Failure in Steels

DOMINANT
FAILURE MODES IN STEELS

Pratheek Shanthraj

Steels have numerous high strength, wear resistant, and high toughness applications
(Cohen 1962; Cohen 1963; Kimura, Inoue et al. 2008). These diverse properties are
due to different types of product phases or microstructures, which form as a result
of various kinds of phase transformations in steels.

Recently, significant increases in strengths have been achieved through the
development of advanced high strength steels, processing techniques and
treatments. Steels such as martensitic steels, bainitic steels, dual phase steels, and
transformation induced plasticity steels have been developed with unique
microstructures, while processing techniques such as ultrafine grain refinement
through severe plastic deformation (Valiev, Islamgaliev et al. 2000), and the
treatment of grain boundaries and deformation-‐induced phase transformations
have been exploited to suppress failure modes.

However, a complete understanding of the complex relation between processing,
microstructure and failure in these steels, which is essential is developing advanced
steels, is presently lacking.

Martensitic steels:

Martensitic microstructures such as lath, plate and butterflies have been observed
in steels (Otsuka and Wayman 1999) and have characterized in detail (Morito,
Kishida et al. 2003; Morito, Tanaka et al. 2003; Morito, Huang et al. 2006). In
addition, aspects of a typical microstructure are prior austenitic grain size, retained
austenite and many types of carbide and other second-‐phase particles.

Dynamic failure in martensitic steels is characterized by the development of
intensely localized shear bands (Minnaar and Zhou 1998). The fracture behavior of
martensitic steels is significantly affected by carbon content and second phase
particles (Krauss 1995). At lower carbon contents (< 0.5%) failure through ductile
fracture, with second-‐phase particles serving as sites for micro-‐void nucleation, is
observed as opposed to intergranular fracture due to grain boundary
embrittlement, and transgranular fracture in the absence of embrittlement at higher
carbon contents (>0.5%) (Krauss 2001).

It has been observed that the size of cleavage facets under brittle transgranular
fracture is related to the packet size (Inoue, Matsuda et al. 1970; Matsuda, Okamura
et al. 1972). This is because the crystallographic orientation of parallel laths within
blocks and packets is largely common, and this results in common {100} cleavage
planes running through a block or packet.

Refinement of martensitic packet size is an effective method to increase toughness
by increasing the incompatibility in cleavage planes and suppressing brittle fracture
(Morris 2008). However, this method has been met with limited success, as grain
refinement is known to deteriorate the ductility (Tsuji, Kamikawa et al. 2008).

To overcome the loss of ductility, the deformation induced transformation of
retained austenite at the lath boundaries to a crystallographically different
martensite variant, thus disrupting the compatibility of cleavage planes within a
block, has also been recently suggested as an effective mechanism to suppress
brittle failure modes (Guo and Morris 2005). Ductility is improved through the
presence of the tougher retained austenite phase as well as the increased strain
hardening due to the deformation-‐induced transformation.

Bainitic steels:

A bainitic microstructure is characterized by highly dislocated ferritic phase
(Bhadeshia and Edmonds 1980). The morphology of the microstructure is similar to
lath martensite: parallel ferritic lath structures having similar orientations group
together to form packets, which subdivide the prior austenite grain. It is also known
that the relative orientations of the bainitic ferrite and the parent austenite are close
to the classical KS or NW relationships (Bouyne, Flower et al. 1998; Furuhara,
Kawata et al. 2006). However, there is a discrepancy in experimental measurements
of the habit plane of bainitic ferrite (Luo and Liu 2006).

The sub-‐micrometer scale of the bainitic ferrite laths, the ferrite dislocation density,
which is largely mobile, and the excess carbon concentration in ferrite contribute to
the microstructure strength (Bhadeshia 2007). In addition, considerable ductility
and fracture toughness is gained through the addition of a representative fraction of
a softer phase such as retained austenite (Garcia-‐Mateo and Caballero 2005).

Dual phase steels:

Dual phase steels possess a composite microstructure, which consists of
predominantly martensite, with bainite, pearlite or austenite in a matrix of a softer
ferrite phase (Shen, Lei et al. 1986). Mechanical properties are affected by the ferrite
grain size and the volume fraction, morphology and carbon content of the
martensite phase.

In dual phase steels with a high martensite volume fraction, decohesion of the
ferrite/martensite interface occurs (Ghadbeigi, Pinna et al. 2010). Ductile fracture is
observed as a result of plastic strain localization caused by the incompatible
deformation between the hard martensite phase and the soft ferrite phase (Kang,
Ososkov et al. 2007). At lower martensite volume fractions, shear localization occurs
along shear bands, whereas at higher martensite volume fractions, shear
localizations occur along the ferrite grain boundary (Choi, Liu et al. 2009). Damage
is initiated from fractured martensite particles, with linking of fractured particles
developing through areas with high density of the martensite particles, and also
from decohesion of ferrite/martensite interfaces, developing through the interface
of ferrite/martensite and passing through areas with low density of martensite
(Hadianfard 2009).

It has recently observed that the presence of a hard martensite phase in ultrafine
grain refined ferritic steels acts to improve strain hardening and ductility through
the generation of geometrically necessary dislocations to accommodate the
incompatibility at the martensite/ferrite interface (Aldazabal and Sevillano 2004;
Park, Lee et al. 2005). While possessing high strength, ductility is poor in ultrafine-‐
grained materials (Koch 2003), and dual phase steels offer a promising pathway
towards achieving high strength, high toughness steels.

TRIP steels:

TRIP steels are multi-‐phase steels, which consists of a ferrite matrix containing
bainite, martensite and a fraction of metastable retained austenite (Sugimoto, Usui
et al. 1992). The combination of high strength and ductility achieved by this
microstructure is attributed to the effects of transformation induced plasticity
(TRIP) mechanisms (Lee, Kim et al. 2004) on deformation-‐induced transformation
of retained austenite to martensite. Thus, the mechanical properties are significantly
affected by the volume fraction of retained austenite, in addition to the ferrite grain
size, and the morphology of martensite and bainite phases.

TRIP steels have recently been used in combination with ultrafine grain refinement
processes (Tomota, Narui et al. 2008). Ultrafine-‐grained steels show surprisingly
high strength and toughness. However, these steels have very limited ductility due
to the onset of early plastic instability (Tsuji, Ito et al. 2002). The TRIP effect can be
used to improve ductility by enhancing the strain-‐hardening rate of the steel.

The rate of phase transformation is dependent on the plastic strain, and
temperature (Jeong, Matlock et al. 1993). If the rate of transformation is too low, the
plastic instability of the ultrafine-‐grained structure will dominate, and if the rate of
transformation is too high, the retained austenite is quickly exhausted, with both
cases leading to failure at small strains. However, this indicates that an optimal rate
exists at which large stable plastic deformations rates are sustained by the
transformation of retained austenite (Morris 2008).

In addition, deformation induced transformation behavior in these steels can be
exploited to design adaptive microstrutures. Here, advantage is taken of the
volumetric expansion resulting from the transformation from austenite to
martensite, and the crystallographic and mechanical properties of martensite. For
example, when under the stress of an advancing crack-‐tip or growing void, local
retained austenite will be triggered to transform to martensite, and the stresses
from the associated volumetric expansion act to mitigate the advancing crack or
void growth, while the crystallography and high strength of the surrounding
martensite acts as a further barrier. This is similar to the toughening mechanism
observed in partially stabilized zirconia (Hannink, Kelly et al. 2000), with the
advantage of preserving the ductility of austenite in regions not affected by localized
damage.

Future research:

A promising avenue for future research in steel alloys is the modeling of failure
mitigation through deformation induced phase transformations and novel ultrafine-‐
grained multi-‐phase steel microstructures.

There is a large amount of recent experimental work on ultrafine-‐grained steels,
with a trend towards nanocrystalline materials (Wei, Kecskes et al. 2004; Son, Lee et
al. 2005; Misra, Kumar et al. 2008). At this scale, and in the presence of multiple
phases, such as martensite, bainite, retained austenite and ferrite, interface
dominated deformation mechanisms are significant. Thus, a modeling of this size
effect through a special treatment of interface boundaries, such as a microstructural
sensitive accounting of dislocation nucleation, absorption and transmittance at
interfaces, could provide insights into strengthening mechanisms.

In combination with strengthening from grain refinement, deformation induced
transformation behavior of retained austenite can be exploited to overcome the
limited ductility of ultrafine-‐grained steels. Furthermore, control over the
distribution of retained austenite phase could also result in novel toughening
mechanisms.

Though there has been a lot of experimental and modeling efforts on understanding
the kinetics of this phase transformation (Jeong, Matlock et al. 1993; Tomita and
Iwamoto 1995; Morris 2008), development of multiphase TRIP microstructures for
high strength high toughness applications are still in its initial stages and lacks a
microstructural design motivation. This is due to a lack of a modeling framework.
The recent modeling efforts are phenomenological and microstructure insensitive
(Sun, Choi et al. 2009; Prasannavenkatesan and McDowell 2010). Thus there is a
pressing need for the development of a modeling framework that captures interface
phenomena and phase transformations under inelastic deformation.

Failure modeling: approaches, outcome

The modeling of martensitic phase transformation has been performed in the
context of isotropic plasticity models (Stringfellow, Parks et al. 1992; Tomita and
Iwamoto 1995) as well as crystal plasticity models (Lee, Kim et al. 2010). The phase
transformation kinetics is based on the Olsen-‐Cohen model (Olson and Cohen 1976;
Olson and Cohen 1982) and subsequent modifications (Ball and James 1987). The
main challenge in modeling martensitic phase transformation under mechanical
loading is a proper accounting of the rate of increase of the volume fractions of the
24 martensitic variants, the corresponding crystallographies and transformation
strains associated with each variant, and the transformational dislocation densities.
In what follows, the procedure of (Han, Lee et al. 2004) is modified, by carefully
accounting for the above, to be implemented within the framework of a dislocation-‐
density based crystal plasticity model.

The rate of increase of the volume fraction of the ith martensitic variant can be
expressed as:
f˙ i = v P iαCrf sbr−1 (1 − f sb )γ˙ a
where the volume fraction of shear-‐band, fsb is related to the accumulated plastic
slip in the austenite phase γa by the following relation:
€ f˙sb = α (1 − f sb )γ˙ a
Pi is the probability that ith martensitic variant will nucleate, and is related to the
chemical free energy change for austenite to martensite transformation, ΔG ,
through
€ 0.011
Pi = −
24v N m 0 ΔS
( )
ΔG + σijε Tij ,i
€
where ε ij is transformation strain for the ith martensitic variant. ΔG and α are
T ,i
dependent on temperature, while the remaining parameters are constants and have
been listed in (Han,
€Lee et al. 2004; Lee, Kim et al. 2010) for 204M steel.
Using an appropriate homogenization scheme to handle the inelastic deformations
€
€ in each phase fraction then develops the constitutive model. In what follows a
simple phase faction weighted stress average is used. The plastic deformation and
spin rate tensor in each variant is calculated as
Dijp,n = ∑γ˙α ,n Pijα ,n + f˙ nε ijT ,n , W ijp,n = ∑γ˙α ,nω αij ,n + f˙ n w Tij ,n
α α
for the nth phase. The second terms in the above relations are the transformation
strain and spin rate for each martensitic variant. The stress in each phase is then
updated from the total deformation rate according to
€ €
σˆ ijn = Lnijkl ( Dkl − Dklp,n ) − W ikp,nσkj − W jkp,nσki
and the phase fraction weighted average is taken as the average stress of the
element.
€ σij = ∑ f nσijn
n

There are three main approaches to failure modeling in FEA (Song, Wang et al.
2008): These are extended finite element methods (Belytschko and Black 1999;
Belytschko, Chen et al. € 2003), element deletion methods and cohesive zone
modeling (Ortiz and Pandolfi 1999; Papoulia, Vavasis et al. 2006). While the element
deletion methods are the simplest to implement, they are extremely mesh sensitive.
Extended finite element methods offer the best mesh dependency properties.
However, numerical integration is still an issue with these methods. Cohesive zone
modeling is very powerful for the problem where the crack path is known. However,
the addition of excessive cohesive elements is known to make the system artificially
compliant.

Cohesive elements as well as element deletion methods are easily implemented in
ABAQUS. Although element deletion methods are straightforward to implement in
Crystal2D, the implementation of cohesive elements is more complicated but may be
possible through the modification of the contact element developed for Crystal2D
(my M.S. work on MEMS contact). This can be achieved by replacing the KKT contact
conditions, given by
Tn < 0 , Δ n > 0 and Tn Δ n = 0
with a traction-‐seperation law, which is usually of the form
∂φ ∂φ
Tn = , Tt =
∂Δ n ∂Δ t
€ € €
where, T and Δ is the normal/tangential component of the contact or cohesive force
and displacement jump respectively. The potential, φ , is dependent on a few
parameters such as fracture stress and fracture displacement gap.
€ €

This model for cohesive elements is widely used to model brittle fracture and
interface debonding. However, the model does € not account for the tendency for
materials to fracture along definite crystallographic planes. Preferred cleavage
planes are ones with the lowest packing density, such as {100} planes in BCC
crystals. A simple orientation dependence of the fracture stress used in the potential
can be implemented to provide a more microstructurally informed traction-‐
separation law for the cohesive zone model.

With the implementation of martensitic phase transformation kinetics and crack
propagation using cohesive elements coupled to a microstructurally based traction-‐
separation law, it would be possible to study the effects of lath, block, packet and
phase boundaries on the suppression of crack propagation, and provide a
microstructural basis for the large body of experimental evidence for TRIP assisted
strengthening in steels (Park, Lee et al. 2005; Son, Lee et al. 2005; Morris 2008;
Tsuji, Kamikawa et al. 2008).

For example, in the case of a crack propagating through a martensitic block in the
vicinity of austenite, which is known to be retained along lath boundaries, it is
expected that the presence of retained austenite, and its subsequent transformation
to martensite under the increasing stress field of the advancing crack, will have a
twofold effect in resisting the crack propagation. Firstly, the softening effect of the
transformation strain will reduce the opening stresses at the crack-‐tip. Secondly, the
transformation to a different variant will change the orientation of the cleavage
plane, and thus increase the fracture stress required to open a crack tip. Both these
phenomena are modeled in the above formulations. The presence of a softer ferrite
phase, and more grain boundaries through grain refinement would further serve to
increase toughness. The ultimate goal of this study would be to optimize the
distribution and morphology of phases in the design of advanced steels.

REFERENCES:

Aldazabal, J. and J. G. Sevillano (2004). "Hall-‐Petch behaviour induced by plastic
strain gradients." Materials Science and Engineering a-‐Structural Materials
Properties Microstructure and Processing 365(1-‐2): 186-‐190.
Ball, J. M. and R. D. James (1987). "FINE PHASE MIXTURES AS MINIMIZERS OF
ENERGY." Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 100(1): 13-‐52.
Belytschko, T. and T. Black (1999). "Elastic crack growth in finite elements with
minimal remeshing." International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 45(5): 601-‐620.
Belytschko, T., H. Chen, et al. (2003). "Dynamic crack propagation based on loss of
hyperbolicity and a new discontinuous enrichment." International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 58(12): 1873-‐1905.
Bhadeshia, H. K. D. H. (2007). "The nature, mechanism and properties of strong
bainite." Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Steel Science:
17.
Bhadeshia, H. K. D. H. and D. V. Edmonds (1980). "The Mechanism of Bainite
Formation in Steels." Acta Metallurgica 28(9): 1265-‐1273.
Bouyne, E., H. M. Flower, et al. (1998). "Use of EBSD technique to examine
microstructure and cracking in a bainitic steel." Scripta Materialia 39(3):
295-‐300.
Choi, K. S., W. N. Liu, et al. (2009). "Influence of Manufacturing Processes and
Microstructures on the Performance and Manufacturability of Advanced High
Strength Steels." Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology-‐
Transactions of the Asme 131(4): -‐.
Cohen, M. (1962). "Strengthening of Steel." Transactions of the Metallurgical Society
of Aime 224(4): 638-‐&.
Cohen, M. (1963). "On Development of High Strength in Steel." Journal of the Iron
and Steel Institute 201(10): 833-‐&.
Furuhara, T., H. Kawata, et al. (2006). "Crystallography of upper bainite in Fe-‐Ni-‐C
alloys." Materials Science and Engineering a-‐Structural Materials Properties
Microstructure and Processing 431(1-‐2): 228-‐236.
Garcia-‐Mateo, C. and F. G. Caballero (2005). "Ultra-‐high-‐strength bainitic steels." Isij
International 45(11): 1736-‐1740.
Ghadbeigi, H., C. Pinna, et al. (2010). "Local plastic strain evolution in a high strength
dual-‐phase steel." Materials Science and Engineering a-‐Structural Materials
Guo, Z. and J. W. Morris (2005). "Martensite variants generated by the mechanical
transformation of precipitated interlath austenite." Scripta Materialia 53(8):
933-‐936.
Hadianfard, M. J. (2009). "Low cycle fatigue behavior and failure mechanism of a
dual-‐phase steel." Materials Science and Engineering a-‐Structural Materials
Han, H. N., C. G. Lee, et al. (2004). "A model for deformation behavior and
mechanically induced martensitic transformation of metastable austenitic
steel." Acta Materialia 52(17): 5203-‐5214.
Hannink, R. H. J., P. M. Kelly, et al. (2000). "Transformation toughening in zirconia-‐
containing ceramics." Journal of the American Ceramic Society 83(3): 461-‐
487.
Inoue, T., S. Matsuda, et al. (1970). "Fracture of a Low Carbon Tempered
Martensite." Transactions of the Japan Institute of Metals 11(1): 36-‐&.
Jeong, W. C., D. K. Matlock, et al. (1993). "Effects of Tensile-‐Testing Temperature on
Deformation and Transformation Behavior of Retained Austenite in a 0.14c-‐
1.2si-‐1.5mn Steel with Ferrite Bainite Austenite Structure." Materials Science
and Engineering a-‐Structural Materials Properties Microstructure and
Processing 165(1): 9-‐18.
Kang, J. D., Y. Ososkov, et al. (2007). "Digital image correlation studies for
microscopic strain distribution and damage in dual phase steels." Scripta
Materialia 56(11): 999-‐1002.
Kimura, Y., T. Inoue, et al. (2008). "Inverse temperature dependence of toughness in
an ultrafine grain-‐structure steel." Science 320(5879): 1057-‐1060.
Koch, C. C. (2003). "Optimization of strength and ductility in nanocrystalline and
ultrafine grained metals." Scripta Materialia 49(7): 657-‐662.
Krauss, G. (1995). "Heat-‐Treated Martensitic Steels -‐ Microstructural Systems for
Advanced Manufacture." Isij International 35(4): 349-‐359.
Krauss, G. (2001). "Deformation and fracture in martensitic carbon steels tempered
at low temperatures." Metallurgical and Materials Transactions a-‐Physical
Metallurgy and Materials Science 32(4): 861-‐877.
Lee, C. G., S. J. Kim, et al. (2004). "Effects of volume fraction and stability of retained
austenite on formability in a 0.1C-‐1.5Si-‐1.5Mn-‐0.5Cu TRIP-‐aided cold-‐rolled
steel sheet." Materials Science and Engineering a-‐Structural Materials
Lee, M. G., S. J. Kim, et al. (2010). "Crystal plasticity finite element modeling of
mechanically induced martensitic transformation (MIMT) in metastable
austenite." International Journal of Plasticity 26(5): 688-‐710.
Luo, C. P. and J. Liu (2006). "Crystallography of lath martensite and lower bainite in
alloy steels." Materials Science and Engineering a-‐Structural Materials
Properties Microstructure and Processing 438: 149-‐152.
Matsuda, S., Y. Okamura, et al. (1972). "Toughness and Effective Grain-‐Size in Heat-‐
Treated Low-‐Alloy High-‐Strength Steels." Transactions of the Iron and Steel
Institute of Japan 12(5): 325-‐&.
Minnaar, K. and M. Zhou (1998). "An analysis of the dynamic shear failure resistance
of structural metals." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 46(10):
2155-‐2170.
Misra, R. D. K., B. R. Kumar, et al. (2008). "Deformation processes during tensile
straining of ultrafine/nanograined structures formed by reversion in
metastable austenitic steels." Scripta Materialia 59(1): 79-‐82.
Morito, S., X. Huang, et al. (2006). "The morphology and crystallography of lath
martensite in alloy steels." Acta Materialia 54(19): 5323-‐5331.
Morito, S., I. Kishida, et al. (2003). "Microstructure of ausformed lath martensite in
18%Ni maraging steel." Journal De Physique Iv 112: 453-‐456.
Morito, S., H. Tanaka, et al. (2003). "The morphology and crystallography of lath
martensite in Fe-‐C alloys." Acta Materialia 51(6): 1789-‐1799.
Morris, J. W. (2008). "Comments on the microstructure and properties of ultrafine
grained steel." Isij International 48(8): 1063-‐1070.
Morris, J. W. (2008). "Materials science -‐ Stronger, tougher steels." Science
320(5879): 1022-‐1023.
Olson, G. B. and M. Cohen (1976). "GENERAL MECHANISM OF MARTENSITIC
NUCLEATION .1. GENERAL CONCEPTS AND FCC-‐ HCP TRANSFORMATION."
Metallurgical Transactions a-‐Physical Metallurgy and Materials Science
7(12): 1897-‐1904.
Olson, G. B. and M. Cohen (1982). "STRESS-‐ASSISTED ISOTHERMAL MARTENSITIC-‐
TRANSFORMATION -‐ APPLICATION TO TRIP STEELS." Metallurgical
Transactions a-‐Physical Metallurgy and Materials Science 13(11): 1907-‐
1914.
Ortiz, M. and A. Pandolfi (1999). "Finite-‐deformation irreversible cohesive elements
for three-‐dimensional crack-‐propagation analysis." International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 44(9): 1267-‐1282.
Otsuka, K. and C. M. Wayman (1999). "Shape Memory Alloys." Cambridge University
Press.
Papoulia, K. D., S. A. Vavasis, et al. (2006). "Spatial convergence of crack nucleation
using a cohesive finite-‐element model on a pinwheel-‐based mesh."
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 67(1): 1-‐16.
Park, K. T., Y. K. Lee, et al. (2005). "Fabrication of ultrafine grained
ferrite/martensite dual phase steel by severe plastic deformation." Isij
International 45(5): 750-‐755.
Prasannavenkatesan, R. and D. L. McDowell (2010). "Polycrystal Plasticity Modeling
of Cyclic Residual Stress Relaxation in Shot Peened Martensitic Gear Steel."
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology-‐Transactions of the Asme
132(3): -‐.
Shen, H. P., T. C. Lei, et al. (1986). "Microscopic Deformation-‐Behavior of Martensitic
Ferritic Dual-‐Phase Steels." Materials Science and Technology 2(1): 28-‐33.
Son, Y. I., Y. K. Lee, et al. (2005). "Ultrafine grained ferrite-‐marten site dual phase
steels fabricated via equal channel angular pressing: Microstructure and
tensile properties." Acta Materialia 53(11): 3125-‐3134.
Song, J. H., H. W. Wang, et al. (2008). "A comparative study on finite element
methods for dynamic fracture." Computational Mechanics 42(2): 239-‐250.
Stringfellow, R. G., D. M. Parks, et al. (1992). "A CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR
TRANSFORMATION PLASTICITY ACCOMPANYING STRAIN-‐INDUCED
MARTENSITIC TRANSFORMATIONS IN METASTABLE AUSTENITIC STEELS."
Acta Metallurgica Et Materialia 40(7): 1703-‐1716.
Sugimoto, K., N. Usui, et al. (1992). "Effects of Volume Fraction and Stability of
Retained Austenite on Ductility of Trip-‐Aided Dual-‐Phase Steels." Isij
International 32(12): 1311-‐1318.
Sun, X., K. S. Choi, et al. (2009). "On key factors influencing ductile fractures of dual
phase (DP) steels." Materials Science and Engineering a-‐Structural Materials
Tomita, Y. and T. Iwamoto (1995). "Constitutive Modeling of Trip Steel and Its
Application to the Improvement of Mechanical-‐Properties." International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences 37(12): 1295-‐1305.
Tomota, Y., A. Narui, et al. (2008). "Tensile behavior of fine-‐grained steels." Isij
International 48(8): 1107-‐1113.
Tsuji, N., Y. Ito, et al. (2002). "Strength and ductility of ultrafine grained aluminum
and iron produced by ARB and annealing." Scripta Materialia 47(12): 893-‐
899.
Tsuji, N., N. Kamikawa, et al. (2008). "Managing both strength and ductility in
ultrafine grained steels." Isij International 48(8): 1114-‐1121.
Valiev, R. Z., R. K. Islamgaliev, et al. (2000). "Bulk nanostructured materials from
severe plastic deformation." Progress in Materials Science 45(2): 103-‐189.
Wei, Q., L. Kecskes, et al. (2004). "Adiabatic shear banding in ultrafine-‐grained Fe
processed by severe plastic deformation." Acta Materialia 52(7): 1859-‐1869.

Failure in Steels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure in Steels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOMINANT

FAILURE MODES IN STEELS

You might also like