See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263060763

Simulation of Heat Treatment and Materials with the Use of the Abaqus
Software

Article in Metal Science and Heat Treatment · November 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s11041-013-9641-5

CITATIONS READS
7 3,371

3 authors, including:

M. Kchaou Dammak Fakhreddine

Institut Préparatoire aux Etudes d'Ingénieurs de Sfax University of Sfax
24 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS 167 PUBLICATIONS 1,521 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Incremental sheet metal forming process View project

Mechanical behavior of functionally graded carbon nanotubes-reinforced shells View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dammak Fakhreddine on 23 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Metal Science and Heat Treatment, Vol. 55, Nos. 7 – 8, November, 2013 (Russian Original Nos. 7 – 8, July – August, 2013)

SIMULATION
UDC 621.785.545:621.001.57

SIMULATION OF HEAT TREATMENT AND MATERIALS

WITH THE USE OF THE ABAQUS SOFTWARE

M. Yaakoubi,1 M. Kchaou,1 and F. Dammak1

Translated from Metallovedenie i Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov, No. 7, pp. 41 – 48, July, 2013.

A module supplementing the ABAQUS software is developed for solving a joint heat and diffusion problem
with allowance for the phase transformations in materials in the process of induction quenching. The approach
provides a deeper study of the structure and properties of materials and makes it possible to develop a method
for computing the number of phase components, the size of austenite grains, the hardness, the thermophysical
characteristics, and the latent heat of induction quenching. Such computations are impossible on the basis of
standard softwares. The adequacy of the simulation tool suggested by the authors is confirmed by matching
between simulated and experimental data.

Key words: quenching, phase transformations, hardness, ABAQUS.

INTRODUCTION variation of the content of austenite during heating and for-

Surface quenching is widely used in mechanical engi-
neering. Such quenching increases the surface hardness of
articles and simultaneously improves their fatigue and wear
resistances. The process of induction quenching of a surface
consists of rapid induction heating for forming austenite in
the surface layer and subsequent rapid cooling accompanied
by a martensitic transformation that promotes hardening of
the surface layer [1, 2].
Computer simulation is a popular instrument in the field
of heat treatment of materials. It makes it possible to estimate
the laws of behavior of objects during heating and cooling
and to test the algorithms describing such behavior. As an an-
alytical tool, simulation helps to lower the cost and duration
of experimental studies by safe and fast computations.
Prediction of the distribution of hardness over the thick-
ness of a part requires knowledge of the kinetics of phase
transformations and of formation of microstructure in heat
treatment. The formation and growth of phases in heat treat-
ment is modeled by an algorithm based on the Johnson –
Mehl – Avrami – Kolmogorov (JMAK) equation supple-
mented by the concept of fictitious time for predicting the
1 over the thickness of a cylinder in the process of heating and
Laboratory of Mechanics, Modeling and Production (LA2MP),
Sfax, Tunisia (e-mail: mahmoud yaakoubi@yahoo.fr).
mation of various phases during cooling [3 – 7]. The growth
of phases in a diffusion transformation is preceded by an in-
cubation period, the duration of which is estimated by the
Scheil rule [8. 9]. If the rate of quenching cooling exceeds
the critical value, a martensitic transformation develops, in
which the fraction of martensite may be predicted by the
Koistinen – Marburger law [3, 10, 11].
The aim of the present work was to develop an additional
modulus for the ABAQUS software for solving a joint heat
and diffusion problem with allowance for the phase transfor-
mations on the surface of a specimen subjected to surface
quenching and to compute such variable parameters as the
austenite grain size, the content of phases formed during
cooling, and the distribution of hardness over the thickness
of the specimen after quenching. The applicability of the
suggested simulation tool was estimated by comparing com-
puted and experimental data.
COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
Modeling of Heat Treatment
Thermal computations. The distribution of temperature
cooling was determined by solving the heat transfer equation

386
0026-0673/13/0708-0386 © 2013 Springer Science + Business Media New York
Simulation of Heat Treatment and Materials with the Use of the ABAQUS Software
with the Dirichlet boundary condition with the help of the
ABAQUS software, i.e.,
¶T
r Cp = div(l grad(T )) + q&; (1)
¶t
Ts = f (t ), (2)
where T is the temperature, l is the thermal conductivity, r is
the density, Cp is the specific heat, q& is the thermal power re-
leased or absorbed during the phase transformation, t is the
time, and Ts is the surface temperature. The initial condition
for t = 0 at each point of the specimen is
T = T0 , (3)
where T0 is the initial temperature of the specimen. The
boundary condition is represented by Eq. (2), where Ts is a
variable surface temperature that describes the thermal cycle
on the surface and is obtained experimentally.
Functional possibilities of the ABAQUS in simulation
of the behavior of materials in heat treatment. We have de-
veloped subroutine interfaces that permit determination of
important characteristics of materials, which cannot be esti-
mated with the help of the standard version of the ABAQUS.
In addition, the user subroutines make it possible to deter-
mine solution-dependent state variables SDV, user-defined
fields FIELD(n ), where n is the number of the field, and the
heat flux FLUX due to the internal source of heat, which can
be connected, for example, with the phase transformations in
the material modeled in the solution [12]. The user subrou-
tines are commonly written in the FORTRAN programming
language and are included into the model when an analysis is
executed. The subroutines should be created with great care.
Specifically, the first statement after the argument list should
be “include ‘aba param.inc’ ” in order to provide linkage
with the standard ABAQUS solver. The file ‘aba param.inc’
is installed by the ABAQUS installation procedure and con-
tains important installation parameters. This statement tells
the ABAQUS execution procedure, which complies and
links the user subroutine with the rest of the ABAQUS, to in-
clude the ‘aba param.inc’ file automatically. There is no
need to search for the file and to copy it to any particular di-
rectory; the ABAQUS will know where to find it.
“UMAT” User Subroutine
The leading role in modeling a phase transformation dur-
ing quenching belongs to the evolution of the temperature
and of the time. For example, the user subroutine “UMAT”
involves several variables for storing of data characterizing
nonstationary analysis such as the running time, the time in-
crement, the initial temperature increment, the number of
step, the number of increment, etc. Therefore, such variables
as the proportion of a phase, the transformation temperature,
the relative content of carbon, the size of austenite grains,
etc. are defined as SDV. At each time increment the UMAT
subroutine is addressed and the values of the SDV are com-
387
puted at all points of the elements of the analyzed material by
the algorithm of the user.
Upon heating above the temperature Ac1 the initial fer-
rite-pearlite structure of a steel is transformed into austenite.
This transformation finishes when the temperature Ac3 is at-
tained. During cooling the austenite decomposes into ferrite,
pearlite, bainite or martensite depending on the cooling rate.
The austenization and the diffusion kinetics are computed by
the algorithm of D. Farias [13] that has been educed from the
modeling of F. Fernandes [14]. This modeling is based on ex-
panding the JMAK isothermal kinetics to the law of
anisothermal transformation. For this purpose a continuous
temperature curve is replaced by a sequence of elementary
isothermal transformation steps, and the proportion of the
new phase is computed using the concept of fictitious time
[15, 16]. An exception is the case of diffusion transforma-
tions, when the growth of phases is preceded by a stage of
nucleation modeled with the help of Scheil’s sum [8]. The
distribution of the proportion of carbon in the formed austen-
ite depends on the kinetics of the phase transformation dur-
ing cooling. This distribution is modeled in accordance with
the variation of the temperature DT = Tmax – Ac1, where Tmax
is the heating temperature. For example, when the proportion
of carbon in the austenite is equal to the proportion of carbon
in the steel, the austenite becomes homogeneous. The tem-
perature of the start of martensitic transformation Ms de-
pends on the austenite grain size (AGS); in this case the com-
putation is performed by the Leblond relation [17]. The tem-
perature Ms is estimated from empirical formulas that in-
volve the proportion of carbon and the austenite grain size as
variables [18 – 20]. A martensitic transformation is com-
monly modeled by the Koistinen – Marburguer equations
[11]. The distribution of hardness over the thickness of a
specimen is estimated in accordance with the following con-
cepts [14, 21, 22]:
– the hardness of a multiphase material is determined by
a linear dependence on the set of hardnesses of the compo-
nents;
– the hardness of the ferrite, pearlite and bainite formed
in the process of cooling is determined by the temperature of
their formation;
– the hardness of the martensite depends only on the
content of carbon in the austenite, from which the martensite
has been formed.
“HETVAL” User Subroutine
This user subroutine is used to determine the internal
source of heat (FLUX) connected with the phase transforma-
tion and is represented by the value of the heat power in the
heat transfer equation, i.e.,
DZ i
q& = å H i .
i Dt i
To estimate the distribution of temperature at any mo-
ment of time this equation is solved with the help of the stan-
388
Elements, nodes,
loads, initial and
boundary
z k s, H
conditions
T(t), T(r), z(k), %C(r,t)
D(r, t), Ms(r), HV(r), ...
Fig. 1. Integrated thermal diffusion diagram for simulation with the
help of the ABAQUS software.
dard ABAQUS solver for each time increment in succession
for all the points of partition of the specimen. Indeed, an
austenitic transformation is an endothermic process (accom-
panied by absorption of heat), wheres a diffusion transforma-
tion and a martensitic transformation are exothermic pro-
cesses. In our model Hi [J/m3 ] is the enthalpy of the ith
phase transformation and DZi is the increment of the volume
fraction of the ith phase formed in time interval Dti .
The value of DZi in this user subroutine is computed for
each time increment. The subroutine employs the time, the
time increment, the temperature, and other parameters as
variables.
“USDFLD” User Subroutine
This subroutine makes it possible to determine the field
of variables FIELD(n) at points of the material as a function
of time for any amount of substance or state variable accessi-
ble for the points, which are determined by other subrou-
tines, such as “UMAT.” Consequently, solution-dependent
properties of the material can be used in the modeling, be-
cause they are defined as functions of the temperature and
field variables. In our case such characteristics as the thermal
conductivity, the density, and the specific heat have been
computed with allowance for the temperature and micro-
structure by the additivity law at each time increment. For
example, the thermophysical characteristic P for the ith ma-
terial point at time moment j is determined from the equation
Pi, j = å z i , j , k Pi , j , k (T ),
k
where zi, j, i and Pi, j, i (T ) are the proportion of and the ther-
mophysical characteristic of phase k for the ith point at mo-
ment j, respectively. Thus, the fields in the “USDFLD” user
subroutine may be defined as follows: FIELD(1) = zper for
pearlite, FIELD(2) = zfer for ferrite, FIELD(3) = zaus for aus-
tenite, FIELD(4) = zbai for bainite, and FIELD(5) = zmar for
martensite.
M. Yaakoubi et al.
TABLE 1. Parameters of Experimental Heat Treatment
Specimen th , sec taus , °C vh , K/sec vc , K/sec
D,
C, ...
% V,
,
1 4.02 1060 360 465
M
2 4.60 1108 600 460
3 7.20 982 220 472
Notations: th is the duration of heating, taus is the austenization
temperature, vh is the heating rate, and vc is the cooling rate.
Integrated Thermal Diffusion Diagram
Figure 1 presents the final diagram of the thermo-diffu-
sion procedure of simulation with the help of the ABAQUS
software. We depict the three subroutines (“UMAT,”
USDFLD,” and “HETVAL”) necessary for a user. The first is
used for computing the changes in microstructure, the tem-
peratures Ac1, Ac3 and Ms , the austenite grain size, and the
hardness. The changes in the fields on which the thermal
properties depend are determined by the “USDFLD” subrou-
tine. These fields depend on the evolution of the microstruc-
ture. The “HETVAL” subroutine is used for estimating the
latent heat absorbed or released during phase transforma-
tions. The heat transfer problem is solved with allowance for
this latent heat. To solve the problem we also use the geomet-
ric parameters of the object, the finite-element model, the
properties of the material, the heat loads, initial and boun-
dary conditions, etc. These data are entered into the
ABAQUS through an input file. The results of the analysis,
such as the temperature field, the structural transformations,
the proportion of carbon, the austenite grain size, the distri-
bution of the hardness, etc. are stored in the output file of the
database.
Simulation and Discussion of Results
We have simulated fast thermal processes based on heat-
ing the surface of three cylindric specimens 16 mm in diame-
ter produced from steel ISO C40 (0.43% C) for testing the
suggested simulation tool and the possibility of application
of the concepts developed. The test parameters for these
specimens are presented in Table 1.
The thermophysical characteristics (l, r, Cp ) of steel
ISO C40 (Fig. 2) were assumed to obey the same type of de-
pendence on the temperature for all the structures, except for
austenite. The typical temperatures of transformations for the
steel are Ac1 = 740°C, Ac3 = 805°C, Bs = 600°C, Bf = Ms0 =
310°C, where Bs is the start of bainitic transformation and Bf
is its finish.
Results of Thermal Analysis
The processes of heat treatment of the three specimens
are characterized by different heating rates and austenization
temperatures. Hardening for martensite occurs if the cooling
Simulation of Heat Treatment and Materials with the Use of the ABAQUS Software 389

l, W/(m × K) t, °C
55 Surface
Ferrite 1000 à
50 1.5 mm
Austenite
45 800 Center
40
35 600
30
400
25
20 200
15 à
10 0 3 6 9 12 t, sec
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 t, °C
t, °C Surface
960
b
1.5 mm
r, kg/m3
800 Center
7900
7850 640
7800 480
7750
320
7700
7650 160
7600
0 3 6 9 12 t, sec
7550 t, °C
7500 b
c
7450 Surface 1.5 mm
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 800
t, °C
Center
600
Cp , J/(kg × K)
900 400

800 200

700
0 3 6 9 12 t, sec
600 Fig. 3. Heating and cooling curves for specimens 1 (a), 2 (b ) and
3 (c) on the surface, at a distance of 1.5 mm from the surface, and in
500
the center: solid lines) computed data; dash and dash-and-dot lines)
c
experimental results.
400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
t, °C

Fig. 2. Temperature dependences of thermophysical characteristics Phase Transformations

of steel ISO C40: a) thermal conductivity l; b ) density; c) specific
heat Cp .
rate exceeds the critical one. We fastened three thermo-
couples to each specimen for measuring the thermal cycles
on the surface, at a distance of 1.5 mm from the surface, and
in the center. The modes of the thermal cycle on the surface
were used as boundary conditions for the first numerical
computations, and the modes of the second and subsequent
cycles were used to compare the numerical and experimental
results for verifying the simulation procedure. Figure 3 pre-
sents computed and experimental curves. We can see that the
computed and experimental results match well for the two
chosen radial abscissas. The greatest difference between the
curves may be explained by the not very accurate measure-
ment due to the high volume gradient of the temperature.
Heating. High concentrations of eddy currents in the sur-
face layers of the specimens initiate high volume gradients of
the temperature, which are responsible for fast heating. In
this case control of the phase transformations and of the size
of austenite grains is a difficult task. The evolution of forma-
tion of austenite has not been considered only for specimen 2.
Figure 4 presents the results of some measurements of the
content of austenite during heating of specimen 2 (four tests).
The results of the measurements differ, and the differ-
ence is especially great in the regions heated at high rates.
However, comparison of the experimental and computed
data shows that the computations give good results at the
start and in the end of the austenization and in the case of
transition from a pearlite-austenite transformation to a fer-
rite-austenite one.
The changes in the critical temperatures Ac1 and Ac3
were estimated by computing the kinetics of formation of
austenite. The results allow us to infer that these tempera-
390 M. Yaakoubi et al.

Vàus , vol. fraction C, %

1.0 0.7
0.9 0.6
0.8 Ferrite ® àustenite
0.7 0.5

0.6 0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4 à
0.3 Pearlite ® austenite 0.2
0 2 4 6 8
0.2 h, mm
0.1
C, %
0 1 2 t, sec 0.7
0.6
Fig. 4. Kinetic curves of formation of austenite due to heating of
specimen 2 (Vaus is the volume fraction of austenite): :) computed 0.5
data; N, *, ^, =) experimental results. 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 b
tures correspond to 3 and 97% of the formed austenite. Ta-
ble 2 presents the values of computed and experimental criti- 0 2 4 6 8
h, mm
cal temperatures for the case of heating of three specimens. It
can be seen that the computed and experimental data match Fig. 5. Distribution of carbon in austenite over the thickness of
well. specimens 1 (a) and 2 (b ) in the end of heating to the austenization
Note that the grain size on the surface of a specimen is temperature (h is the distance from the surface): solid, dash, and
dash-and-dot lines) homogeneous, enriched and depleted austenite,
determined with scattering of from ± 0.5 mm to ± 2,5 mm,
respectively.
i.e., the scattering is on order of the error of the computation
(Table 2). Thus, we may conclude that the chosen law for
computing the grain size is satisfactory.
The results of the determination of the proportion of car- Cooling
bon in austenite, which depends on the austenization temper- The data of Table 4 allow us to compare the computed
ature, are presented in Table 3. The surface of the first two and experimental values of the temperature of the start of
specimens contains homogeneous austenite, i.e., the propor- martensitic transformation for three specimens. In specimens
tion of carbon in the austenite is equal to that in the steel 1 and 2 near the surface the austenite is homogeneous. The
(0.43%). In the third specimen the austenization temperature temperature Ms in this region depends on the size of the aus-
has been insufficient for homogenization of the austenite. tenite grains. The coincidence of the computed and experi-
Therefore, the specimen contains two types of austenite, i.e., mental data implies that M shom increases upon growth of the
(1 ) saturated one, with carbon concentration exceeding its
austenite grains. In specimen 3 the depleted and enriched
concentration in the matrix, and (2 ) depleted one, where the
austenites containing different amounts of carbons have
carbon content is lower than in the steel (Fig. 5). In this stage
transformed successively into dark and light martensite at
the experimental and computed data were not compared.
two different temperatures Ms . The highest of these tempera-
This will be done below when discussing the temperature Ms
tures (M sdark ) coincides with the experimental value of Ms .
and the hardness.
Figure 6 presents the dependence of the proportion of

TABLE 2. Critical Temperatures and Diameter of Austenite Grains

Due to Heating at Different Rates TABLE 3. Proportion of Carbon in Austenite at the Surface at the
End of Heating of Specimens
Specimen vh , K/sec Ac1, °C Ac3, °C daus , mm
Proportion of carbon, %
1 360 756/757 829/832 12.2/12.5
Specimen taus , °C
2 600 758/760 834/838 18.5/19.0 Enriched Depleted Homogeneous
3 220 austenite austenite austenite
753/756 825/828 7.0/9.5
1 1060 – – 0.43
Notations: vh is the heating rate; daus is the diameter of austenite 2 1108 – – 0.43
grains in the surface layer.
3 982 0.476 0.394 –
Note. The numerators present the computed data; the denominators
present the experimental results. Notations: taus is the austenization temperature.
Simulation of Heat Treatment and Materials with the Use of the ABAQUS Software 391

M, rel. units Àret; F; P; B; M, vol. fraction

1.0 2 1.0
à
0.8 Mhom
1 0.8
A B C D E
0.6
0.6
0.4 B
F Mlight
0.4
0.2
à P
0.2 Mdark
0 100 200 300 400 Àret
t, °C 0

M, rel. units HV10, ÌPà

1.0 6 700 b
A B C D E
0.8 600
5
0.6 500
3
0.4 400

4 300
0.2
b
200
0 2 4 6 8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 h, mm
t, °C
Fig. 7. Distribution of phases in the surface layer (a), variation of
Fig. 6. Dependence of the volume fraction of martensite M on the the computed (the solid line) and experimental (the marks) hardness
temperature in the process of cooling of specimens 1 (a) and 2 (b ): HV over the thickness of specimen 1 (b ) after surface quenching
1 ) homogeneous martensite (computation); 3 and 4 ) light and dark (h is the distance from the center): Mhom , Mlight , Mdark ) homoge-
martensite (computation); 5 ) total content of martensite (computa- neous, light and dark martensite, respectively; B ) bainite; P ) pear-
tion); 2 and 6 ) experimental curves. lite; F ) ferrite; Aret ) retained austenite.

martensite on the temperature for specimens 2 and 3. It can Figure 7 presents the distribution of the phases and of the
be seen that the cooling curves obtained by computation and hardness over the thickness of specimen 1 after heat treat-
experimentally coincide. ment. The hardness was measured in sections perpendicular
Similar results were obtained for specimen 1 when we to its axis. In the direction from the center to the surface of
measured the hardness over its thickness after quenching the specimen the initial pearlite partially transforms into en-
(Fig. 7). The hardness of the other specimens was measured riched austenite, because the transformation of pearlite into
only on the surface at a load of 10 kg; the scattering of the enriched austenite precedes the transformation of ferrite into
measured results was ± 20 HV (Table 4). We may conclude depleted austenite. Due to the relatively low rate of cooling
that the computed values of the proportion of carbon in the in this zone (A ) the bainite-martensite transformation does
austenite are adequate. not occur, and the hardness increases inconsiderably (from
300 to 350 HV ), because the austenization is not complete.
In zone B the initial pearlite transforms fully into enriched
TABLE 4. Temperature of the Start of Martensitic Transformation austenite, but this is accompanied by partial austenization of
and Hardness of Specimens after Quenching the ferrite. Thus, the growth in the fraction of martensite
Computation Experiment leads the growth in the hardness. The temperature in zone C
Speci- is higher than Ac3, which reflects the end of the auste-
men M light , °C M dark, °C M hom , °C HV, Ms , °C HV,
s s s
kgf/mm2 kgf/mm2 nization. The growth in the fraction of bainite in the cooling
process leads the growth in the hardness. In zone D the con-
1 – – 329 764 331 746
tent of bainite decreases somewhat, and that of martensite in-
2 – – 343 747 345 735
creases due to the high rate of cooling of this part of the spec-
3 294 323 – 752 320 736
imen. Since the hardness of martensite exceeds that of bai-
Notations: M slight , M sdark, and M shom ) computed values of the tem- nite, the total hardness increases until so does the fraction of
perature of the start of martensitic transformation (for light, dark and
martensite. Near the surface, the high temperature (1060°C)
homogeneous martensite, respectively); Ms ) experimental tempera- and the dissolution of alloying elements in the austenite dur-
ture of the start of martensitic transformation; HV ) hardness of the ing heating result in homogenization. For this reason, the
steel after quenching. carbon concentration in the thin surface layer of homoge-
392
neous martensite (zone E ) formed due to fast cooling is con-
stant and equals its content in the steel. The hardness of the
surface layer of martensite is about 746 HV.
CONCLUSIONS
Thermal and diffusion computations used for analyzing
dilatometric curves describing fast heating and cooling of a
material make it possible to check the evolution laws chosen
for describing various phenomena that characterize fast
austenization and their effect on the structure of martensite.
The ABAQUS software used for the computation is linked to
user subroutines.
The user subroutines simulate phase transformations
with allowance for the temperature fields and make it possi-
ble to predict the hardness. This means of thermo-diffusion
simulation has three advantages over the standard method,
namely, (1 ) improvement of the algorithm of computation of
phase transformations and hardness, (2 ) possibility to
change the algorithm and compare various models in order to
choose the most suitable of them, and (3 ) no need for other
softwares for simulation but the ABAQUS, which is an
available means for simulating phase transformations and
this lowers the expenses.
The performed simulation of the process of surface
quenching has shown only inconsiderable differences be-
tween computational and experimental results. This implies
that the suggested simulation tool is adequate for solving
problems of surface heat treatment and makes it possible to
predict the microstructure and hardness profiles of a mate-
rial. The computational techniques described will be applied
for describing the variation of mechanical properties in in-
duction quenching.
REFERENCES
1. M. Kchaou, D. Durand, and F. Dammak, “Superficial quenching
of mechanical pieces and calculation of residual stresses: mo-
deling and simulation,” Metal Sci. Heat Treat., 52(3 – 4) (2010).
2. M. Kchaou, M. Yaakoubi, and F. Dammak, “Effect of the super-
ficial hardening on distortion and stress state: application on
bearing race,” Int. Rev. Mechan. Eng., 3(4), July (2009).
3. Caner Simsir and Cemil Hakan Gur, “A mathematical frame-
work for simulation of thermal processing of materials: applica-
tion to steel quenching,” Turkish J. Eng. Env. Sci., 132, 85 – 100
(2008).
4. R. C. Dykhuizen, C. V. Robino, and G. A. Knorovsky, “A
method for extracting phase change kinetics from dilatation for
multistep transformations: austenitisation of low carbon steel,”
Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 30B, 107 (1999).
5. M. Elfenne, “Etude thermique et métallurgique de la couche
trempée par pulvérisation d’eau aprés chauffage superficiel par
View publication stats
M. Yaakoubi et al.
induction d’un acier XC42,” in: Thesis INPL, Nancy (1985),
p. 105.
6. J. W. Christian, The Theory of Phase Transformations in Metals
and Alloys. Part 1, Pergamon Press, New York (1981),
pp. 525 – 548.
7. J. Orlich, “Les processus d’austenitisation au cours de l’échauf-
fement rapide et l’échauffement par impulsion de l’acier,”
Traitement Thermique, 90, 69 – 75 (1974).
8. Caner Simsir and C. Hakan Gur, “3D FEM simulation of steel
quenching and investigation of the effect of asymmetric geome-
try on residual stress distribution,” J. Mater. Proc. Technol.,
207, 211, 221 (2008).
9. A. M. Habraken and M. Bourdouxhe, “Coupled thermo-me-
chanical-metallurgical analysis during cooling process of steel
pieces,” Eur. J. Mechan. A. Solids, 11(3), 381 – 402 (1992).
10. W. P. Oleivera, M. A. Savi, P. M. C. L. Pacheco, and L. F. G. Sou-
za, “Thermo mechanical analysis of steel cylinders quenching
using a constitutive model with diffusional and non-diffusional
phase transformations,” Mechan. Mater., 42, 31 – 43 (2010).
11. D. P. Koistinen and R. E. Marburguer, “A general equation pre-
scribing extent of the austenite-martensite transformation in
pure Fe – C alloys and plain carbon steels,” Acta Metall., 7,
59 – 60 (1959).
12. “ABAQUS documentation,” in: ABAQUS Analysis User’s
Manual.
13. D. Farias, S. Denis, and A. Simon, “Les transformations de
phases en cycle thermique rapide et leur modélisation. Cas d’un
acier XC42,” Traitement Thermique, 237, 63 – 70 (1990).
14. F. M. B. Fernandes, “Modélisation et calcul de l’évolution de la
température et de la microstructure au cours du refroidissement
continu des aciers,” in: Thesis INPL, Nancy (1985), p. 177.
15. M. Melander, “A computational and experimental investigation
of induction and laser hardening,” in: Thesis Linkoping, Suede
(1985), p. 124.
16. W. I. Pumphrey and F. W. Jones, “Inter-relation of hardenability
and isothermal transformations,” Data JISI, 159, 137 – 144
(1948).
17. J. B. Leblond and J. Devaux, “A new kinetic model for aniso-
thermal metallurgical transformations in steels including effect
of austenite grain size,” Acta Metall., 32(1), 137 – 146 (1984).
18. S. J. Lee and Y. K. Lee, “Effect of austenite grain size on mar-
tensitic transformation of a low alloy steel,” Mater. Sci. Forum,
475 – 479, 3169 – 3172 (2005).
19. Jiang Yue, Yin Zhong-da, Kang Peng-chao, and Liu Yong,
“Fuzzy modeling of prediction of Ms temperature for marten-
sitic stainless steel,” J. Wuhan Univ. of Technol., Mater. Sci. Ed.,
19(4) (2004).
20. M. Umemoto and J. A. Feeney, “Effect of austenitizing tempe-
rature and austenite grain size on the formation of a thermal
martensite in an iron-nickel-carbon alloy,” Metall. Trans. A, 5A,
September, 2041 – 2046 (1974).
21. D. Mercier, X. Decoopman, and D. Chicot, “Model to deter-
mine the depth of a diffusion layer by normal indentations to the
surface,” Surf. Coat. Technol., 202, 3419 – 3426 (2008).
22. B. Smoljian, S. S. Hanza, N. Tomašiæ, and D. Iljkiæ, “Computer
simulation of microstructure transformation in heat treatment
processes,” J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng., 24, 275 – 282
(2007).