com-
plete austenitization was the same 20 s. Austenitization
temperature for the sample with an initial microstructure
of martensite was 815 8C while this temperature for the
sample with initial microstructure of ferrite–pearlite was
870 8C.
In another study, it was also shown that the austenite
grain size of steel SAE 1541 depends on the initial
microstructure.[18] The samples with an initial microstruc-
ture of martensite and ferrite–pearlite were heated with
heating rates from 1 to 1000 K s 1 up to 900, 1000, 1100, and
1200 8C, respectively, and then immediately cooled by a
direct spray of argon gas in Gleeble tester. The sample with
an initial microstructure of martensite has the minimal
austenite grain size of 0.0038 mm after heating with a
rate of 1000 K s 1 up to 900 8C while the sample with initial
microstructure of ferrite–pearlite at the same heating
parameters exhibits an austenite grain size of approxi-
mately 0.007 mm.
The literature review shows that the properties of steel
after rapid heat treatment with very high heating rates
and really short soaking durations at the austenitization
temperature can be improved compared to a conventional
furnace heat treatment after quenching/press hardening,
respectively.
However, only in a few studies, e.g., in Holzweissig et al.,
the authors investigated the influence on rapid heat
treatment parameters involving short austenitization upon
the resulting mechanical properties of steel 22MnB5 which
is widely applied for press hardening.[11]
In the above-mentioned study, an influence of a
relatively high tool temperature and a short austenitization
on the properties of steel 22MnB5 were investigated.
Nevertheless, as it has been reported by other researchers,
lower temperature during austenitization is more prefera-
ble for achieving the finer prior austenite grain size and
thus the improvement of mechanical properties.[15,18,19]
In addition, previous studies demonstrated that the initial
microstructure influences the a-g transformation and
properties after cooling. Therefore, this influence should
be also investigated for steel 22MnB5, which is available in a
wide range of possible initial microstructures.
Thus, further investigations of short time austenitiza-
tion in a range of relatively low temperatures for 22MnB5
before press hardening are highly interesting due to the
following aspects:
1. A more energy-effective heating method compared to
the conventional furnaces.
Element [%] С Si Mn Al
Steel A 0.247 0.315 1.211 0.028
Steel B 0.266 0.306 1.167 0.032
Table 1. Chemical composition of investigated steel 22MnB5.
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
2. Identifying the optimal short austenitization para-
meters for improving the mechanical properties of
the final product.
The following study has been performed with the
purpose to estimate the influence of relatively low
austenitization temperatures with short soaking duration
after rapid conduction heating and quenching in water-
cooled dies upon the properties of steel 22MnB5. The
conduction heating was chosen due to its high accuracy at
rapid heating.
Furthermore, the effect of different initial microstruc-
tures on the strength properties of this material has been
investigated. In order to compare the results determined
in this study to a standard furnace process, heat treatments
in a furnace with subsequent quenching in water-cooled
tool have also been conducted.
2. Experimental Section, Equipment, and
Materials
2.1. Material
The analyzed 22MnB5 was uncoated and the sheets had a
thickness of 2.0 mm. Furthermore, two different batches
were investigated which are declared as steels A and B in
the remainder of this document. The chemical composi-
tions of both steels are presented in Table 1.
2.2. Conventional and Rapid Heat Treatment
As a reference heat treatment, the conventional austeni-
tization that usually is conducted before press hardening
with subsequent cooling in two water-cooled dies was
carried out. The steel blanks were heated in labor furnace
in an inert argon atmosphere up to 950 8C and soaked at
this temperature 300 s long. The temperature of the
samples was monitored using a thermocouple Type K
with outer diameter of 0.5 mm. After the austenitization,
the blank was transported within 4 s to the quenching
device, equipped with the water-cooled dies and was
quenched with a cooling rate higher than 30 K s 1.
The investigation of the rapid heat treatments involving
short austenitization durations was carried out in a
combined heating and cooling tool. A sample and the
tool are schematically presented in Figure 1. Such form of
Cr B Ti Nb V Fe
0.142 0.0026 0.029 0.005 <0.001 Balance
0.216 0.0026 0.036 0.008 <0.001 Balance
steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 3

FULL PAPER
Figure 1. Sample which is conductively heated a) and schematic set-up used for the experiments b).
sample is favorable in comparison with rectangular in
terms to ensure greater contact surface with conductors
and connected with this better temperature distribution in
the sample.
For heating the specimens, the sample was fixed
between two copper electrodes with possibility of sliding
along the sample’s axis to compensate thermal extension
of metal and was then heated due to its electrical
resistance by direct current (cf., Figure 1). Steels A and
B were heated with a rate of about 160 K s 1 without any
inert gas atmosphere up to 830, 845, 873, and 900 8C and
soaked at corresponding temperature for 3 s. The temper-
ature was measured with an optical pyrometer in the
middle of the sample. The pyrometer was calibrated for
the selected soaking temperatures range using a row of
comparing measurements by means of thermocouple
type K before experiments. Due to the short austenitiza-
tion duration influence of oxide film on emission coeffi-
cient changing was neglected. Subsequently, the samples
were quenched in water-cooled tool (see Figure 1b).
For each investigated temperature, two samples were
identically heat treated.
As it was mentioned above, the conduction heating
has significant disadvantages which stem from a non-
uniform temperature distribution along the sample
during heating. Therefore, at first the area with homo-
geneous temperature distribution was determined. For
this purpose, the sample was rapidly heat treated
including a short time austenitization at 900 8C and the
resulting hardness profile in the rectangular central part
after quenching was measured. Hardness measurements
along the sample showed a homogeneous hardness
level 510 HV1  3% in the middle zone of samples on
the length of 80 mm. In the area near the sample’s
shoulders, hardness decreases up to 200 HV1. In this way,
it was determined that a central zone with the length
of 80 mm exhibits a constant hardness. This area was
accepted as uniformly heated.
4 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
2.3. Estimation of Mechanical Properties and Analysis of
Material Microstructure
Estimation of mechanical properties and analysis of
materials microstructure were carried out for initial,
conventionally heat-treated, and rapid-austenitized con-
ditions for both steels investigated.
The hardness values (HV1) for both steels and all their
states were measured in cross-section of the cold-mounted
samples, which were further used for microstructural
analysis, in the center and near the edges, respectively. The
arithmetical mean of five values is shown as a result of
the measurements for each material state.
For the determination of strength properties, tensile
tests on two specimen types were carried out:
(i) specimens with standard geometry (A50) for tensile
test according to DIN EN ISO 6892, which were used
for analysis of initial state of material. Mechanical
properties are presented as an arithmetical mean of
values obtained from three samples for each steel;
(ii) miniature dog bone-shaped specimens (see Figure 1a),
which were used for the analysis of both steel grades
after conventional and rapid heat treatment. For each
heat-treated state, four samples were tested and the
mechanical properties as an arithmetical mean from
obtained values are presented. Dispersion of values
within one sample’s group has not exceeded 3%.
The nonstandard tensile specimens (see Figure 1a) were
used due to the small area with a uniform temperature
distribution within the heated samples. Holzweissig et al.
note that the characteristic values from tensile tests of these
specimens cannot be directly compared with the results
obtained using standard specimens.[11] However, the usage
of miniature specimens with the same geometry for the
analysis of mechanical properties after both, conventional
and rapid heat treatment, allows for estimating the effect
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de

FULL PAPER
of short time austenitization. The elongation values are not
presented in this work because of high level of measurement
error caused by the usage of miniature specimens.
For the microstructural analysis the cross-section of the
samples in initial, conventionally heat–treated, and rapidly
heat-treated conditions were cold mounted, mechanically
polished, and afterward etched in alcoholic solution with
2% nitric acid. Subsequently, these samples were analyzed
using light microscopy. For the determination of different
microstructure components of the steels investigated
after short time austenitization, an additional etching of
polished samples was carried out. The etchant for this
purpose consisted of 15% concentrated hydrochloric acid
in 100 mL alcoholic solution, 4 g ammonium bifluoride,
and 0.1 g potassium disulfide. Furthermore, some of etched
samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Mechanical Properties

The analysis of hardness values of both materials in the

initial state showed that steel A has a higher hardness than
steel B. The tensile tests results for both steel grades
confirm that steel A exhibits higher strength properties
with lower elongation value than steel B. Steels A and B
exhibit the following mechanical properties: hardness
values of 243 and 181 HV1; yield strength (Rp0.2) of 604 and
394 MPa; tensile strength (Rm) of 731 and 547 MPa;
elongation (A50) of 13.9 and 25.2%, respectively.
The hardness of steels A and B rose to 485 and 491 HV1,
respectively, after conventional heat treatment. After the
rapid heat treatments, the hardness values were up to 9%
higher than compared to the conventional heat treatment.
The maximal hardness value in steel A was obtained after a
short austenitization at 845 8C (526 HV1) and the minimal
at a temperature of 873 8C (507 HV1). In steel B, the
maximum in hardness was achieved by a treatment at
900 8C (513 HV1) and the minimum at 830 8C (502 HV1).
Analysis of tensile test results showed that both steel
grades exhibit higher tensile strength values after rapid
heat treatment than after conventional heat treatment
(see Figure 2).
The maximal tensile strength in steel A was achieved by
short austenitization at 830 8C (1678 MPa) and minimal
at 900 8C (1625 MPa). For steel B, the maximum and the
minimum were obtained at 845 8C (1620 MPa) and 900 8C
(1550 MPa).
The comprehensive illustration of the results from the
hardness measurements and the tensile tests for both
steel grades are presented in Figure 3.
As it is shown in Figure 3, all strength values of steels A
and B after rapid heat treatment are higher than after
conventional heat treatment. The increase of tensile
strength of steels A and B after rapid heat treatment in
Figure 2. Stress–strain curves of steel A a) and steel B b) after
conventional and rapid heat treatment.
comparison with conventionally heat-treated stage is
approximately 13 and 11%, respectively. Furthermore,
from the results it can be derived that the hardness and
strength values slightly decrease with increasing the
austenitization temperature. Especially in steel A, this effect
is more apparent. Such behavior found in both steels can
be explained by means of austenite grain coarsening with
an increasing austenitization temperature. The block and
the packet sizes of the resulting martensite directly
depend on austenite grain size[20] and thus, by increasing
these block and packet sizes the strength properties are
decreasing according to the Hall–Petch relationship.[21,22]
3.2. Microstructure
In Figure 4, the microstructures of steels A and B in initial
state are presented.
The steel A consists of mixed microstructure of ferrite,
bainite, and pearlite (see Figure 4a). Presence of bainite was
confirmed with the help of microhardness measurements.

ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 5

FULL PAPER
Figure 3. Comprehensive illustration of the mechanical properties
of steel A a) and steel B b) after conventional and rapid heat
treatments.
Kremnev et al. showed that such type of microstructure
may evolve at accelerated cooling rates from 1 to 5 K s 1
after hot rolling.[23] An increase of cooling rates facilitates
a growth of granular bainite and thus provides an increase
of strength properties and decrease of ductility.
Figure 4. Microstructures of steel A a) and steel B b) in initial state: F
6 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
The microstructure of steel B consists of ferrite with
distinct pearlite lines elongated along the rolling direction
(see Figure 4b).
Figure 5 demonstrates the microstructures of steel A
(see Figure 5a, b, and c) and steel B (see Figure 5d, e, and f)
after conventional (a and d) and short time austenitization
at temperatures of 830 8C (b and e) and 900 8C (c and f).
Steel A exhibits a pure lath martensitic microstructure
after conventional heat treatment. At the same time, steel B
has insignificant part of probably bainite (black circles
on Figure 5d). This assumption was confirmed through
the micro-hardness measurements of these areas. The
micro-hardness values in these areas vary between 300
and 400 HV0.05.
After rapid heat treatment, steels A and B show a lath
microstructure that can be martensitic and/or bainitic.
Visually, the packet sizes of this lath microstructure are
much smaller after short time austenitization at all
temperatures than the packet sizes of martensite after
conventional austenitization. In turn this means, that the
austenite grain sizes of the shortly austenitized material
were smaller compared to the ones from the standard
furnace process. Furthermore, as it was mentioned above,
a decrease of packet size is one of the possible explanations
of higher strength properties for both steel grades after
rapid heat treatment in comparison with conventional
heat treatment.
By comparing Figure 5b with c, Figure 5e with f, it is
obvious that higher temperatures (900 8C) during the
short time austenitization cause an increase of packet
size with the lath microstructure. This result corresponds
with previous investigations of Gridnev and Shutts.[13,18]
This explains the slight decrease of the strength proper-
ties of material with increase of short austenitization
temperature.
In addition, the oxidation and decarburization of
the samples surfaces after rapid heat treatment is much
lower than after a conventional heat treatment due to
the shorter soaking durations at high temperatures.
The decarburized surface area in conventional heat-
treated material lies between 50 and 70 mm and this area is
only approximately 15 mm after a rapid heat treatment
(see Figure 6).
ferrite, B bainite, P pearlite.
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de

FULL PAPER
Figure 5. Microstructures of steels A and B after conventional and rapid heat treatment: a) and d) show steels A and B after conventional
heat treatment; b) and e) illustrate the microstructure after rapid heat treatment at 830 8C; c) and f) show the structures after short time
austenitization at 900 8C.

Comparing the microstructures of steels A and B
after short austenitization at the same temperature (see
Figure 5b and e or Figure 5c and f), it can be seen that steel
A in both cases has smaller packet sizes of martensite
and/or bainite and hence higher strength properties.
Such a difference can be attributed to different micro-
structures in the initial state. Grange and Shutts showed
that the starting microstructure of bainite or martensite
has more nucleation sites for austenite during phase
transformation after superheating of the a-phase.[14,18]
Austenite usually nucleates at interfaces and thus since
bainite has more interfaces than ferrite or pearlite (steel A),
it causes more austenite grains with finer sizes compared
to a ferritic–pearlitic initial structure (steel B).
An analysis of the microstructure of both steel grades
after short austenitization with the help of contrast
etching showed that the resulting microstructure consists
of at least two components: martensite and bainite (see
Figure 7).
In Figure 7, arrows indicate the blue and gray regions
that presumably are martensite (M) and bainite (B).
The formation of bainite even at high cooling rates
following short time austenitization has been explained in
Holzweissig et al. and Lolla et al.[11,16] During short time
austenitization of steel, the dissolution of carbon-rich
cementite or other carbides of the initial structure is
incomplete as there is not enough time for completing
the time-dependent carbon diffusion process. Thus, the
carbon distribution within the austenite is not homoge-
neous: austenite grains or regions near the carbides are
carbon-rich and remote grains or regions are almost
carbon-free. So it is possible that due to the gradient of

Figure 6. Decarburization surface area in steel A after conventional heat treatment a) and after short austenitization at 900 8C b).

ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 7

FULL PAPER
Figure 7. Microstructure of steel B after contrast etching.
carbon distribution in prior austenite different micro-
structures such as martensite, bainite, ferrite, and not
completely dissolved carbides are available in steel after
cooling. An example of not completely dissolved carbides
after short time austenitization and subsequent quenching
is presented in Figure 8.
Numerous EDX-measurements of the carbides in the
white circles (see Figure 8) showed that they have a higher
peak of chromium than the base material. So it can be
accepted that carbides of initial microstructure do not
dissolve complete at short austenitization.
Figure 8. Image of undissolved carbides after short time
austenitization of steel B at 830 8C a); 1–EDX spectrum of a
carbide and 2–EDX spectrum of the base material b).
8 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
The presence of a mixed microstructure can be another
reason for higher strength properties for steel grades after
rapid heat treatment compared to the conventional heat
treatment besides the finer structures.
In previous works, it was shown that a mixed
microstructure of lower bainite and martensite exhibits
higher strength and ductility properties than the micro-
structure of pure martensite.
Tomita and Okabayashi showed that the steel 1.6511
after conventional austenitization and subsequent isother-
mal soaking at 300 8C with final quenching in water
has a mixed microstructure of approximately 25% lower
bainite and 75% martensite.[24] This microstructure
exhibits better strength and ductility properties than the
microstructure consisting of 100% martensite.
Also Barranco et al. have shown that the lower bainite
content influences the mechanical properties of steel
1.6655.[25] By increasing the lower bainite content in
the microstructure, a significant improvement of the
ductility with and a slight decrease of strength was found
compared to a pure martensitic microstructure.
Increase of strength properties in steel 1.7220 with
mixed microstructure of lower bainite and martensite also
was determined by Park.[26]
Abbaszadeh et al. found an increase of strain at fracture,
reduction in area, and Charpy V-notch impact energy at
increasing lower bainite contents in mainly martensitic
microstructures.[27]
All these authors explain an increase of the mechanical
properties through a refinement of martensitic sub-
structure due to the presence of lower bainitic plates
and increase of carbon concentration in untransformed
austenite. The austenite grains with a high carbon content
transform during the following cooling into carbon-
enriched martensite, which exhibits higher strength level
than martensitic microstructure of this steel with a
homogeneous carbon distribution.
Therefore, for further improvement of properties in
press-hardened crash-relevant components, it is neces-
sarily more accurate to study the influence of both grain
refinement and mixed microstructure of bainite, martens-
ite, and undissolved carbides on the properties of steel
22MnB5 after rapid heat treatment. Following step in this
study will be determining of a preferable rapid heat
treatment schedule with the most optimal parameters of
short austenitization.
4. Conclusions
This work presents the investigation of the short time
austenitization upon the strength properties of steel after
quenching in water-cooled tool. 2 mm thick blanks of steel
22MnB5 with two different initial microstructures were
investigated. These were conventionally austenitized for
300 s at 950 8C and also short time austenitized at 830,
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
845, 873, and 900 8C for 2 s with subsequent quenching in
water-cooled dies. Rapid heating was realized by means
of conductive heating.
Both investigated steel grades show distinctly higher
strength properties after short time austenitization com-
pare to a conventional heat treatment. In addition, lower
austenitization temperatures for both investigated steel
grades lead to higher values of strength. Steel A after rapid
heat treatment exhibits up to 9% higher hardness and up to
13% higher tensile strength than in the conventionally
heat-treated stage. For steel B, this increase amounts up to
5% for hardness and up to 11% for tensile strength.
Significant grain refinement of austenite after rapid
heating with short soaking durations results in fine lath
microstructures consisting of martensite and/or bainite
with undissolved carbides. This leads to higher strength
properties of the material after quenching.
Moreover, the initial microstructure of steel also
influences the properties of material after short austeni-
tization with followed quenching in water-cooled tool. A
microstructure of ferrite, bainite, and pearlite in compari-
son with a ferritic–pearlitic microstructure exhibits at short
austenitization more nucleation sites for austenite grains
that leads to finer austenite grains and thus to higher
strength properties.
In further work, the influence of short time austenitiza-
tion upon the ductility will be investigated. In addition,
the microstructure components in steel after short austeni-
tization should be quantitatively analyzed. This will allow a
more definite description of the transformation mecha-
nisms during heating and cooling. Finally, this will help
to find the optimal parameters for a rapid heat treatment for
ensuring the best relation between strength and ductility.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Innovation,
Science and Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia
for the financial support of the scientific work within the
scope of the project “Light Efficient Mobile.”
Received: March 9, 2016; Revised: April 11, 2016
Keywords: short austenitization; press hardening; low-
carbon steel; microstructure; mechanical properties
References
[1] M. Vogt, Bestandsaufnahme Leichtbau in
Deutschland, VDI Centre for Resource Efficiency,
Berlin, Germany 2015, p. 41.
[2] M. Geiger, M. Merklein, C. Hoff, AMR 2005, 6–8, 795.
[3] Patent GB1490535, Manufacturing a Hardened Steel
Article, Norrbottens Jaernverk AB 1977.
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
[4] A. Naganathan, L. Penter, in Sheet Metal
Forming Processes and Applications (Eds: T. Altan,
A. E. Tekkaya), ASM International 2012, 133.
[5] A. Turetta, S. Bruschi, A. Ghiotti, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 2006, 177, 396.
[6] J. N. Rasera, K. J. Daun, M. D’Souza, ASME 2014
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 2014.
[7] K. Mori, S. Maki, Y. Tanaka, CIRP Ann. Manuf.
Technol. 2005, 54, 209.
[8] H. Karbasian, A. E. Tekkaya, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 2010, 210, 2103.
[9] R. Kolleck, R. Veit, M. Merklein, J. Lechler, M. Geiger,
CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2009, 58, 275.
[10] V. Ploshikhin, A. Prihodovsky, J. Kaiser, R. Bisping,
H. Lindner, C. Lengsdorf, K. Roll, Tools and
Technologies for Processing Ultra High Strength
Materials, Graz, Austria 2011.
[11] M. J. Holzweissig, J. Lackmann, S. Konrad, M. Schaper,
T. Niendorf, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2015, 46, 3199.
[12] I. Kidin, Physical Principles of Electro-Thermal
Processing of Metals and Alloys, Metallurgy, Moscow,
Soviet Union 1969, p. 376.
[13] V. Gridnev, Y. Meshkov, S. Oshkaderov, V. Trefilov,
Physical Principles of Electro-Thermal Hardening of
Steel, Kyiv, Soviet Union 1973, p. 329.
[14] R. Grange, Metall. Trans. 1971, 2, 65.
[15] A. Rose, J. Orlich, P. Wiest, Atlas for Heat Treatment of
Steels, Verlag Stahleisen M.B.H., Düsseldorf, Germany
1973, p. 264.
[16] T. Lolla, G. Cola, B. Narayanan, B. Alexandrov,
S. S. Babu, Mater. Sci. Technol. 2011, 27, 863.
[17] G. Vigilante, M. Hespos, S. Bartolucci, Evaluation of
Flash Bainite in 4130 Steel, Armament Research,
Development and Engineering Centre, USA 2011, p. 45.
[18] A. Shutts, Effects of Heating Rate and Prior
Microstructure on SAE 1541 Forging Steel, Colorado
School of Mines, Colorado, USA 2004, p. 16.
[19] O. Grydin, D. Rodman, M. Schaper, Steel Res. Int.
2012, 83, 1020.
[20] S. Morito, H. Saito, T. Ogawa, T. Furuhara, T. Maki,
ISIJ Int. 2005, 45, 91.
[21] E. Hall, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 1951, 64, 747.
[22] N. J. Petch, J. Iron Steel Inst. 1953, 174, 25.
[23] L. S. Kremnev, V. V. Svishenko, D. P. Cheprasov, Met.
Sci. Heat Treat. 1998, 40, 194.
[24] Y. Tomita, K. Okabayashi, Metall. Trans. A 1985, 16A, 73.
[25] J. Barranco, P. Cote, J. Kapp, Tempering Effects for
Lower Bainite, Martensite, and Mixed Microstructures
on Impact, Fracture and Related Mechanical Properties
of ASTM A723 Steel, Armament Research,
Development and Engineering Centre, USA 1992, p. 54.
[26] K.-T. Park, H.-J. Kwon, Met. Mater. Int. 2001, 7, 95.
[27] K. Abbaszadeh, H. Saghafian, S. Kheirandish, J. Mater.
Sci. Technol. 2012, 28, 336.
steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 9