International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials

Volume 21, Number 6, June 2014, Page 544

DOI: 10.1007/s12613-014-0940-7

Effect of hot stamping parameters on the mechanical properties and

microstructure of cold-rolled 22MnB5 steel strips

Jing Zhou, Bao-yu Wang, Ming-dong Huang, and Dong Cui

School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
(Received: 29 October 2013; revised: 13 December 2013; accepted: 8 January 2014)

Abstract: Thermomechanical experiments were carried out to reproduce the hot stamping process and to investigate the effects of process
parameters on the microstructure and mechanical properties of stamped parts. The process parameters, such as austenitizing temperature,
soaking time, initial deformation temperature and cooling rate, are studied. The resulting microstructures of specimens were observed and
analyzed. To evaluate the mechanical properties of specimens, tensile and hardness tests were also performed at room temperature. The op-
timum parameters to achieve the highest tensile strength and the desired microstructure were acquired by comparing and analyzing the results.
It is indicated that hot deformation changes the transformation characteristics of 22MnB5 steel. Austenite deformation promotes the austen-
ite-to-ferrite transformation and elevates the critical cooling rate to induce a fully martensitic transformation.

Keywords: boron steel; strip metal; stamping; mechanical properties; microstructure; phase transitions

monly applied in the hot stamping process. After the hot

1. Introduction
One of the most urgent needs for the automotive industry
in the next years is to reduce the fuel consumption and,
more importantly, to minimize greenhouse gas pollution for
one hand, and to enhance the security performance of vehi-
cles for the other hand. The use of high and ultra-high
strength steels with thinner thicknesses to manufacture the
body in white meets this need. A novel sheet forming proc-
ess, hot stamping, has been introduced into the automotive
industry to achieve a higher strength-to-weight ratio in pro-
ducing high-strength auto-body parts. In traditional hot
forming processes, the original microstructure of materials
may be destroyed and the subsequent restorative heat treat-
ment can cause fatal shape distortion, whereas in hot
stamping, the blanks are quenched in dies that can prevent
the shape distortion. Moreover, hot stamping has other ad-
vantages, such as low forming force, small spring-back,
better formability, and moderate tool wear [1–2].
The boron steel 22MnB5, which exhibits a ferritic-pear-
litic microstructure with a tensile strength of approximately
600 MPa in the delivery state, is a typical material com-
Corresponding author: Bao-yu Wang E-mail: bywang@ustb.edu.cn
© University of Science and Technology Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
stamping process, a full martensite transformation in
22MnB5 steel causes the increase of tensile strength up to
1500 MPa [3]. To obtain a fully martensitic microstructure,
cold-rolled steel blanks are thoroughly soaked at the austen-
itizing temperature, and then the hot sheets are quickly fed
in a forming press, formed, and quenched simultaneously by
a water-cooled die.
Many studies focusing on the process and materials of
hot stamping have been published in the last decade
[2,4–19]. These studies are summarized and classified into
three groups: the characteristics of the hot stamping process
and materials, the development of the hot stamping process
and materials, and the numerical simulation of hot stamping.
Many researchers are interested in the characteristics of hot
stamping, such as the flow properties [4], formability, and
forming limit of 22MnB5 steel [5–7], the heat transfer in hot
stamping [8–9], the wear behavior of tools and friction
measurement [10–11], and focus on the effect of process
parameters on the mechanical properties and microstructure
[12]. Some improvements and developments of hot stamp-
ing concerning the process and materials have been pro-
posed and reported. A new process called the semi-hot
J. Zhou et al., Effect of hot stamping parameters on the mechanical properties and microstructure of cold-rolled 22MnB5 … 545

stamping process is developed and regarded as an ameliora- ultra-high strength of hot-stamped parts. The desired cooling
tion of hot stamping [13]. Naderi et al. [14] performed hot rate for quenching was determined to avoid the austenite
stamping for the high-strength non-boron alloyed steels and transforming into ferrite, pearlite, and bainite. A cooling rate
analyzed the microstructures and mechanical properties. of at least 30°C·s−1 safely bypasses the nose of the bainite
Mori et al. [15] developed a tailored die quenching process zone and ensures the full martensite transformation for the
by bypass resistance heating. A new dual-phase steel con- investigated 22MnB5 steel. The mechanical properties of
sisting of the mixture of ferrite and austenite at the forming the investigated material in different states are given in Ta-
temperature was designed [16]. Zhao et al. [17] applied the ble 2.
electropulsing to strengthen boron steel. Numerical ap-
proaches, such as the finite element method, are often used Table 1. Chemical composition of the investigated 22MnB5
in the simulation of manufacture processes. Shapiro [18] steel wt%
presented a methodology for finite element modeling of hot C Mn Si P S Cr Ti Al B
stamping using LS-DYNA. Xing et al. [2] set up a numeri- 0.23 1.30 0.30 0.02 0.005 0.35 0.05 0.03 0.003
cal simulation model of hot stamping using ABAQUS. Cui
et al. [19] developed a numerical model of hot stamping to
reveal the microstructural evolution and predict the me-
chanical properties of hot-stamped components.
As mentioned above, an amount of knowledge on hot
stamping was discovered and acquired in previous contribu-
tions. However, the details of process parameters which in-
fluenced the mechanical properties and microstructure of
hot-stamped parts were not systematically investigated.
Here, the effects of process parameters were described on
the mechanical properties and microstructures of hot-stamp-
ed specimens. The quantitative relationships between the Fig. 1. Optical micrograph of the investigated as-received
process parameters and the final mechanical properties were 22MnB5 steel.
also investigated. Tensile tests and hardness measurement of
specimens obtained from thermomechanical experiments Table 2. Mechanical properties of the investigated 22MnB5
were carried out to evaluate the mechanical properties of steel in different states
specimens. In addition, the microstructures of specimens Yield str- Tensile str- Elongation / Hardness,
State
were observed and analyzed to explain the changes of me- ength / MPa ength / MPa % Hv3
chanical properties under the different process parameters. As-received 280–400 480–580 ≥20 ≥140
The optimum set of process parameters that engendered the Hot-stamped ≥1000 ≥1300 ≥5 ≥440
maximum mechanical properties was experimentally ob-
tained based on the results.
2.2. Thermomechanical experiments

2. Materials and methods
2.1. Material
The investigated material was boron-alloyed 22MnB5
steel processed into cold-rolled strips with a thickness of 1.4
mm (SHOUGANG Group). The chemical composition of
22MnB5 steel used in the tests is given in Table 1. The op-
tical microstructure of as-received cold-rolled 22MnB5 steel
strips, which consists of ~80vol% ferrite and ~20vol% pear-
lite, is shown in Fig. 1. The initial mean grain size of the
cold-rolled 22MnB5 steel strips was about 6 μm. The mi-
crostructure of 22MnB5 steel was transformed into over
90vol% martensite by hot stamping, which resulted in the
There are two pivotal stages, i.e., heating stage (austeni-
zation) and die quenching stage (martensitic transformation),
influencing the microstructure and mechanical properties of
hot-stamped parts. Austenitization is a fundamental opera-
tion in many heat treatment processes, also including die
quenching in hot stamping. Both heating temperature and
soaking time control the austenitization of heating blanks.
The martensitic transformation arising in the die quenching
stage is the primary factor causing the strengthening of
hot-stamped parts. Cooling rate and initial deformation
temperature determine the volume fraction of martensite
according to heat treatment in hot stamping. Therefore, four
important process parameters are selected and investigated
546 Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., Vol. 21, No. 6, Jun. 2014

in thermomechanical experiments: austenitizing temperature, perature for different soaking times over the range of 1–30
soaking time, initial deformation temperature, and cooling min.
rate. The experimental arrangement is performed as outlined (3) Cool the specimens to the different initial deformation
in Table 3. The procedure of thermomechanical experiments temperatures at a cooling rate of approximately 10°C·s−1 to
is shown in Fig. 2 with the following four steps. imitate the thermal loss of blanks during the transfer stage in
(1) Heat the specimens to 705°C at 15°C·s−1 and then hot stamping.
heat the specimens to different austenitizing temperatures (4) Simultaneously cool and stretch the specimens at dif-
over the range of 800–1000°C at 5°C·s−1. ferent cooling rates. The total strain and the strain rate are
(2) Hold the specimens at the desired austenitizing tem- 0.15 and 0.1 s−1, respectively.
Table 3. Arrangement of thermomechanical tests for investigating the effects of process parameters
Test groups Austenitizing temperature / °C Soaking time / min Initial deformation temperature* / °C Cooling rate / (°C·s−1)
A 800/850/900/950/1000 4 750/800/850/900/950 50
B 900 1/3/5/10/30 850 50
C 900 4 650/700/750/800 50
D 900 4 850 5/30/40/water quenching (WQ)
Note: * Except for group C to study the influences of initial deformation temperature, the initial deformation temperature is 50°C less than
the austenitizing temperature in other testing groups.

used to characterize the mechanical properties of materials.

In this investigation, tensile and hardness tests, as well as
metallographic analyses, were implemented on specimens
obtained from the experiments and compared with each
other. Tensile tests were performed to obtain the tensile
strength and elongation of specimens. Fig. 4 shows the di-
mensions of a dog-bone tensile specimen cut from the uni-
form temperature zone of the specimen, and the gauge
length equals to 15 mm in all the tensile tests. The tensile
specimens were tested at room temperature according to the
Standard GB/T 228.1—2010. The hardness of specimens
was measured by a 29.4 N (Hv3) load. Two specimens for
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the experimental procedure.
hardness testing were cut from the uniform temperature
All the experiments were conducted on a Gleeble 3500 zone of the specimen, as shown in Fig. 4. An average hard-
thermomechanical simulator with rectangular specimens, as ness value was calculated by taking five measurements
shown in Fig. 3. The specimen temperature was monitored along the same axis in each specimen for hardness testing. A
with a NiCr-NiSi thermocouple welded on the middle of the
specimen, which provided signals for accurate feedback
control of the specimen temperature to guarantee both heat
treatment and the proposed cooling rates. To eliminate the
influence of the specimen’s non-uniform longitudinal tem-
perature caused by resistance heating in the Gleeble system,
the following tests with respect to the mechanical properties
and microstructure observations focused on the uniform
temperature zone of the specimen as shown in Fig. 3(b). At
first, the atmosphere was protected by vacuum, and then, an
air shower was implemented to achieve the controlled cool-
ing process.

2.3. Test procedure Fig. 3. Rectangular specimen employed in thermomechanical

experiments: (a) dimensions of the specimen in mm; (b) speci-
Hardness and strength are important parameters that are men obtained from the experiment.
J. Zhou et al., Effect of hot stamping parameters on the mechanical properties and microstructure of cold-rolled 22MnB5 … 547
Fig. 4. Specimen for tensile test, hardness test, and microstructure observation (unit in mm).
square-shaped microstructure specimen of 5 mm in length
taken from the uniform temperature zone of the specimen
was ground, polished using diamond paste, and etched in
3vol% nital. The microstructures of specimens were ob-
served using the Zeiss light microscope and scanning elec-
tron microscope (SEM).
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Effects of austenitizing temperature and soaking
time
A successful austenization before hot deformation and
die quenching is the preliminary step to obtain ultra-high
strength components [20]. According to the Fe-FeC3 dia-
gram, the Ac1 (austenite formation temperature on heating)
and Ac3 (completed transformation temperature of ferrite to
austenite on heating) temperatures of the investigated mate-
rial are 740°C and 860°C, respectively. A temperature
higher than the Ac3 temperature was applied to heat the
blank in the actual hot stamping process. To obtain the op-
timum process parameters to achieve the homogeneous aus-
tenitic microstructure, the effects of austenitizing tempera-
ture and soaking time on the mechanical properties and mi-
crostructure were precisely investigated.
(1) Austenitizing temperature
The tensile strength, the total elongation at fracture, and
the hardness of specimens heated to different austenitizing
temperatures are shown in Fig. 5. The tensile strength first
increases and then decreases as the austenitizing temperature
increases, but the total elongation at fracture decreases with
increasing austenitizing temperature. The maximum tensile
strength of 1519 MPa occurs at 900°C, which is a watershed
of austenitizing temperature. The tensile strength dramati-
cally increases and the total elongation at fracture remarka-
bly drops with the rise of austenitizing temperature if the
temperature is less than 900°C. On the contrary, further in-
creasing austenitizing temperature causes the tensile
strength to slightly diminish, and the change of total elonga-
tion at fracture is small if the temperature is greater than
900°C. According to Güler et al. [12], an austenitizing tem-
perature of 850°C can also achieve high strength if the
soaking time is more than 20 min. The optimum time and
temperature for austenitization must be discreetly selected
due to the varied thickness and chemical composition of
blanks.
The hardness of the investigated as-delivered 22MnB5
steel is about Hv3 150. The specimen whose hardness is
greater than Hv3 450 is assumed to get a full martensitic mi-
crostructure, and the specimen whose hardness is between
Hv3 200 and Hv3 400 is assumed to get a heterogeneous mi-
crostructure, consisting of martensite, bainite, ferrite, and
other phases. Fig. 5(b) shows the hardness of specimens
soaked at different austenitizing temperatures. A peak hard-
ness of Hv3 503 ± 15 also occurs at 900°C. The tendency of
hardness vs. austenitizing temperature is similar to that of
tensile strength, which suggests that hardness and strength
are controlled by the same determinants.
The SEM micrographs of specimens heated to different
temperatures are shown in Fig. 6. A representative micro-
structure of intercritical quenching [21] is presented in Fig.
6(a). From the figure we find that austenite transforms to
martensite giving a ferritic-martensitic microstructure. As
shown in Fig. 6(b), the microstructure of the specimen
heated to 900°C almost exclusively consists of martensite,
and there are a few ferrite portions in grain boundaries.
Coarse austenite grains, which are attributed to overheating,
cause the decline of tensile strength and hardness, as shown
in Fig. 6(c).
548 Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., Vol. 21, No. 6, Jun. 2014

Fig. 5. Tensile strength and elongation (a) and Vickers hardness (b) of specimens heated to different austenitizing temperatures.

Fig. 6. Microstructures of specimens

heated to different austenitizing tem-
peratures: (a) 800°C; (b) 900°C; (c)
1000°C.

Quantitative data obtained from metallographic analysis ing time is shorter than 4 min, and falls gradually with in-
are presented in Table 4, which indicates that the volume creasing soaking time when the specimen is soaked for
fraction of ferrite decreases as the austenitizing temperature longer than 4 min. The total elongation at fracture declines
increases. The size scales were characterized using the as the soaking time increases, and then remains almost un-
standard metallographic theory with the mean lineal inter- changed if the soaking time exceeds 4 min. The variation in
cept of martensite symbolically represented by LM . The hardness with increasing soaking time is show in Fig. 7(b),
mean size of martensite becomes larger when the austeni- which resembles the variation of tensile strength. The maxi-
tizing temperature is up to 1000°C. A higher temperature mum hardness occurs when the soaking time equals to 4 min.
promotes austenitization distinctly due to the presence of a
larger amount of martensite. On the other hand, coarse Table 4. Quantitative metallographic data of specimens
heated to different austenitizing temperatures
grains lead to the decrease of tensile strength once the heat-
ing temperature exceeds the limit. Austenitizing tem- Martensite Ferrite fraction /
LM / μm
(2) Soaking time perature / °C fraction / vol% vol%
The tensile strength and elongation of specimens soaked for 900 90 10 11.4 ± 0.8
different periods are shown in Fig. 7(a). The tensile strength 950 95 5 12.3 ± 1.3
climbs sharply with increasing soaking time when the soak- 1000 100 ― 18.5 ± 2.7
J. Zhou et al., Effect of hot stamping parameters on the mechanical properties and microstructure of cold-rolled 22MnB5 … 549
Fig. 7. Tensile strength and elongation (a) and Vickers hardness (b) of specimens after different soaking time.
The SEM micrographs of specimens soaked for different
times are shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 8(a) indicates that inadequate
soaking leads to an incomplete martensitic microstructure.
The microstructure of an insufficiently austenitized speci-
men contains a little amount of undissolved pearlite, some
fragmentary ferrite, and a limited number of martensite. In
Two important factors, the volume fraction of martensite
and the grain size of austenite, influence the mechanical
properties of hot-stamped parts and are dominated by aus-
tenitization. A semi-empirical formula, depicting the rela-
tionship between soaking time and the variables of me-
chanical properties (i.e., tensile strength and hardness), is
derived from the Johnson-Mehl-Avarami equation and
Hall-Petch equation, as shown in Eq. (1).
Fig. 8(b), abundant martensite is the main reason of high
tensile strength and hardness in the specimen soaked for 3
min, even though there is a little ferrite in the microstructure.
The coarse microstructure resulting from austenite grain
growth causes the decrease of tensile strength and hardness,
as the soaking time increases in Fig. 8(c).
Fig. 8. Microstructures of the speci-
mens held for different soaking times: (a)
1 min; (b) 3 min; (c) 30 min.
Y = (Af + B)d (1)
f = 1 − exp(k1t )
n1
(2)
d = k 2t n2 (3)
where Y represents the tensile strength or hardness, f and d
the influencing factors of martensite volume fraction and
grain size on the mechanical properties, respectively, A and
B the coefficients according to fitting data, t the soaking
550
time, and k1, k2, n1, and n2 the material constants determined
by Matlab software. Fig. 9 shows semi-empirical formulas
indicating the relationship between soaking time and me-
Fig. 9. Semi-empirical formula between soaking time and mechanical properties: (a) tensile strength; (b) hardness.
3.2. Effect of initial deformation temperature
Deformation was applied at a temperature lower than the
austenitizing temperature because of heat loss during the
transfer stage. The effect of initial deformation temperature
on the mechanical properties and microstructure was inves-
tigated by conducting non-isothermal hot tensile tests at dif-
ferent initial deformation temperatures (i.e., 650, 700, 750,
800, and 850°C). A cooling rate of 10°C·s−1 was imposed on
each specimen until the scheduled initial deformation tem-
perature was achieved.
The specimen stretched at the initial deformation tem-
perature of 850°C shows the most excellent mechanical
properties in Fig. 10(a), suggesting that the mechanical
Fig. 10. Tensile strength and elongation (a) and Vickers hardness (b) of specimens deformed at different initial deformation tem-
peratures.
The microscopic images of specimens deformed at dif-
ferent initial deformation temperatures are presented in Fig.
11. The microscopic image of the specimen whose deforma-
Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., Vol. 21, No. 6, Jun. 2014
chanical properties. The increase of martensite volume frac-
tion causes the curve to rise first, and then the increase of
grain size causes the curve to decline.
properties of specimens may deteriorate once the initial de-
formation temperature is below 800°C. The initial deforma-
tion temperature in the range of 700 to 800°C has no obvi-
ous influence on the tensile strength. Overall, the tensile
strength of specimens appreciably declines as the initial de-
formation temperature decreases, whereas the elongation of
specimens first increases and then decreases with the de-
creasing of initial deformation temperature. Fig. 10(b)
shows the hardness of specimens treated at different initial
deformation temperatures. The variation trend of hardness is
consistent with that of tensile strength. To obtain the fine
mechanical properties, the preferable initial deformation
temperature is 800°C or higher.
tion starts from 850°C is shown in Fig. 6(b). The micro-
structure in Fig. 6(b) consists of lath martensite prior elon-
gated into austenite grains, while a small part of specimens
J. Zhou et al., Effect of hot stamping parameters on the mechanical properties and microstructure of cold-rolled 22MnB5 … 551
is polygonal ferrite formed at grain boundaries. Compared
to the microscopic images of other initial deformation tem-
peratures, the ferrite volume fraction at grain boundaries
distinctly increases with the decreasing of initial deforma-
tion temperature. The microstructures at 700°C and 750°C
Fig. 11. Microstructures of specimens stretched from different initial deformation temperatures: (a) 650°C; (b) 700°C; (c) 750°C;
(d) 800°C.
Fig. 12 indicates the continuous cooling transformation
(CCT) diagram of specimens initially deformed from dif-
ferent temperatures. Compared to the static CCT in Ref. [3]
plotted as dash lines in Fig. 12, the nose of the austen-
ite-to-ferrite transformation is shifted toward the left side in
the case that hot deformation is applied to the specimen. The
formation of polygonal ferrite at grain boundaries demon-
strates that the ferrite zone moves to the left.
The austenite-to-ferrite transformation is a typical diffusive
nucleation-growth transformation characterized by an incu-
bation period, and it is sensitive to austenite deformation.
Prior austenite deformation accelerates carbon diffusion th-
rough dislocation substructures near grain and sub-grain
boundaries and promotes the formation of new ferrite grains
[22]. In addition, non-isothermal tensile deformation can
certainly increase the stored deformation energy of austenite,
which enhances ferrite nucleation and shortens the incuba-
tion period. With regard to bainite, it is widely approved that
the bainite transformation in steels does not only show some
characteristics of the martensite transformation, but may
also involve carbon diffusion at some stages. Two combined
show two heterogeneous microstructures consisting of
martensite and polygonal ferrite (Figs. 11(b) and (c)). The
microstructure of the specimen whose initial deformation
temperature is 650°C contains bainite, ferrite, and small
amounts of pearlite (Fig. 11(a)).
aspects, i.e., nucleation by the diffusion mechanism and
growth by the displacive process, control bainite formation,
so austenite deformation has a two-fold opposite effect. Hot
deformation results in high dislocation density, coarse aus-
tenite grain boundaries, and grain refinement, which lead to
the increase of bainite nucleation sites [23]. High dislocation
density, however, strengthens austenite and retards bainite
growth, because bainite growth is orientation-dependent [24].
3.3. Effect of cooling rate
Cooling rate is a crucial heat treatment parameter and
determines the eventual mechanical properties of hot-stamp-
ed parts. Different cooling rates result in different phase
transformations. In this group of experiments, except the
water-quenched specimen, hot tensile deformation was im-
posed in the temperature range between 850 and 842.5°C
(cooled at 5°C·s−1), 850 and 805°C (cooled at 30°C·s−1), 850
and 790°C (cooled at 40°C·s−1), and 850 and 775°C (cooled
at 50°C·s−1). All the deformations of specimens cooled at
different rates were performed before the decomposition of
super-cooled austenite.
552 Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., Vol. 21, No. 6, Jun. 2014

properties of the specimen cooled at 5°C·s−1 are similar to

Fig. 12. Continuous cooling transformation (CCT) diagram
of specimens initially deformed from different temperatures
(A—austenite and F—ferrite).
The room temperature tensile testing results of specimens
cooled at different rates are shown in Fig. 13. The specimen
cooled at 50°C·s−1 was used to investigate the effect of aus-
tenitizing temperature. From Fig. 13(a), it can be inferred
that a cooling rate of at least 40°C·s−1 can guarantee the
mechanical properties of components in actual production,
but a better choice is 50°C·s−1. Table 5 shows the compari-
son of mechanical properties for hot-stamped specimens
obtained in different studies. Data in Table 5 demonstrate
that water quenching can achieve a high-strength specimen
of about 1650 MPa for 22MnB5 steel, and the mechanical
those of the air-cooled specimen. The investigated 22MnB5
steel produced by Shougang Group and the boron steel in
Ref. [25] provided by ThyssenKrupp Company show the
similar performance in hot stamping. Fig. 13(b) exhibits the
relation between hardness and cooling rate. The hardness
variation as a function of cooling rate monotonically in-
creases but the slope reduces, which indicates that the in-
crease of hardness is mainly influenced by martensite vol-
ume fraction. In addition, hardness testing results are con-
sistent with room temperature tensile testing results. The
tensile strength increases greatly as the cooling rate in-
creases, but the total elongation at fracture decreases as the
cooling rate becomes higher. By comparing specimens
cooled at 40°C·s−1, 50°C·s−1, and water quench, it is inter-
esting to note that, even almost fully martensitic micro-
structures are produced, but the levels of tensile strength and
hardness are not the same. This should be due to carbon
content in martensite, which causes the sub-structures of
martensite to be different [26].
The microstructures of specimens cooled at different
rates are shown in Fig. 14. The microstructure of the speci-
men cooled at 5°C·s−1 contains ferrite, pearlite, and a small
amount of bainite (Fig. 14(a)). The microstructure changes
into a ferritic-bainitic compound microstructure as the cool-
ing rate increases from 5°C·s−1 to 30°C·s−1 in Fig. 14(b).

Fig. 13. Tensile strength and elongation (a) and Vickers hardness (b) of specimens cooled at different cooling rates.

Table 5. Mechanical properties of hot-stamped specimens

Source Process Thickness / mm Treatment Tensile strength / MPa Yield strength / MPa Elongation / %
Hot stamping + air 900°C, 4 min, 5°C/s 725 476 17.6
This research 1.4
blowing 900°C, 4 min, WQ 1722 1322 4.2
900°C, 15 min, air
Cold stamping + 712 512 13.9
Naderi [26] 1.5 cooling (AC)
quench hardening
900°C, 15 min, WQ 1647 1202 4.5
J. Zhou et al., Effect of hot stamping parameters on the mechanical properties and microstructure of cold-rolled 22MnB5 … 553

Fig. 14. Microstructures of specimens

cooled at different cooling rates: (a)
5°C·s−1; (b) 30°C·s−1; (c) 40°C·s−1.

Gas cooling at 40°C·s−1 produces an almost fully martensitic tion is greater than the retardation of deformation to bainite
microstructure (Fig. 14(c)). According to the microstruc- growth. Therefore, the critical cooling rate of 22MnB5 steel
tures, the cooling rate of 40°C·s−1 is enough to obtain a fully for quenching is increased to 40°C·s−1, if hot deformation is
martensitic microstructure with hot deformation. All the mi- considered.
crostructures for different cooling rates reflect the variations
in tensile strength and hardness of specimens.
Based on the tensile testing results and the microstruc-
tures of specimens cooled at different rates, approximate
15% hot deformation changes the critical cooling rate of the
martensite transformation from 30 °C·s−1 to 40 °C·s−1 for
22MnB5 steel. The temperature variation in the cooling
stage for the cooling rates of 30°C·s−1 and 40°C·s−1 is shown
in Fig. 15. Latent heat due to the martensite formation is de-
tected in the specimen of cooling rate at 40°C·s−1, but not in
the specimen of cooling rate at 30°C·s−1. Similar phenom-
ena have also been previously reported [24,27]. The reason
for these phenomena is that the austenite deformation in-
creases the dislocation density inside the steel matrix, which Fig. 15. Temperature variation for cooling rates at 30°C·s−1
and 40°C·s−1.
hinders the martensite transformation. The martensite trans-
formation is typically diffusionless. The martensite trans-
formation mechanism is a cooperative form, the homoge- 4. Conclusions
neous movement of many atoms leads to a change of the
crystal structure with atoms maintaining their relative rela- (1) Thorough austenitization is the necessary prerequisite
tionships [28]. Large dislocations may be induced and ac- to achieve a high strength of hot-stamped specimens. The
cumulated at grain boundaries during hot plastic deforma- most suitable austenitizing parameters for 22MnB5 steel are
tion, which interferes with the movement of atoms and sup- the soaking time of 4 min and the temperature of 900°C.
presses the martensite transformation. In addition, austenite The scale size of microstructures at the austenitizing tem-
deformation can provide more energy for the bainite trans- perature of 1000°C is half larger than that at the austenitiz-
formation. The promotion of deformation to bainite nuclea- ing temperature of 900°C.
554
(2) A semi-empirical equation, depicting the relationship
between soaking time and the variables of mechanical prop-
erties (i.e., tensile strength and hardness), is presented and
determined, which summarizes the effect of soaking time on
the mechanical properties and is useful in optimizing the
heating time.
(3) Increasing the initial deformation temperature is con-
ducive to enhancing the mechanical properties of specimens.
The desired fully martensitic microstructure is achieved if
the initial deformation temperature is greater than 800°C;
therefore, the transfer stage in actual hot stamping should be
as short as possible.
(4) Deformation in the austenite state shifts the ferrite
zone toward left in the CCT diagram, which is due to the
acceleration of carbon diffusion and the increase of nuclea-
tion sites. In addition, austenite deformation increases the
critical cooling rate of 22MnB5 steel. The main reason is
that austenite deformation improves the strength of austenite
and hinders the martensitic transformation. Therefore, the
cooling rate to obtain a high-strength specimen must be
greater than 40°C·s−1.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the Research
Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education, China
(No. 20120006110017).
References
[1] P. Åkerström, Modelling and Simulation of Hot Stamping
[Dissertation], Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, 2006,
p. 1.
[2] Z.W. Xing, J. Bao, and Y.Y. Yang, Numerical simulation of
hot stamping of quenchable boron steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
499(2009), No. 1-2, p. 28.
[3] H. Karbasian and A.E. Tekkaya, A review on hot stamping, J.
Mater. Process. Technol., 210(2010), No. 15, p. 2103.
[4] M. Merklein, J. Lechler, and M. Geiger, Characterisation of
the flow properties of the quenchenable ultra high strength
steel 22MnB5, CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 55(2006), No. 1,
p. 229.
[5] P.F. Bariani, S. Bruschi, A. Ghiotti, and A. Turetta, Testing
formability in the hot stamping of HSS, CIRP Ann. Manuf.
Technol., 57(2008), No. 1, p. 265.
[6] J.Y. Min, J.P. Lin, J.Y. Li, and W.H. Bao, Investigation on
hot forming limits of high strength steel 22MnB5, Comput.
Mater. Sci., 49(2010), No. 2, p. 326.
[7] H.Z. Li, X. Wu, and G.Y. Li, Prediction of forming limit dia-
grams for 22MnB5 in hot stamping process, J. Mater. Eng.
Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., Vol. 21, No. 6, Jun. 2014
Perform., 22(2013), No. 8, p. 2131.
[8] F. Tondini, P. Bosetti, and S. Bruschi, Heat transfer in hot
stamping of high-strength steel sheets, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
B, 225(2011), No. 10, p. 1813.
[9] B. Abdulhay, B. Bourouga, and C. Dessain, Experimental
and theoretical study of thermal aspects of the hot stamping
process, Appl. Therm. Eng., 31(2011), No. 5, p. 674.
[10] C. Boher, S. Le Roux, L. Penazzi, and C. Dessain, Experi-
mental investigation of the tribological behavior and wear
mechanisms of tool steel grades in hot stamping of a
high-strength boron steel, Wear, 294-295(2012), p. 286.
[11] A. Azushima, K. Uda, and A. Yanagida, Friction behavior of
aluminum-coated 22MnB5 in hot stamping under dry and lu-
bricated conditions, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 212(2012),
No. 5, p. 1014.
[12] H. Güler, R. Ertan, and R. Özcan, Influence of heat treatment
parameters on the microstructure and mechanical properties
of boron-alloyed steels, Mater. Test., 54(2012), No. 9, p.
619.
[13] M. Naderi, M. Ketabchi, M. Abbasi, and W. Bleak, Semi-hot
stamping as an improved process of hot stamping, J. Mater.
Sci. Technol., 27(2011), No. 4, p. 369.
[14] M. Naderi, M. Ketabchi, M. Abbasi, and W. Bleck, Analysis
of microstructure and mechanical properties of different high
strength carbon steels after hot stamping, J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 211(2011), No. 6, p. 1117.
[15] K. Mori, T. Maeno, and K. Mongkolkaji, Tailored die
quenching of steel parts having strength distribution using
bypass resistance heating in hot stamping, J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 213(2013), No. 3, p. 508.
[16] H.L. Yi, S. Ghosh, and H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Dual-phase
hot-press forming alloy, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 527(2010), No.
18-19, p. 4870.
[17] Y.G. Zhao, B.D. Ma, H.C. Guo, J. Ma, Q. Yang, and J.S.
Song, Electropulsing strengthened 2GPa boron steel with
good ductility, Mater. Des., 43(2013), p. 195.
[18] A. Shapiro, Finite element modeling of hot stamping, Steel
Res. Int., 80(2009), No. 9, p. 658.
[19] J.J. Cui, C.X. Lei, Z.W. Xing, C.F. Li, and S.M. Ma, Predic-
tions of the mechanical properties and microstructure evolu-
tion of high strength steel in hot stamping, J. Mater. Eng.
Perform., 21(2012), No. 11, p. 2244.
[20] D.W. Fan, H.S. Kim, and B.C. De Cooman, A review of the
physical metallurgy related to the hot press forming of ad-
vanced high strength steel, Steel Res. Int., 80(2009), No. 3, p.
241.
[21] P. Movahed, S. Kolahgar, S.P.H. Marashi, M. Pouranvari,
and N. Parvin, The effect of intercritical heat treatment tem-
perature on the tensile properties and work hardening behav-
ior of ferrite-martensite dual phase steel sheets, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, 518(2009), No. 1-2, p. 1.
[22] P.G. Xu, Y. Tomota, P. Lukáš, O. Muránsky, and Y. Adachi,
Austenite-to-ferrite transformation in low alloy steels during
J. Zhou et al., Effect of hot stamping parameters on the mechanical properties and microstructure of cold-rolled 22MnB5 … 555
thermomechanically controlled process studied by in situ
neutron diffraction, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 435-436(2006), p.
46.
[23] M. Nikravesh, M. Naderi, and G.H. Akbari, Influence of hot
plastic deformation and cooling rate on martensite and bainite
start temperatures in 22MnB5 steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
540(2012), p. 24.
[24] Z.M. Shi, K. Liu, M.Q. Wang, J. Shi, H. Dong, J. Pu, B. Chi,
Y.S. Zhang, and L. Jian, Effect of non-isothermal deforma-
tion of austenite on phase transformation and microstructure
of 22SiMn2TiB steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 535(2012), p.
290.
[25] M. Naderi, Hot Stamping of Ultra High Stength Steels [Dis-
sertation], RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 2007, p.
91.
[26] S. Morito, H. Yoshida, T. Maki, and X. Huang, Effect of
block size on the strength of lath martensite in low carbon
steels, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 438-440(2006), p. 237.
[27] F.R. Xiao, B. Liao, G.Y. Qiao, and S.Z. Guan, Effect of hot
deformation on phase transformation kinetics of 86CrMoV7
steel, Mater. Charact., 57(2006), No. 4-5, p. 306.
[28] D.A. Porter and K.E. Easterling, Phase Transformations in
Metals and Alloys, 2nd Ed., Chapman & Hall, London, 1992,
p. 409.