Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Research and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmrt

Evolution of mechanical properties of ferrite and pearlite phases during

spheroidization process and their relationship to the overall properties of
low alloy steel
Yong Jiang a, *, Jinyang Xie a, Yujie Xu a, Peiheng Qiao b, Yilan Lu c, Jianming Gong a
a
School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Nanjing TECH University, No. 30 Puzhu South Road, Nanjing, 211816, China
b
Education Ministry Key Laboratory of Advanced Forging & Stamping Technology and Science, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, 066004, China
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, H3A0C3, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: P Rios Mechanical properties of ferrite-pearlite low alloy steel are strictly determined by the properties of ferrite and
pearlite phases. In this present paper, the evolution of mechanical properties of ferrite and pearlite phases during
Keywords: spheroidization process is investigated by using nanoindentation tests. Meanwhile, the overall mechanical
Cementite spheroidization properties of the material were measured using uniaxial tensile tests. Test results indicate that with the inten­
Pearlite
sification of spheroidization of layered cementite in pearlite, the hardness and yield strength of pearlite phase
Ferrite
decrease from 2.72 GPa to 1.73 GPa and 411.5 GPa–256.1 GPa, respectively. However, the mechanical properties
Nanoindentation
of ferrite phase exhibit an opposite trend, with hardness and yield strength increasing from 1.6 GPa to 1.67 GPa
and 188.1 GPa–208.4 GPa, respectively. Uniaxial tensile tests results indicate that overall yield strength of steel
decreases significantly as the degree of spheroidization increases, from the original 276 MPa–229 MPa. Although
the strength of pearlite decreased by 38%, the overall strength of alloy steel decreased by only 15% due to an
11% increase in ferrite strength. During spheroidization process, the relationship between pearlite hardness,
yield strength, and interlayer spacing of cementite in pearlite can be expressed in Hall-Petch type relationships
1 1
as: H = 0.482 × S− 2 + 1.34 and σy = 91.44 × S− 2 + 149; and the relationship between the strengths of ferrite-
pearlite aggregate and ferrite and pearlite phases is σ y = Vf1.95 σ f + (1 − Vf1.95 )σ p .

1. Introduction
Due to their excellent mechanical properties and low cost, low-
carbon and low-alloy ferrite-pearlite steels are widely used in various
industries, such as the power generation industry, petroleum industry,
chemical industry, etc. [1]. For example, most water-cooled wall pipes
in power plants are made of SA106 B (ASME SA-106), and superheaters
are made of P11 (ASTM A335/A335 M) steel. However, after these
materials have been in high temperature service for a long time, the
pearlite will spheroidize and result in a reduction in the strength of the
material [2–5], which affects the operation safety of the equipment. The
ferrite phase and pearlite phase provide ductility and strength for
ferrite-pearlite steel, respectively [6,7]. As the main strengthening
phase, pearlite is composed of alternative lamellar ferrite and lamellar
cementite. Studies [8,9] showed that smaller ferrite/cementite interfa­
cial area in pearlite phase has the lowest energy and thus is the most
stable microstructure, and the lamellar spacing of pearlite is the key
parameter that influences its mechanical properties. Makarov and Hong
et al. [10,11] discovered that pearlite with small interlamellar spacing
and narrow cementite lamellae exhibits higher strength during plastic
deformation compared to coarse pearlite. Dey et al. [12] also reported
that reduction in pearlite colony size, refinement in interlamellar
spacing, as well as cementite thickness attributed to higher strength.
Sadeghpour [13] announced the strength of pearlitic structure was lin­
early dependent on initial interlamellar spacing as described by a
Hall-Petch type equation. However, when servicing at high tempera­
tures, cementite lamellae or plates in lamellar pearlite will become
larger and break into small cementite particles. Furthermore, these
cementite become fewer but more widely spaced and spherical shaped
particles due to further reduction in interfacial energy. Finally, these
spherical shaped particles dissolve. This phenomenon is called pearlite
spheroidization. Many studies [14–18] have reported that

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jiangyong@njtech.edu.cn (Y. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.02.210
Received 16 January 2024; Received in revised form 22 February 2024; Accepted 28 February 2024
Available online 6 March 2024
2238-7854/© 2024 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Y. Jiang et al.
Fig. 1. OM and SEM morphology after different aging durations at 600 ◦ C (a) 0 h (b) 30 h (c) 80 h (d) 160 h and (e) 300 h.
spheroidization after servicing at high temperature will induce degra­
dation in mechanical properties of the steel and even failure accidents
[19]. Saha et al. [20,21] demonstrated that spheroidized cementite ex­
hibits lower strength and higher ductility compared to lamellar
cementite. However, most of these articles focused on the overall per­
formance of the material. Due to the alternating appearance of ferri­
te/pearlite phases and their small size, it is difficult to directly study the
evolution of mechanical properties of ferrite and pearlite phase
respectively by using conventional methods. Due to the fact that the
mechanical properties of ferrite-pearlite phase steel are determined by
ferrite and pearlite phases, it is necessary to study their respective me­
chanical properties and the evolution of these two phases during the
spheroidization process. This assists in better understanding the changes
in overall mechanical properties of the material.
After decades of development, nanoindentation technology is widely
adopted and used in characterizing mechanical behavior of materials at
small scales [22–28]. Nanoindentation test is capable of directly
extracting the nanohardness and elastic modulus of the specimen ob­
tained from the load-displacement curve through a simple indentation
test [29]. Based on these results, combined with mathematical and
mechanical analysis methods, the yield strength, hardening index, etc.,
of the tested material can be obtained. For instance, Ma et al. [30] have
proposed an inverse approach method to determine plastic properties by
instrumented indentation. Besides, Seok et al. [31] suggested a pro­
cedure to predict the flow behavior of two-phase steels using data from
nanoindentation experiments, in which tests were carried out by two
spherical indenters with different radii. The accuracy of the prediction
was verified by comparing predicted results with the tensile curve ob­
tained from a standard test with a number of specimens. In our previous
study [32,33], gradient mechanical properties of the 20 μm thick
carburized layer on the surface of 316L austenitic stainless steel and
micro-zone in weld joint were investigated by using nanoindentation
test method, and the stress-strain relationship of micro-zone was
obtained.
Although researchers have announced that the pearlite spheroid­
ization is the cause of the overall strength decline of the ferrite-pearlite
steel, the quantitative effects of spheroidization on the strength of
pearlite and ferrite phases, as well as the relationship between the
strength of ferrite, pearlite phases and the overall strength, are not fully
understood. In this study, the changes in the respective mechanical
properties of ferrite and pearlite during spheroidization process were
5438
Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446
measured using nanoindentation technique. Additionally, the variations
in the overall mechanical performance of steel during spheroidization
process were also investigated through uniaxial tensile testing method.
Based on the experimental results, a relationship can be established
between ferrite, pearlite, and overall mechanical properties. The aim of
this paper is to reveal the evolution of mechanical properties of ferrite
and pearlite at each stage of the spheroidization process to ascertain the
effect of these two phases on the macro mechanical performance of low-
alloy ferrite-pearlite steels.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Materials and specimen preparation
The material used in this study was a 12 mm thick low-alloy ferrite-
pearlite hot-rolled steel plate (the final rolling temperature is 920 ◦ C and
air-cooled). The chemical composition (wt. %) of the material was as
follows: C 0.194, Si 0.211, Mn 0.66, Cu 0.0079, Ni 0.054, Cr 0.020, Mo
0.0010, P 0.0015, S 0.003 and Fe balance. 12 × 10 × 10 mm3 and 12 ×
25 × 200 mm3 aging specimens were cut along the rolling direction. The
12 × 10 × 10 mm3 specimens were utilized for metallographic analysis,
vickers hardness testing, and nanoindentation tests before and after
spheroidization treatment. Specimens with dimensions of 12 × 25 ×
200 mm3 were used to process uniaxial tensile test specimens. Spher­
oidization treatment was performed in a muffle furnace at 600 ◦ C for 30
h, 80 h, 160 h, and 300 h.
2.2. Metallographic analysis
Metallographic specimens before and after spheroidization treat­
ment were ground by using automatic grinding and polishing machine
(BUEHLER Auto Met TM 250) progressively up to 2000 grit emery pa­
pers, then polished with colloidal silica suspensions with particle sizes of
3 μm and etched with Nital reagent (4% HNO3). Metallographic struc­
ture of specimens before and after spheroidization treatment was
observed by Optical Microscope (OM, ZEISS AXIO Imager. Alm) and
Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM, Tescan S8000).
2.3. Nanoindentation test
In order to reduce the impact of specimen surface roughness on
Y. Jiang et al.
Fig. 2. Correlation between treating time and hardness.
experimental results, nanoindentation specimens were polished with
colloidal silica suspensions with particle sizes of 3 μm, 1 μm, and 0.05
μm, respectively, by using automatic grinding and polishing machine. In
order to ensure that the pearlite phase and ferrite phase could be easily
distinguished during the experimental process, as well as to ensure
qualified surface morphology, a slight etching with nitric acid alcohol
solution was conducted to reveal the faint form of pearlite.
Nanoindentation tests at ferrite and pearlite phases were performed
on Hysitron Triboindenter (TI-Premier) using a Berkovich indenter tip.
The displacement control method (with a maximum loading displace­
ment of 300 nm) was performed. In order to reduce the test error, the
indentation test at the same depth was repeated seven times and the
average value was taken as the final test result. The indentation
morphology was analyzed by in-situ scanning probe microscopy (SPM)
scanning.
2.4. Vickers hardness and uniaxial tensile tests
Vickers hardness (HV) was measured using an HVS-1000Z digital
microhardness tester with a load of 1000 g. The average value of five
measurements was taken as the final result.
Rectangular dog-bone-shaped tensile specimens with a thickness of
3 mm were machined before and after spheroidizing treatment. Me­
chanical properties of specimens were measured by uniaxial tensile tests
by using INSTRON5869 electromechanical machine with a constant
strain rate of 0.0002/s.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Microstructure characterization
Fig. 1 illustrates the microstructure of steel plates before and after
spheroidization treatment. The steel is composed of proeutectoid ferrite
and pearlite, while the pearlite consists of alternating fine and uniform
ferrite lamellae and cementite lamellae. The interlamellar spaces are
very small (approximately 0.1–0.15 μm, Fig. 1-a). After treating for 30
and 80 h, the cementite lamellae in the pearlite region become shorter
and thicker (Fig. 1-b, c), and the interlamellar spaces become wider.
When treated for 300 h, the clear and regular cementite lamellar in the
proeutectoid pearlite transformed into spherical particles completely
(Fig. 1-e).
5439
Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446
Fig. 3. Uniaxial tensile stress-strain curves of ferrite-pearlite steel specimens
after treating for 0–300 h.
3.2. Vickers hardness test
Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between the hardness and treating
time. Vickers hardness shows a decreasing trend with increasing treating
time. A significant decrease in hardness occurs during the early stage of
aging (30 h), with a reduction of 17 HV. In the middle stages, the
hardness is stable at around 120 HV, and in the later stage, the hardness
decreases significantly, with a reduction of 11 HV. This is because in the
initial stage, the morphology of the cementite in the pearlite undergoes
coarsening and leads to a sharp decrease in hardness. In the later stage,
the pearlite area basically disappears, resulting in a rapid decrease in
hardness.
3.3. Uniaxial tensile test results
Fig. 3 shows the stress-strain curves before and after spheroidization
treatment. It is clearly that, with the increase of treating time, the yield
strength and tensile strength decrease from 276 MPa to 427 MPa–229
MPa and 366 MPa, while the elongation increases from 33.1% to 40.1%.
The variation of yield strength, tensile strength, and fracture elongation
with treating time is depicted in Fig. 4.
3.4. Nanoindentation test results
Fig. 5 gives the load-displacement curves of pearlite and ferrite
phases after treating at 600 ◦ C for different times. Comparison of
maximum load is also shown (Fig. 5-f). With increasing treating time,
the load required for pearlite phase to reach an indentation depth of 300
nm has been reduced greatly from ≈8792 μN (as-received) to ≈ 6390 μN
(after treating for 300 h), while the corresponding load for ferrite phase
has increased slightly from ≈5914 μN to ≈ 6038 μN. Fig. 5 also shows
that, with the extension of treating time, the load-displacement curves of
pearlite and ferrite phases approach each other and after treating for
300 h, the load-displacement curves of pearlite and ferrite phases almost
coincide.
Fig. 6 presents the typical in situ SPM images and three-dimensional
indentation morphology at different treating times for 0 h, 80 h and 300
h of pearlite and ferrite phases. Pile-up phenomena are observed in both
the ferrite and pearlite phases.
Oliver and Pharr [34] provided the calculation method (O&P
method) for nanoindentation hardness as given by Equations (1)–(4):
Ac = D0 h2c + D1 hc + D2 h1/2 1/4 1/128
c + D3 hc + …… + D8 hc (1)
Y. Jiang et al. Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446

Fig. 4. Variation trend in strength and elongation with treating time (a) Yield strength (b) Tensile strength (c) Elongation.

Fig. 5. Load-displacement curves for pearlite and ferrite at different treating times (a) 0 h (b) 30 h(c) 80 h (d) 160 h (e) 300 h (f) comparison of maximum load.

√̅̅̅ contact depth is higher than the maximum depth of the indentation (hc
1 π dp
Er = √̅̅̅̅̅ (2) > hmax). In such cases, the Young’s modulus E and nanoindentation
2 Ac dh
hardness H of these materials are often overestimated [36]. Therefore, it
1 1 − v2 1 − v2in is necessary to correct for the pile-up effect.
= + (3) Loubet et al. [37] proposed a method to calculate the true contact
Er E Ein
depth, taking into account the pile-up or sink-in of the material as in
Pmax Equation (5):
H= (4) ( )
Ac Pmax
hc0 = α hmax − (5)
S
Where, Ac represents the contact area; hc represents the contact depth;
D0 = 24.56, D1 to D8 are correction parameters for the non-ideal For a Berkovich indenter, α = 1.2, hc0 represents the true contact
indenter. Er is the reduced modulus in GPa, E is the Young’s modulus depth, and S represents the contact stiffness.
in GPa, and ν is the Poisson’s ratio of the tested material (ν = 0.3). Ein By using the correction of Equation (5), the true contact depths are
and νin represent the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the obtained. Fig. 7 shows the variation of the contact depth (hc) before
indenter material, respectively. For a diamond indenter, Ein = 1140 GPa, correction and the true contact depth (hc0) after correction. It is clearly
νin = 0.07. H represents the nanoindentation hardness in GPa. that, due to the pile-up effect, the true contact depth is significantly
However, the Oliver and Pharr method is only applicable to materials higher than the contact depth before correction.
with sink-in deformation around the indentation [35]. For After correcting the contact depth, according to Equations (1)–(4),
work-hardened metals, pile-up phenomena often occur, where the

5440
Y. Jiang et al. Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446

Fig. 6. Typical in situ SPM images and three-dimensional indentation morphology at different treating times for 0 h, 80 h and 300 h of pearlite (a–c) and ferrite
phases (d–f).

Fig. 7. Contact depth before and after correction (a) pearlite (b) ferrite.

Fig. 8. Variation of nanoindentation hardness and elastic modulus of pearlite and ferrite at different treating times: (a) Nanoindentation hardness, (b)
Elastic modulus.

the nanoindentation hardness and Young’s modulus of pearlite and those of ferrite. Fig. 8 also shows that, with the treating time prolonged,
ferrite can be calculated. The results are shown in Fig. 8. It is clearly that, nano-hardness of pearlite decreases rapidly from an initial value of 2.71
the nano-hardness and Young’s modulus of pearlite are higher than GPa–1.71 GPa, and Young’s modulus decreases slightly from 191 GPa to

5441
Y. Jiang et al.
Fig. 9. Variation trend of (a) yield strength and (b) hardening exponent of pearlite and ferrite at different treating times.
184 GPa. However, for ferrite, although the increase is modest, both
nano-hardness and elastic modulus increase from 1.60 GPa to 1.67 GPa,
and from 179 GPa to 183 GPa, respectively.
Tabor [38] conducted research on the relationship between nano­
indentation hardness H and yield strength σy of metallic materials under
large-scale indentations (>2 mm) and obtained the following relation­
ship in Equation (6):
H = cσ
The nanoindentation hardness of metallic materials is linearly
related to the yield strength, with a typical value of c between 2.8 and 3.
Rodríguez et al. [39] provided a modification to Equation (6), resulting
in the revised formula in Equation (7):
H = c′σ + b
The modified Equation (7) is applicable to small-scale indentations
(50 nm–2 mm). In the equation, c′ and b are related to the depth of the
indentation. When the indentation depth is 50 nm, c′ = 5.19 Gpa, b = 1.3
Gpa. When the indentation depth is 300 nm, c′ = 5.16 Gpa, b = 0.6 Gpa.
According to Equation (7), the yield strength variation trends of
pearlite and ferrite after spheroidizing for different times are shown in
Fig. 9-a, which are consistent with the hardness variation trends. The
yield strength of pearlite decreases from 411.5 MPa to 256.1 MPa, while
the yield strength of ferrite shows a slight increase from 188.1 MPa to
208.4 MPa.
Additionally, Ma et al. [30] demonstrated that the relationship be­
tween strain hardening exponent n, maximum indentation depth hmax,
and actual indentation contact depth hc0 can be expressed as Equation
(8):
( )
hc0 5 2 − n
= (8)
hmax 2 4 + n
Using Equation (8), the strain hardening exponents of pearlite and
ferrite at different treating times can be obtained as presented in Fig. 9-
b. It can be observed that the strain hardening exponents of pearlite
shows a decrease from 0.19 to 0.14, while the strain hardening exponent
of ferrite remains almost the same as ≈ 0.13.
Based on the nanoindentation results, it is evident that with
increasing treating time, the nanoindentation hardness, Young’s
modulus, yield strength, and strain hardening exponent of pearlite all
decrease significantly. Conversely, these of ferrite increase slightly.
Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446
4. Discussion
4.1. Decrease in hardness and strength of pearlite
In pearlite colony, carbides like cementite are of lenticular shape and
are coherent with the matrix. As a result, their presence in the micro­
structure significantly contributes to the strength because of the effect of
coherency hardening and order hardening. After thermal aging, unsta­
(6)
ble carbides transform into larger globular carbides, which are not
coherent. For this reason, such carbides are reported to have little
strengthening effect [40–42]. The metallographic diagram in Fig. 1
shows that with the prolongation of spheroidization treatment time, the
lamellar structure in pearlite widens, fractures, spheroidizes, and finally
disappears completely. Figs. 8 and 9 show the decrease in hardness and
(7) yield strength with an increase of aging time. This decrease could be
attributed to the increased tendency toward coarsening of carbide par­
ticles, along with a change in shape of cementite from platelet to sphere
[43]. In addition to nullifying the effect of coherency hardening and
order hardening, coarsening of precipitates facilitates dislocations to
bypass them either by cross-slip or Orowan looping.
Studies [44,45] show that the lamellar spacing of pearlite is the key
parameter which influences its mechanical properties. Generally, the
smaller the pearlite colony size and lamellar spacing, the higher the
strength of steel. Ray et al. [21] found a Hall-Petch type relationship
between microhardness and interlamellar spacing readings on pearlitic
colonies. Gladman et al. [46] reported that the strength of pearlite is
dependent mainly on its interlamellar spacing. Elwazri et al. [47] and
Embury et al. [48] offered a Hall-Petch type relationship, which pro­
poses an estimation of the strength of eutectoid steel as a function of
interlamellar spacing and wire drawing strain. However, most of these
studies have been conducted on eutectoid or high carbon steel with
complete pearlite structure. There have been no reports on the me­
chanical properties changes of the pearlite region in ferrite-pearlite steel
after pearlite spheroidization under high temperature conditions. Due to
the consistent mechanism of pearlite precipitation in the microstructure
of both eutectoid and hypoeutectoid steels, we assume that there should
also be a Hall-Petch type relationship between the mechanical proper­
ties of the pearlite phase and the interlamellar spacing in hypoeutectoid
steel.
According to Fig. 1, the average interlamellar spacing in pearlite
after different aging treatment times can be calculated using Image-Pro
Plus software (due to the complete disappearance of the lamellar
structure in the pearlite after heat treating for 300 h, it was not
measured). According to the results in Fig. 8-a and Fig. 9, the relation­
ship between pearlite hardness, strength, and interlayer spacing under
5442
Y. Jiang et al.
Fig. 10. Nano-hardness and yield strength vs. inverse square root of the interlamellar spacing.
Fig. 11. Metallography of (a) as received and (b) spheroidized for 300 h specimens.
different processing times can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 10. It is clear
that there are Hall-Petch type relationships between nano-hardness and
yield strength as a function of the interlamellar spacing, as described in
Equations (9) and (10):
(9)
1
H = 0.482 × S− 2 + 1.34
(10)
1
σ y = 91.44 × S− 2 + 149
Where H is nanohardness in GPa, S is interlamellar spacing in μm, and σy
is yield stress in MPa.
4.2. Slight increase in hardness and strength of ferrite
According to our test result, it is inconsistent with common sense that
hardness and strength of ferrite increased slightly in the spheroidization
process, which is in contrary to the trend of changes in pearlite and the
overall mechanical properties of the material. The study of Kim et al.
[49] found that after aging at 550 ◦ C for 15,000 h, spheroidization of
low alloy pearlite-ferrite steel becomes more pronounced, and some
relatively fine precipitates are observed in ferrite grains. Accordingly,
the hardness value of ferrite regions slightly increases. For ferrite,
because of the limited dissolving ability of carbon atoms, the improve­
ment of strength is difficult to achieve through solid solution strength­
ening. Therefore, we infer that the increase in strength of ferrite is due to
the precipitation of a small amount of carbides in the ferrite. In order to
5443
Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446
verify our hypothesis, the metallography of as received and spheroidized
for 300 h specimens were performed, where they were enlarged 20,000
times as shown in Fig. 11. It is observed that, the ferrite zone of as
received specimen is very clear (Fig. 11–a), while after spheroidizing for
300 h, some small carbide particles precipitated, as indicated by the red
arrow in Fig. 11 –b.
4.3. Relationship between the strengths of ferrite, pearlite phases and
ferrite-pearlite aggregate
Microstructure of the steel is composed of ferrite and pearlite phases,
and its mechanical properties are the result of the interaction between
these two phases. The strength of ferrite-pearlite steels can be consid­
ered to follow the propositions of Gladman et al. [50].
( )
σ y = Vfm σ f + 1 − Vfm σ p (11)
where σy is yield strength of ferrite-pearlite aggregate; σf is yield
strength of ferrite; σp is yield strength of pearlite; Vf is volume fraction of
ferrite; m is a constant which incorporates the nonlinear dependence of
σy on volume fractions of the constituents.
According to the metallographic diagram (Fig. 1), the proportion of
pearlite region in the original material can be measured by using Image-
Pro Plus software and is about 22%, which is basically consistent with
the theoretical calculation result (23%). During the spheroidization
process, although there were significant changes in the morphology of
Y. Jiang et al.
Fig. 12. Comparison of yield strength of ferrite, pearlite and ferrite-
pearlite aggregate.
cementite in the pearlite region, there was no significant change of
pearlite region proportion. Assuming that Vf (the proportion of pearlite
region) does not change during the spheroidization process, based on
the respective properties of ferrite and pearlite phases obtained by
nanoindentation test, the strength of ferrite pearlite aggregate can be
obtained according to Equation (11). Fig. 12 presents a comparison of
the yield strength of pearlite, ferrite and pearlite-ferrite aggregate ob­
tained by nanoindentation test, uniaxial tension test, and Equation (11)
(m = 1.95). For as-received material, it is obvious that the yield strength
of pearlite is the highest and the strength of ferrite region is the lowest.
The yield strength measured through tensile testing is located in the
Fig. 13. Comparison of true stress-strain curves of ferrite, pearlite and ferrite-pearlite aggregate.
5444
Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446
middle. Yield strength of pearlite-ferrite aggregate obtained by Equation
(11) is consistent with the uniaxial tensile test results. These results
indicate that the yield strength of pearlite-ferrite aggregate can be
calculated by employing the respective strengths and proportion of
ferrite and pearlite. Test results also show that as spheroidization pro­
gresses, the strength of the final material will not be lower than the
strength of ferrite (≈200 MPa).
4.4. Comparison of the true stress-strain curves of ferrite, pearlite phases
and ferrite-pearlite aggregate
The uniaxial stress-strain relationship for most materials obey
Hooke’s law before yielding, and the power-hardening law is valid after
yielding. The stress-strain relationship is:
{
σ = Eε, for ε ≤ εy
(12)
σ = Eεy 1− n εn , for ε > εy
where, σ is the stress, E is the elastic modulus, n is the strain hardening
exponent, ε is the strain and εy is yield strain.
By employing the nano-indentation results of yield strength σ y,
elastic modulus E and strain hardening exponent n, the true stress-strain
curves (after yielding) of ferrite and pearlite phases can be obtained, as
shown in Fig. 13. The true stress-strain relationships of ferrite-pearlite
aggregate (obtained by uniaxial tensile tests) are also shown in
Fig. 13. It can be seen that with the extension of spheroidization treat­
ment time, the stress-strain curves of pearlite exhibit significant down­
ward shift, indicating a substantial reduction in strength. The stress-
strain curves of ferrite are almost the same throughout the aging pro­
cess. Since the tensile test curves reflects the ferrite-pearlite aggregate,
correspondingly, it shows a downward trend and is located between the
stress-strain curves of ferrite and pearlite.
According to the analysis in Section 4.3, the overall yield strength of
the steel, the yield strength of ferrite and pearlite and their volume
content conform to the formula in Equation (11), Therefore, this formula
was then adopted to simulate the true stress-strain curve of steel by using
Y. Jiang et al.
the true stress-strain curves of ferrite and pearlite obtained by nano­
indentation test, as shown in Fig. 13. It can be seen that the simulated
curve is in good agreement with the tensile curve. This indicates that the
performance of ferrite-pearlite steel is determined by the properties of
both ferrite and pearlite phases and follows the relationship of Equation
(11).
5. Conclusions
In this present paper, changes in the mechanical properties of the
ferrite and pearlite phases during the spheroidization process and their
impact on the overall mechanical properties were investigated, and the
following conclusions can be made.
(1) The interlayer spacing of cementite in pearlite is the decisive
factor for its mechanical properties. With the pearlite spheroid­
ization process prolonged, the proportion of pearlite area
decreased greatly. The hardness and yield strength reduce by 36
% (from 2.72 GPa to 1.73 GPa) and 38 % (from 411.5 GPa to
256.1 GPa), respectively. However, for ferrite, both nano-
hardness and elastic modulus increase from 1.60 GPa to 1.67
GPa and from 179 GPa to 183 GPa, respectively.
(2) After spheroidization, the relationship between pearlite hardness,
yield strength, and interlayer spacing of cementite can be
expressed in Hall-Petch type relationships as:
1 1
H = 0.482 × S− 2 + 1.34 and σy = 91.44 × S− 2 + 149.
(3) Relationship between the strengths of ferrite-pearlite aggregate
and ferrite and pearlite phases is:
( )
σ y = Vf1.95 σ f + 1 − Vf1.95 σp .
(4) The results also show that as spheroidization progresses, the
strength of the final material will not be lower than that of ferrite,
which is ≈ 200 MPa.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The work is supported by the National Key Research & Development
(R&D) Program of China (2022YFF0605600).
References
[1] Hao X, Dong J, Wei J, Ke W, Wang C, Xu X, Ye Q. Influence of microstructure of
AH32 corrosion resistant steel on corrosion behavior. Acta Metall Sin 2012;48(5):
534–40. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1037.2012.00105.
[2] Wang S, Cao L, Zhang Z. Influence of carbide morphology on the deformation and
fracture mechanisms of spheroidized 14CrMoR steel. Metals 2019;9(11):1221.
https://doi.org/10.3390/met9111221.
[3] Zhao QH, Jiang B, Wang JM. Pearlite spheroidization mechanism and lifetime
prediction of 12Cr1MoV steel used in power plant. In: Icmse 2016. Atlantis Press;
2016. p. 195–201. https://doi.org/10.2991/icmse-16.2016.33.
[4] Dzioba I. Failure assessment analysis of pipelines for heat and power generating
plants according to the SINTAP procedures. Int J Pres Ves Pip 2005;82:787–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2005.06.006.
[5] Bose SC, Reddy KS, Reddy GJ, Singh K, Sarma DS. Effect of service-simulated aging
on the microstructure and properties of casing casting steel (1CrMoV) vis-à-vis
remnant life assessment. Metall Mater Trans A 2003;34:1265–74. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11661-003-0237-3.
[6] Ha TK, Lee CH, Kim KS. Spheroidization behavior of cementite in a high carbon
steel. Mater Sci Forum 2010;654:150–3. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.
net/MSF.654-656.150.
5445
Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446
[7] Al-Abbasi FM. Micromechanical modeling of ferrite-pearlite steels. Mat Sci Eng, A
2010;527(26):6904–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2010.07.045.
[8] Zhang X, Hansen N, Godfrey A, Huang X. Dislocation-based plasticity and
strengthening mechanisms in sub-20 nm lamellar structures in pearlitic steel wire.
Acta Mater 2016;114:176–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2016.04.040.
[9] Porter DA, Easterling KE, Smith GD. Dynamic studies of the tensile deformation
and fracture of pearlite. Acta Metall Sin 1978;26(9):1405–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0001-6160(78)90156-6.
[10] Hong MH, Hono K, Reynolds WT, Tarui T. Atom probe and transmission electron
microscopy investigations of heavily drawn pearlitic steel wire. Metall Mater Trans
A 1999;30:717–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-999-0063-3.
[11] Makarov AV, Savrai RA, Schastlivtsev VM, Tabatchikova TI, Egorova LY.
Mechanical properties and fracture upon static tension of the high-carbon steel
with different types of pearlite structure. Phys Met Metallogr+ 2007;104:522–34.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0031918X07110129.
[12] Dey I, Ghosh SK, Saha R. Effects of cooling rate and strain rate on phase
transformation, microstructure and mechanical behaviour of thermomechanically
processed pearlitic steel. J Mater Res Technol 2019;8(3):2685–98. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.04.006.
[13] Sadeghpour S. Developing very fine nanopearlitic structure in a high carbon steel
wire before drawing. International Journal of Iron & Steel Society of Iran 2011;8
(2):1–4.
[14] Wang LL, Zhu LH, Deng YQ, Wang QJ, Zou FM. Mechanical properties and
microstructural evolution of T23 heat-resistant steel during aging at 873K. High
Temp Mat Pr-Isr 2008:11–9.
[15] Ostash OP, Kondyr AI, Vol’demarov OV, Hladysh PV, Kurechko MV. Structural
microdamageability of steels of the steam pipelines of thermal power plants. Mater
Sci+ 2009;45:340–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11003-009-9189-0.
[16] Dzioba I. Failure assessment analysis of pipelines for heat and power generating
plants according to the SINTAP procedures. Int J Pres Ves Pip 2005;82(10):787–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2005.06.006.
[17] Liu S, Li X, Hu X, Wang X, Zhang F, Zhu Y. Characterization of microstructure and
mechanical property evolutions of 42CrMo steel served at Elevated temperatures.
J Mater Eng Perform 2023:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-023-08108-9.
[18] Umemoto M, Todaka Y, Tsuchiya K. Mechanical properties of cementite and
fabrication of artificial pearlite. Mater Sci Forum 2003;426(432):859–64.
[19] Moakhar RS, Mehdipour M, Ghorbani M, Mohebali M, Koohbor B. Investigations of
the failure in boilers economizer tubes used in power plants. J Mater Eng Perform
2013;22:2691–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-013-0567-2.
[20] Saha A, Mondal DK, Maity J. Effect of cyclic heat treatment on microstructure and
mechanical properties of 0.6 wt% carbon steel. Mat Sci Eng, A 2010;527(16–17):
4001–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2010.03.003.
[21] Ray KK, Mondal D. The effect of interlamellar spacing on strength of pearlite in
annealed eutectoid and hypoeutectoid plain carbon steels. Acta Metall Mater 1991;
39(10):2201–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-7151(91)90002-I.
[22] Randall NX, Julia-Schmutz C, Soro JM, Von Stebut J, Zacharie G. Novel
nanoindentation method for characterising multiphase materials. Thin Solid Films
1997;308:297–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6090(97)00558-0.
[23] Oliver WC, Pharr GM. Measurement of hardness and elastic modulus by
instrumented indentation: Advances in understanding and refinements to
methodology. J Mater Res 2004;19(1):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1557/
jmr.2004.19.1.3.
[24] Pathak S, Kalidindi SR. Spherical nanoindentation stress–strain curves. Mater Sci
Eng: R: Reports 2015;91:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mser.2015.02.001.
[25] Mayr P, Schlacher C, Siefert JA, Parker JD. Microstructural features, mechanical
properties and high temperature failures of ferritic to ferritic dissimilar welds. Int
Mate Rev 2019;64(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09506608.2017.1410943.
[26] Li X, Bhushan B. A review of nanoindentation continuous stiffness measurement
technique and its applications. Mater Charact 2002;48(1):11–36. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1044-5803(02)00192-4.
[27] Maier P, Richter A, Faulkner RG, Ries R. Application of nanoindentation technique
for structural characterisation of weld materials. Mater Charact 2002;48(4):
329–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1044-5803(02)00274-7.
[28] Cheng J, Feng Y, Yan C, Hu X, Li R, Liang X. Development and characterization of
Al-based amorphous coating. Jom 2020;72:745–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11837-019-03966-y.
[29] Uzun O, Başman N, Alkan C. Investigation of mechanical and creep properties of
poly pyrrole by depth-sensing indentation Polym. Bull (Arch Am Art) 2011;66:649.
[30] Ma ZS, Zhou YC, Long SG, Lu CS. An inverse approach for extracting elastic–plastic
properties of thin films from small scale sharp indentation. J Mater Sci Technol
2012;28(7):626–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1005-0302(12)60108-X.
[31] Seok MY, Kim YJ, Choi IC, Zhao Y, Jang JI. Predicting flow curves of two-phase
steels from spherical nanoindentation data of constituent phases: Isostrain method
vs. non-isostrain method. Int J Plasticity 2014;59:108–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijplas.2014.03.013.
[32] Wu Q, Xu Q, Jiang Y, Gong J. Effect of carbon migration on mechanical properties
of dissimilar weld joint. Eng Fail Anal 2020;117:104935. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engfailanal.2020.104935.
[33] Jiang Y, Li Y, Jia YF, Zhang XC, Gong JM. Gradient elastic–plastic properties of
expanded austenite layer in 316L stainless steel. Acta Metall Sin-Engl 2018;31:
831–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40195-018-0710-z.
[34] Kan Q, Yan W, Kang G, Sun Q. Oliver–Pharr indentation method in determining
elastic moduli of shape memory alloys—a phase transformable material. J Mech
Phys Solids 2013;61(10):2015–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2013.05.007.
[35] Zhu LN. Study on residual stress of coating based on nanoindentation technology.
Beijing: China University of Geosciences; 2013.
Y. Jiang et al.
[36] Bucaille JL, Stauss S, Felder E, Michler J. Determination of plastic properties of
metals by instrumented indentation using different sharp indenters. Acta Mater
2003;51(6):1663–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(02)00568-2.
[37] Han G, Xie ZJ, Xiong L, Shang CJ, Misra RD. Evolution of nano-size precipitation
and mechanical properties in a high strength-ductility low alloy steel through
intercritical treatment. Mat Sci Eng, A 2017;705:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2017.08.061.
[38] Tabor D. The hardness of metals. Oxford university press; 2000. p. 56–9.
[39] Rodrıguez R, Gutierrez I. Correlation between nanoindentation and tensile
properties: influence of the indentation size effect. Mat Sci Eng, A 2003;361(1–2):
377–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00563-X.
[40] Li Y, He Y, Liu J, Cui H, Qiu S, Zhang P, Zheng G. Phase transformation and
microstructure evolution of pearlite heat-resistant steel during heating. Mater Sci
Tech-Lond 2020;36(7):771–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02670836.2020.1738071.
[41] Masoumi M, Béreš M, Herculano LF, de Carvalho Paes Loureiro R, de Abreu HF.
Microstructure and crystallographic texture changes under torsion loading of
pearlitic steel strips. J Mater Eng Perform 2020;29:7250–9. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11665-020-05232-8.
[42] Jayan V, Khan MY, Husain M. Coarsening of nano sized carbide particles in 2.25
Cr–1Mo power plant steel after extended service. Mater Lett 2004;58(21):2569–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2004.02.051.
5446
Journal of Materials Research and Technology 29 (2024) 5437–5446
[43] Sahoo R, Jha BB, Sahoo TK, Mantry S. Effect of microstructural degradation on
solid particle erosion behavior of 2.25 Cr-1Mo steel. Tribol T 2014;57(4):679–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10402004.2014.905669.
[44] Kazeminezhad M, Taheri AK. The effect of controlled cooling after hot rolling on
the mechanical properties of a commercial high carbon steel wire rod. Mater
Design 2003;24(6):415–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3069(03)00095-5.
[45] Mushongera LT, Amos PK, Nestler B, Ankit K. Phase-field simulations of pearlitic
divergence in Fe-C-Mn steels. Acta Mater 2018;150:78–87. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.actamat.2018.02.059.
[46] Gladman T, Fb P. Some aspects of the structure-property relationships in high-
carbon ferrite-pearlite steels. J Iron Steel Inst (London) 1972;210:916–30.
[47] Elwazri AM, Wanjara P, Yue S. The effect of microstructural characteristics of
pearlite on the mechanical properties of hypereutectoid steel. Mat Sci Eng, A 2005;
404(1–2):91–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2005.05.051.
[48] Embury JD, Fisher RM. The structure and properties of drawn pearlite. Acta Metall
1966;14(2):147–59.
[49] Kim MY, Chu DJ, Lee YS, Jung WS, Lee J, Lee YK, Shim JH. Mechanical property
change and precipitate evolution during long-term aging of 1.25 Cr-0.5 Mo steel.
Mat Sci Eng, A 2020;789:139663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2020.139663.
[50] Gladman T, Fb P. Picketing, in yield, flow and fracture of Polyerystals. London:
Applied Science; 1983. p. 141.