Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics

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

The effect of non-metallic inclusions on the mechanical properties of 32 CDV T

13 steel and their mechanical stress analysis by numerical simulation
⁎
Rodolfo Arreola-Herrera, Alejandro Cruz-Ramírez , Jorge E. Rivera-Salinas,
José A. Romero-Serrano, Ricardo G. Sánchez-Alvarado
Departamento de Ingeniería en Metalurgia y Materiales, Instituto Politécnico Nacional - Escuela Superior de Ingeniería Química e Industrias Extractivas, UPALM, 07738
México D.F., Mexico

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

Keywords: The effect of non-metallic inclusions was established on the mechanical properties and fracture behavior of the
Non-metallic inclusions 32 CDV 13 steel. Three 32 CDV 13 steels with the same chemical composition and microstructure but different
Fracture non-metallic inclusions content were characterized. A fractography analysis of the Charpy impact specimens
32 CDV 13 steel shows that the toughness was increased for the steel with the lowest non-metallic inclusion level. It was observed
Stress concentration
a localized micro-cracking by the growth of the inclusion-nucleated voids and then connected regions along the
Numerical analysis
crack tip for the steels evaluated. The significant difference in the inclusion level between the steels directly
impacts in the formation of flat fracture and percentage shear fracture and therefore in the toughness capacity.
The morphology of the different type of inclusions was determined by SEM images, then the stress field dis-
tribution around the inclusion according to the inclusion type, shape and distributions were analyzed numeri-
cally using the software COMSOL Multiphysics. Numerical simulations show that the geometry of the inclusions
influences strongly the concentration of stresses between the inclusion and the surrounding matrix. The non-
metallic inclusions presented in the three steels act like stress concentrator and this effect is more evident for the
sulfide inclusions than oxide inclusions are.

1. Introduction increasing [4,5].

As a generalization, inclusions have been found to be harmful to the
mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of steel. This is more so
for high-strength steels for critical applications. The properties that are
adversely affected are fracture toughness, impact properties, fatigue
strength and hot workability. The factors responsible for this are geo-
metrical factors such as size, shape, size distribution and total volume
fraction of inclusions and property factors such as deformability and
modulus of elasticity at different temperatures and coefficient of
thermal expansion [1–3].
In general, inclusions are separated in exogenous and endogenous
inclusions. Exogenous inclusions are large, scarce, and haphazard in
occurrence. They are mostly the products of erosion of the refractory
materials used during the steelmaking process and they are removed in
the slag or in the casting system. In contrast, the endogenous inclusions
are small, numerous, and rather uniformly distributed, and they are
typical of the steel in which they occur. With decreasing size of the
inclusions, the difficulty of their removal from the metal melt is
Inclusions in clean steels occur as many fine particles and a few
large individual particles. The most damaging are usually the largest
inclusions, especially the hard, brittle oxide inclusions, which are often
the origin of variability in steels properties. The maximum size inclu-
sion in clean steels is in the range 10–40 µm, which is below the limit of
detection for ultrasonic and other non-destructive testing methods
[6,7].
The inclusions are the compounds consisting of non-metallic ele-
ments, such as oxygen, sulfur, phosphorous, nitrogen, and carbon. Non-
metallic inclusions primarily result from the deoxidation of the steel.
Deoxidation occurs by the addition of a strong deoxidizer, typically
aluminum. The most common compounds found in inclusions in com-
mercial Al-killed steels are manganese sulfide (MnS), alumina (Al2O3),
different types of spinels (mainly MgO-Al2O3) and when the steel is
treated with calcium, calcium sulfide (CaS) and calcium aluminates
(xCaO-yAl2O3) are found. Even nitrides and carbides have found to
form in the production of micro-alloyed steels [3,4].
Non-metallic inclusions, in liquid aluminum, killed steels consist

⁎
Corresponding author at: Departamento de Ingeniería en Metalurgia y Materiales, Instituto Politécnico Nacional - Escuela Superior de Ingeniería Química e Industrias Extractivas,
UPALM, 07738 México D.F., Mexico.
E-mail address: alcruzr@ipn.mx (A. Cruz-Ramírez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2018.01.013
Received 7 August 2017; Received in revised form 23 December 2017; Accepted 26 January 2018
Available online 31 January 2018
0167-8442/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Arreola-Herrera et al.
mainly of aluminum oxides. If not captured by the slag, they can de-
teriorate the mechanical properties of the cast steel product. Moreover,
they can disturb the continuous casting process [8]. The presence of
inclusions may have a detrimental effect on the product quality. In-
ternal cleanliness is currently the topic in steel production with the
largest impact on competitiveness. A variety of process options are
available in secondary steelmaking for lowering inclusion content as
well as modifying inclusions [4,9].
Calcium is used to modify solid and irregularly shaped Al2O3 to
spherical xCaO-yAl2O3 that precipitates as molten particles at the
steelmaking temperatures avoiding nozzle clogging during continuous
casting and breaking of alumina clusters during hot rolling. Further,
calcium treatment results in the formation of CaS or a solid solution of
CaS and MnS instead of MnS [3,4]. Rare earth elements are strong
deoxidizers and desulfurizers like calcium. They also can modify an
inclusion, especially sulfide shape and may act as microalloying ele-
ments [10].
At the hot rolling temperatures, MnS is softer than its surrounding
steel matrix, and therefore it tends to elongate during hot rolling. Such
stringer shaped inclusions are known to cause anisotropy in mechanical
properties such as tensile ductility and fracture toughness [11]. As in-
clusions inside the material act like stress raisers in the matrix, the
crack initiation and propagation during the internal fracture are af-
fected by the inclusion size and the applied stress amplitude.
Ebrahimi and Seo [12] evaluated the process of ductile crack in-
itiation for ferritic, pearlitic and bainitic steels. They determined that
the distribution of inclusions and highly strained regions govern the
microcracking in the ferritic-pearlitic steel, while the geometrical in-
homogeneities produced by fatigue pre-cracking act as the sites for the
formation of microcracks in the bainitic steel.
Ray et al. [13] determined the strength and toughness properties of
hot rolled plates from three commercial heats of a high strength low-
alloy steel related to their intrinsic microstructural and inclusions
characteristics. Charpy shelf energy and impact transition temperature
were significantly affected by pearlite content and sulfide morphology
and to a lesser extent by pearlite banding.
Yamamoto et al. [14] studied the effect of non-metallic inclusions
on the local ductility of plain carbon steel and super ultra-low carbon
steel containing lower sulfur content at about 0.002–0.01% and deox-
idized with aluminum during hot deformation. They found that the
elongated MnS inclusions had a stronger influence on local ductility
than the smaller Al2O3 inclusions and drastic effects on the nucleation
of voids. Thus, a fracture is most likely to be initiated by the void
formation at the interface of the elongated MnS inclusions and metal
matrix notched by MnS and thus would experience coalescence in ac-
cordance with a brittle fracture in the soft MnS inclusions.
The finite element method has been used widely to investigate the
stress distribution around the inclusion. Most of the numerical simu-
lations performed determined the stress distribution around a non-
metallic inclusion bonded to an infinite matrix considering only simple
inclusions shapes such as circles, triangles, ellipse or lines, etcetera
[15–19] since the real geometry of the inclusion is difficult to study.
Yu et al. [17] studied the behavior of non-metallic inclusions in
stainless steel strip during cold rolling under various inclusions sizes,
positions, and regular shapes by 2D finite element method. They find
that for the soft inclusions, there are no cracks around the inclusions for
different inclusions sizes, positions and shapes under the rolling con-
ditions.
Matsuoka et al. [18] carried out a computer simulation on the de-
formation behavior of non-metallic inclusion in hot rolling. They stu-
died the flow stress ratio of inclusion versus matrix steel and composite
inclusion ratio. The deformation behavior of inclusions was studied
under uniaxial compressive stress. The aspect ratio of inclusion after
compression was estimated by average flow stress ratio and this was
increased with the increase of soft inclusion ratio (MnS/Al2O3).
Guan et al. [19] determined the crack propagation in bearing steel
135
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146
with a non-metallic inclusion by Voronoi finite element. The most
common non-metallic inclusions in bearing steel, such as MgO, Al2O3
and carbide particles which are stiffer than steel were considered. They
found that the non-metallic inclusions act as stress raisers and the
maximum von Mises stress appears near the inclusion. The crack is
more likely to grow when the inclusion is soft, small and shallow. The
inclusion size has little effect on the maximum von Mises stress.
Spriestersbach et al. [20] studied the influence of different non-
metallic inclusion types on the crack initiation in the very high cycle
regime for high-strength steels. They found that heterogeneous inclu-
sions like AlCaO, MgO, and CaO with spherical shape showed a low
bonding force to the matrix. Most fracture surfaces of such inclusions
showed a clean gap between the inclusion and the matrix. During
loading heterogeneous inclusions detach or decay so that the inclusion
finally acts like a void in the material.
The Cr-Mo-V types are chromium-molybdenum creep-resisting
steels with a range of chromium and molybdenum contents plus the
addition of about 0.25% vanadium as a strong stable carbide former.
Chromium which is the major element added to the Cr-Mo-V type steels
affects hardenability and tempering resistance; the higher the chro-
mium content, the better the hardenability and the better the resistance
to softening during tempering. Vanadium, also an alloying element
added to the Cr-Mo-V steels, actually reduces hardenability. This effect
is related to the very strong carbide-forming ability of vanadium and to
the fact that at low austenitizing temperatures, around 800 °C does not
dissolve. Finely dispersed vanadium carbide particles thus maintain a
very fine austenitic grain size, which reduces hardenability. However,
the strong carbide-forming characteristics of vanadium and the asso-
ciated fine austenitic grain sizes are desirable, because they increase
fracture resistance and resist grain coarsening during overheating [21].
Arreola et al. [22] determined the effect of various degrees of plastic
deformation generated by cold radial forging on the mechanical prop-
erties and the fracture morphology of 32 CDV 13 steel. This micro-al-
loyed steel is used in long products, including bars and forging steels for
specific applications focused on the enhancement in both strength and
toughness.
In material fabrication processes, the existence of various micro-
cracks controls, to a considerable extent, the material strength, de-
formability, and toughening mechanism [23].
However, despite the great number on current investigations on
inclusions in steels, there are still no published studies dealing with the
effect of inclusions on the ductility and toughness of direct quenched
ultra-high-strength low-alloy steels [2].
Therefore, the functional dependence between fracture character-
istics and inclusions for the 32 CDV 13 steel requires further study. In
addition, most of the finite element method simulations calculate stress
distribution around a non-metallic inclusion considering only simple
inclusions shapes.
The aim of this work was to determine the effect of non-metallic
inclusions level on the crack initiation and toughness of the 32 CDV 13
steel. Three 32 CDV 13 steels with the same chemical composition and
microstructure but different non-metallic inclusion level were char-
acterized by standard mechanical tests to determine the mechanism of
crack propagation from non-metallic inclusions. The inclusions formed
in the steels were vectorized according to the morphology and size
determined by SEM analysis. The stress field of these inclusions was
determined by a numerical simulation with COMSOL Multiphysics
[24].
2. Experimental procedure
The material used in this work was Cr-Mo-V type steel, known as 32
CDV 13 according to AFNOR NF. Three 32 CDV 13 steels (namely A, B,
and C) with different cleanness levels were used in the trials. The
chemical composition of these steels is shown in Table 1. The steels
were supplied in quenched and tempered condition, in steel bars of
R. Arreola-Herrera et al. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146

Table 1
Chemical composition of the 32CDV 13 steels.

Element 32CDV 13 (wt.%) Results (wt.%)

A B C

C 0.30–0.35 0.33 0.34 0.32

Si 0.35 Max. 0.26 0.30 0.29
Mn 0.60 Max. 0.41 0.47 0.51
P 0.025 Max. 0.025 0.006 0
S 0.010 Max. 0.02 0.00 0
Cr 2.8–3.20 2.89 2.89 3.07
Ni 0.25 Max. 0.10 0.05 0.11
Mo 0.8–1.20 0.85 0.97 0.85
V 0.25–0.35 0.25 0.29 0.28

0.0381 m in diameter.

2.1. Microstructural characterization

In terms of microstructural examinations, standard metallography
was employed using an optical microscope Olympus PMG-3 model. The
level of inclusions was determined based on DIN 50602 [25] method K.
A high-resolution Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) JEOL JSM-
6701F with energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS) was used to de-
termine the qualitative chemical composition of the inclusions and the
fracture surfaces of Charpy specimens. Expansion lateral measurements
and the amount of brittle and ductile area were carried out on fracture
surfaces of Charpy specimens in accordance with ASTM E23 [26]. The
measurement was performed using a microscope for metrology Carl
Zeiss series J831 (resolution 0.001 mm), discarding the burr of the
specimens.
Fig. 1. Schematic of the model system and boundary conditions used for the numerical
simulation.
of 5 µm and 35 µm according to the size of the inclusions.
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the 2D plane stress model and the
boundary conditions. The load was simulated under unidirectional
tensile force F = 186 kN along the vertical direction, this loading con-
dition was taken from [16].
The numerical model was validated by using the analytical solution
for elastic analysis of a circular inclusion in a semi-infinite plate under
tensile load, using the equation derived by Shioya [29,30]. The max-
imum value of the principal stresses on the common boundary of the
inclusion and matrix is given by

1 2 ⎫Γ = E
2.2. Mechanical properties σmax = T ⎧ +
⎨
⎩ (1 + ν ) + (1−ν )Γ (3−ν ) + (1 + ν )Γ ⎬
⎭ E (1)
Samples of the steels were obtained from the central region of the The properties used to validate the numerical simulation are given in
bar by machining in the longitudinal direction for tension, Brinell Table 2. With these elastic properties, an inclusion of 20 µm of diameter
hardness, and impact testing. The size and geometry of the specimens embedded in a 100 × 100 µm square plate subject to a tensile stress of
were in accordance with specifications of ASTM E8 [27], ASTM E10 1 MPa gives a maximum principal stress on the common boundary of
[28] and ASTM E23 [26] for the tension, hardness, and impact testing, 1.3 MPa (Fig. 2). Inserting the data given in Table 2 into Eq. (1), the
respectively. Tensile testing was carried out at room temperature using maximum principal stress gives 1.43 MPa. A comparison of maximum
a universal testing machine Shimadzu of 100 KN with 10 mm/min principal stress between the analytical result and numerical simulation
cross-head speed. The toughness was characterized by the absorbed gives an error of 9%. In this study, an error less than 10% is acceptable.
fracture energy of Charpy type specimens at ambient temperature.
Three specimens from each steel were tested for impact and tension
3. Results and discussion
tests using an impact testing machine Otto Wolpert-Werke, model
PW30/15 K. The Brinell hardness measurements were carried out in the
The chemical composition of the three grades of steel reported in
cross direction using a Wilson durometer series 500 in accordance with
Table 1 shows that the steels meet the standard specifications of the 32
the standard specification of ASTM E10 [28].
CDV 13 type steel.

2.3. Numerical simulation

3.1. Microstructural characterization
The morphology and size of the different type of inclusions were
determined by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images. In order to The microstructure of each steel as was acquired is shown in Fig. 3.
analyze the stress field distribution around the inclusion according to A microstructural analysis was carried out of samples taken in the
the inclusion type, shape and locations, the inclusions SEM images longitudinal direction of the steel bar. The three steels have a micro-
(raster image) were converted to a vector image (v.dxf file) to set a structure of tempered martensite. The micrographs of the three steels
more accurate numerical model of the microscopic inclusions. The show the presence of a slight banding. Banding is known to be caused
advantage of this approach is that more realistic inclusions geometry primarily by the interdendritic segregation of manganese during
can be considered, and therefore the stress field near the inclusions
Table 2
edges can be better captured. The 2-D plane stress model of inclusions
Material properties for validation of numerical simulation.
was set up using the software COMSOL Multiphysics, this program is a
finite element solver for the governing equations of the physics. The Non-metallic inclusion Matrix
stress field was analyzed using the von Mises theory. Decohesion phe-
Young’s modulus (GPa) 271 27
nomena are not considered. The stress field was simulated for each
Poisson’s ratio 0.28 0.3
individual type of inclusion immersed in a square matrix with a size of Density (kg/m3) 3990 7870
15 µm, and multiples inclusions immersed in a square matrix with a size

136
R. Arreola-Herrera et al.
Fig. 2. Stress distribution for a round non-metallic inclusion to check the validity of the
numerical model.
solidification. Ray et al. [13] reported that a high manganese content is
required in steels (≥0.96 wt%) to obtain banding attributed to man-
ganese segregation. They did not find evidence of banding in steel with
a manganese content of 0.51 wt% which presents similar manganese
content for the steels evaluated in this work. The main difference with
the work of A. Ray et al. [13] is the carbon content; the average carbon
content in the steels evaluated in this work is 0.33 wt%, while a carbon
content of 0.08 wt% was reported in the steel used by Ray et al. [13].
The slight carbon variations may, in fact, be a result of the effect of
Mn on the activity of C, as proposed by Kirkaldy et al. [31]. Manganese
lowers the activity of C in austenite, and therefore Mn-rich regions
would tend to attract C. Similarly, Cr lowers C activity, while P, Si, and
Ni raise C activity, causing rejection of C from regions rich in these
elements. Steels, of course, are multicomponent alloys, and all elements
segregate to some degree. Therefore, for these steels, the slight banding
is attributed mainly to the carbon segregation forming martensite bands
with low carbon content alternating with martensite bands of high
carbon content.
3.2. Non-metallic inclusions level
The nonmetallic inclusions level was determined with the K2
method based on the specification DIN 50602 [25]. Table 3 shows re-
sults of the level of nonmetallic inclusions obtained for the three 32
CDV 13 steels. According to the results, it can be identified that the steel
C has been produced with a high-quality secondary metallurgy process
137
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146
Table 3
Level of non-metallic inclusions based on DIN 50602, K2 method.
Steel A B C
Level of non-metallic inclusions 125.5 56.40 1.5
and it can be considered as a steel with very low non-metallic inclu-
sions. The steel A was produced with the worst quality process, because
it presents the highest non-metallic inclusion level, while the steel B
contains a non-metallic inclusion level between the steels A and C.
Fig. 4 shows photomicrographs of the non-metallic inclusions for the
three steels. As it can be observed, the steel A contains globular oxide
and sulfide-type inclusions, while the steels B and C only present
globular oxide type inclusions.
Figs. 5–7 show the results of the qualitative chemical composition of
the inclusions by scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive
spectrometry (EDS) for the three steels analyzed. The energy dispersive
spectrometry results for the steel A are shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b), re-
spectively. In Fig. 5(a), it was detected sulfur and manganese in an
elongated non-metallic inclusion which corresponds to a manganese
sulfide (MnS) inclusion. Fig. 5(b) shows an elongated oxide inclusion
that it is constituted by aluminum, oxygen and few quantities of cal-
cium. According to the EDS analysis, this particle may correspond to a
calcium aluminate (CaO·Al2O3) inclusion.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the qualitative chemical analysis of globular
oxide inclusions detected in steels B and C, respectively. In both steels,
the main elements detected by EDS are aluminum and oxygen with
calcium and magnesium in fewer quantities for the steels B and C, re-
spectively; these particles may correspond to calcium aluminate or
spinels (MgO·Al2O3) particles.
Inclusions and second-phase particles are the primary sources of
voids. The manganese sulfide inclusions are ductile and possess low
strength, while the alumina inclusions are hard and brittle. The MnS
inclusions are larger than alumina inclusions and have the lower bond
energy to the matrix than oxides do [2,14,17]. Therefore, the fracture
initiation is initially by debonding and void growth at the MnS-matrix
interface. The size and distribution of inclusions affect the steel ducti-
lity, for that reason, the smaller and round non-metallic inclusions of
steels B and C may show more percentage shear fracture than steel A.
The non-metallic inclusions in steels B and C are more widely spaced
leading to a percentage shear fracture mechanism that involves void
coalescence which increases the toughness in steels B and C. The me-
chanical deformation during the hot rolled process used to obtain the
final dimensions of the steels impact more significantly to steel A. The
elongated MnS non-metallic inclusions are more likely to crack by the
load transfer from the matrix to the inclusion. These cracked inclusions
provide additional crack nucleation sites that contribute to a brittle
fracture mechanism.
Fig. 3. Optical micrographs showing tem-
pered martensite for (a) Steel A, (b) Steel B,
and (c) Steel C.
R. Arreola-Herrera et al. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146

Fig. 4. Optical micrographs of non-metallic

inclusions for (a) Steel A, showing oxide and
sulfide (b) Steel B, showing globular oxide
and, (c) Steel C, showing globular oxide.

Fig. 5. SEM analysis of the non-metallic inclusions found in steel A, showing: (a) manganese sulfide (MnS) and (b) calcium aluminate (CaO·Al2O3).

Fig. 6. SEM analysis of the non-metallic inclusions found in steel B showing a spinel globular oxide (MgO·Al2O3).

3.3. Mechanical properties
The three 32 CDV 13 steels were characterized by a tensile test,
Brinell hardness, and Charpy impact test. These results are shown in
Table 4. The steel A show higher ultimate tensile strength than steels B
and C do. The Brinell hardness values are similar for the three steels;
however, there is a remarkable difference in the toughness results. The
toughness difference between steels B and C is around 6% and steel C
toughness is twice than steel A. Considering that the three steels have a
similar chemical composition, the variance in its mechanical properties
is attributed to the type and non-metallic inclusions level.
The Steel A showed the lowest elongation due to its high yield

138
R. Arreola-Herrera et al. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146

Fig. 7. SEM analysis of the non-metallic inclusions found in steel C showing a spinel globular oxide (MgO·Al2O3).

Table 4 Table 6
Mechanical properties of the 32CDV 13 steels. Variation of lateral expansion of the three 32CDV 13 steels.

Steel Yield strength UTS (MPa) Elongation (%) Brinell Impact Steel A1 A2 A3 A4 Lateral expansion (mm) Average
(MPa) hardness energy (J)
A 0.317 0.143 0.202 0.209 0.526 0.50
A 987.4 1113.9 16.2 358.6 88.2 0.236 0.205 0.221 0.227 0.463
B 732.2 864.6 18.0 293.0 189.9 0.286 0.253 0.026 0.244 0.530
C 883.5 985.9 17.9 313.2 202.0
B 0.710 0.677 0.908 0.461 1.618 1.54
0.756 0.738 0.841 0.514 1.479
0.668 0.577 0.876 0.349 1.544
Table 5
Percentage shear fracture and flat fracture zones on Charpy surface fractures for the C 0.477 0.404 0.313 0.335 0.812 0.96
0.731 0.615 0.334 0.321 1.065
32CDV 13 steels.
0.351 0.603 0.237 0.423 1.026
Steel Sample Percentage shear Flat zone Average (%)
fracture (%) (%)
Percentage shear Flat zone test specimens. The first parameter analyzed was to determine the
fracture percentages of the shear fracture and flat fracture on each side of the
fracture. Three specimens of each steel were analyzed and the results of
A 1 20.19 79.81 14.64 85.36
2 8.22 91.78 the nine samples are shown in Table 5.
3 15.53 84.47 The results obtained by ASTM E23 [26] estimates a microscopically
B 1 64.72 35.28 69.47 30.53 flat area of the fracture region, but do not consider details of the frac-
2 71.23 28.77 ture mode for this “flat” region of unstable fracture. This means that the
3 72.46 27.54 flat fracture region could be 100 percent cleavage, a mixture of clea-
C 1 62.92 37.08 61.83 38.17 vage and ductile-dimple fracture morphologies, or other combinations
2 60.98 39.02 of ductile-brittle fracture morphologies. The results show that steels B
3 62.59 38.41 and C presented the highest percentage shear fracture, while the steel A
presented the lowest.
Fig. 8 shows the percentage shear fracture and flat fracture zones of
strength and ultimate tensile strengths and the opposite behavior is
samples obtained by the Charpy impact test for the three steels eval-
shown for the Steel B. However, the Steel C shows an increase of 17%
uated. Fig. 8 shows an increase in the dimensions of the opposite sides
regarding the Steel B in the yield strength presented a minimum elon-
to the notch on the impact specimens and the average percentage of
gation increase (less than 1% with respect to steel B), this behavior is
shear fracture and flat fracture zones. The lateral expansion measure-
attributed to its low non-metallic inclusions level.
ment results are observed in Table 6. The results show that these steels
with high elastic limit have a high lateral expansion.
3.4. Fracture behavior The results in Table 5 and Fig. 8 show that steel A presented fracture
faces with an average value of 85.36% of the flat area with variations of
In order to identify the toughness variation between the three steels, up to 12% from one specimen to another. This type of steel also pre-
a fracture analysis was carried out on the fracture faces of the impact sented a low level of strain, which results in a rapid fracture

A1 A3 Fig. 8. SEM analysis of the Charpy fracture

surface for (a) Steel A, (b) Steel B and, (c)
Steel C.

139
R. Arreola-Herrera et al.
propagation due to its low-level energy absorption capacity. For steel A,
the fracture mechanism and Charpy fracture surface correspond to the
reported by Saedi and Ekrami [32], where the radial marks represent
the flat fracture mechanism.
The steel C fracture faces reported 38.17% of the flat area in
average; while, the values shift between the three samples was de-
termined in 2% which indicates a great homogeneity of this steel. In
addition, steel C showed a fracture without any preferential propaga-
tion direction, that indicates a good absorption energy capacity of this
steel. Steel B presented the highest percentage of shear fracture area
and a minimum variation between the results of the three samples
evaluated which indicates a good homogeneity of this steel. The frac-
ture mechanism for steel B was similar to steel C, where there is not a
preferential direction of the crack propagation. Therefore, the entire
cross-section of the steels B and C offers energy absorption during the
fracture propagation. The steels B and C did not show radial marks that
evidenced a flat fracture. However, it has been reported [12,33] that for
very high strength steels, the observation of a percentage shear fracture
zone at the stationary crack tip does not constitute that the crack in-
itiation has occurred by a ductile mechanism. Three possible crack
140
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146
Fig. 9. SEM fractographs of the steel A for (a)
Fracture initiation zone, (b) Percentage shear frac-
ture and (c) Flat fracture zone.
initiation-propagation mechanism has been proposed for these type of
steels [12,33]. The fracture mechanism for steels B and C suggests that a
localized microcracking by the growth of the inclusion-nucleated voids
occurs first, and then, the load is transferred to the connected regions
along the crack tip. The load transfer increases the deformation rate and
accelerates the shear de-cohesion process promoting the initiation of
micro-cracks in the regions where there are non-metallic inclusions. As
it was observed in Table 4, steel B had the lowest yield strength of the
three steels which improves toughness, however its capacity to energy
absorption during fracture was lower than steel C, this behavior is at-
tributable to the difference in the content of non-metallic inclusions in
each steel.
The fracture faces of each steel were analyzed by scanning electron
microscope with energy dispersive spectrometry, for which the frac-
tured samples were studied for the percentage shear fracture, flat
fracture and, fracture initiation regions.
Figs. 9–11 show the fracture evolution for different zones of the
fracture faces at different magnifications for the A, B and C 32 CDV 13
steels, respectively. Fig. 9(a) shows a high amount of dimples in the
steel A, which it is related to the presence of non-metallic inclusions.
R. Arreola-Herrera et al.
The micrograph of Fig. 9(a) shows the presence of sulfide and oxide
type inclusions, which were confirmed by EDS analysis in the SEM re-
sults. Figs. 10(a) and 11(a) show the results for the fracture initiation
zone, for the steels B and C, respectively. These steels have lower
dimples instead of steel A and it is related to the presence of oxide type
inclusions. For these two steels, there was no evidence of sulfide-type
inclusions. It was evident in Figs. 9(a), 10(a) and 11(a) that non-me-
tallic inclusions were in the vicinity of the fracture initiation, large
voids formed by the growth of inclusion-nucleated microvoids. In some
cases, these voids grew till they joined the blunting crack tip as shown
in Figs. 9(a) and 10(a). Sulfide type inclusions, due to its elongated
shape, generate anisotropy in the material, which greatly reduces the
toughness of the steel, as it was observed in Table 4 for the steel A.
Figs. 9(b), 10(b) and 11(b) show the regions where the percentage
shear fracture occurs for the steels A, B, and C, respectively. As it was
reported in Fig. 8, the steels B and C show a greater amount of per-
centage shear fracture instead than does steel A. Fig. 9(b) shows a high
level of dimples at the surface associated with the presence of sulfide-
type inclusions compared with steels B and C. A remarkable difference
between steels B and C is that steel C shows the fewer amounts of oxide
type inclusions than does steel B, as it can be seen in Figs. 10(b) and
141
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146
Fig. 10. SEM fractographs of the steel B for (a)
Fracture initiation zone, (b) Percentage shear frac-
ture and (c) Flat fracture zone.
11(b). The main difference between the flat fracture areas of the three
steels is the fracture pattern, whereas, the steel A shows a fracture
pattern constituted by well-defined flow lines with a higher percentage
of flat fracture zone without deformation patterns (Fig. 9(c)), which
indicates a faster fracture propagation, compared to the steels B and C
(Figs. 10(c) and 11(c)). Furthermore, the fracture pattern of the steels B
and C neither show a deformation pattern nor flow lines on their sur-
face. This behavior means a slower fracture advance due to a good
energy absorption capacity of these steels. However, the steel C shows a
good homogeneity, the lower non-metallic inclusion level without sul-
fide manganese type inclusion, which leads to the best energy absorp-
tion capacity than steels A and B do. The fracture behavior of the
evaluated steels evidence that the localized micro-cracking by the
growth of the inclusion-nucleated voids occurred first, and conse-
quently, the load was transferred to the connected regions along the
crack tip.
The non-metallic inclusions presented in the three steels act like
stress concentrator and this effect is more significant for the sulfide
inclusions than oxide inclusions due to that an elongated shape con-
centrates more stress than does a globular shape [13,16]. It is worthy of
mention that steels B and C showed the presence of magnesium in its
R. Arreola-Herrera et al.
non-metallic inclusion composition. This means that the magnesium
content in the aluminum lump used for the deoxidation of this steel was
enough to form small spherical inclusions instead of bigger inclusions,
as it was reported by Dekkers et al. [8].
3.5. Numerical simulation of stress distribution
Fig. 12 shows the mesh used in each case to analyze the stress
distribution from the 2D plane stress finite element model for the real
inclusions showed in Figs. 5–7. Inclusion in Fig. 12(a) was discretized
by 17e3 elements, while inclusion in Fig. 12(b), (c), (d) were discretized
by 57e3, 8e3 and 21e3, respectively. The meshes were refined at the
interface between the inclusion and matrix in order to capture the stress
near the inclusions borders. Numerical accuracy was checked by doing
a convergence study where further mesh refinement does not produce
visible changes in the results.
Matrix material is the 32CDV 12 steel, whose elastic modulus
E1 = 210,000 MPa, Poisson ratio υ1 = 0.28. According with the SEM-
EDS results, inclusions falls into three types, with E2 = 138,000 MPa
and υ2 = 0.3; E3 = 113,000 MPa and υ3 = 0.234; E4 = 271,000 MPa
and υ4 = 0.26 for the MnS, CaO·Al2O3 and MgO·Al2O3 non-metallic
142
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146
Fig. 11. SEM fractographs of the steel C for (a)
Fracture initiation zone, (b) Percentage shear frac-
ture and (c) Flat fracture zone.
inclusions, respectively [1].
Numerical simulation was carried out in order to determine how the
shape, size and the mechanical properties of the non-metallic inclusions
immersed in a steel matrix affect the internal stress distribution. Fig. 13
shows the contour plots of the von Mises Stress obtained from the finite
element analysis. The results show the regions where the most sig-
nificant stress gradients are located at some specific point between the
inclusion and matrix interface. The stress concentration depends prin-
cipally on the size and shape of the inclusion. Fig. 13(a) and (b) shows
that the elongated inclusions cause larger stress concentrations around
the sharp edges and there also are regions where the stress gradient is
insignificant between the inclusion and matrix despite the hetero-
geneities of the materials. However, in spite of the smooth shape of
inclusions found in steels B and C, the most significant stress gradient is
produced by the MgO·Al2O3 inclusion identified for steel C and showed
in Fig. 13(d) while the lowest level of stress concentration was pro-
duced by the MnS inclusion shown in Fig. 13(a) for steel A. This be-
havior is due to the difference in Young’s modulus between the inclu-
sion and the matrix. The spinel (MgO·Al2O3) inclusion has the greatest
Young’s modulus than Young’s modulus of the steel producing the
highest stress concentration around the inclusion under the load
R. Arreola-Herrera et al.
Fig. 12. Finite element meshes used to discretize the real inclusions morphologies for the stress analysis.
applied. Otherwise, Young’s modulus of the calcium aluminate
(CaO·Al2O3) and manganese sulfide (MnS) inclusions are lower than the
steel Young’s modulus.
Since the maximum stress concentration was determined with the
type of inclusion found in the steel C (Fig. 13(d)), then the effect over
the stress distribution produced by the interaction of different inclu-
sions was analyzed in order to determine if the same level of stress is
reached under the same loading conditions. Two random arrangements
were studied to determine the stress interaction between several in-
clusions with the morphologies determined in Figs. 5–7. The inclusions
considered are MnS for the elongated shape and MgO·Al2O3 for the
circular one in Fig. 14(a). In Fig. 14(b) the inclusions are MnS for the
elongated shapes, CaO·Al2O3 for the elongated and irregular shape, and
MgO·Al2O3 for the circular one. The contour plots of the von Mises
Stress determined for the interactions of the inclusions (Fig. 14), show
either that the combined effect of the inclusions over the stress dis-
tribution, is not enough to reach the same level of stress as the
MgO·Al2O3 inclusion in Fig. 13(d), however, it can be seen in Fig. 14(a)
and (b) that if the inclusions are close enough, the field of stress around
the inclusions may interact allowing the micro-crack formation around
the inclusions, this effect is more apparent in Fig. 14(b) where the in-
clusions are closer and the size of the field of stress around the inclu-
sions is reinforced.
The effect of an inclusion on the stress concentration depends on its
size, shape, thermal and elastic properties and its adhesion to the ma-
trix. In this work, it was determined that the amount and size of the
inclusions have the major effect on the stress concentration. Therefore,
the steel A showed the lowest absorption energy capacity than steel C
do.
In order to clarify the difference between the stresses distribution of
a real inclusion and that simplified to have the regular morphologies
such as circle, square, pentagon, etcetera, the maximum value of the
principal stresses produced by the MgO·Al2O3 inclusion (shown in
Fig. 12(d)) was determined as a morphology of round inclusion
(Fig. 15(a)) with numerical simulation and using Eq. (1), and then it
was compared with the real inclusion, in the previous case the loading
143
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146
condition of 1 MPa was used. The maximum principal stress on the
common boundary between the inclusion and the matrix is 1.4 MPa
using Eq. (1), while the numerical maximum principal stress for round
inclusion and the irregular inclusion were 1.33 MPa and 8.54 MPa re-
spectively (Fig. 15(b) and (c)). The comparison between the analytical
and numerical results shows that in order to capture the stresses be-
tween the inclusion and matrix in real inclusions with irregular mor-
phology, accurate predictions are done only using the real shape of the
inclusion.
4. Conclusions
Three 32 CDV 13 steels with the same chemical composition and
microstructure but different non-metallic inclusions content were
characterized. Steel C showed small globular oxide with the lowest non-
metallic inclusions level instead of steel A which showed the higher
non-metallic inclusion content constituted of manganese sulfide and
oxide inclusions. Steel C showed an isotropic behavior with the higher
toughness value than steels A and B which is directed related to its low
non-metallic inclusion level. The significant difference in the inclusion
level for the steels A and C directly impacts in the formation of flat
fracture and percentage shear fracture zones and therefore in the
toughness capacity. Steel A showed a radial mark formation typical of a
brittle fracture mechanism while for steels B and C, it was observed a
localized micro-cracking by the growth of the inclusion-nucleated voids
and then connected regions along the crack tip. Numerical simulation
shows that the effect of non-metallic inclusion level on the stress dis-
tribution can be combined and that connected regions let that the
cracking produced around the inclusion grows and that the morphology
of the inclusions influences strongly the concentration of stresses be-
tween the inclusion and the surrounding matrix, thus in order to cap-
ture stresses near the inclusion the real morphology of the inclusion
should be studied.
R. Arreola-Herrera et al. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146

Fig. 13. Contour plots of stress distribution (MPa) of inclusions with different shapes, sizes, and mechanical properties. (a) MnS inclusion, (b) CaO·Al2O3 inclusion, (c) and (d) MgO·Al2O3
inclusions.

Fig. 14. Contour plots of stress distribution (MPa) of the interaction of inclusions with different shapes, sizes, and mechanical properties. (a) MnS and CaO·Al2O3 inclusions, (b) MnS,
CaO·Al2O3 and MgO·Al2O3 inclusions.

144
R. Arreola-Herrera et al.
Fig. 15. Comparison of maximum principal stresses for the real MgO·Al2O3 inclusion and that simplified to have the circular geometry. Analytical value of the maximum principal stresses
is 1.4 MPa.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Institutions CONACYT, SNI, COFAA
and SIP-Instituto Politécnico Nacional for their permanent assistance to
the Process Metallurgy Group at ESIQIE-Metallurgy and Materials
Department.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2018.01.013.
References
[1] P. Juvonen, Effects of Non-Metallic Inclusions on Fatigue Properties of Calcium
Treated Steels, Doctoral Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, 2004.
[2] H. Tervo, A. Kaijalainen, T. Pikkarainen, S. Mehtonen, D. Porter, Effect of impurity
level and inclusions on the ductility and toughness of an ultra-high-strength steel,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 697 (2017) 184–193.
145
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146
[3] A. Ghosh, Secondary Steelmaking: Principles and Applications, CRC Press LLC,
2001, USA.
[4] L. Zhang, B. Thomas, X. Wang, K. Cai, Evaluation and control of steel cleanliness –
review, in: 85th Steelmaking Conference Proceedings 2002 Warrendale, PA, ISS-
AIME, pp. 431–452.
[5] L. Zhang, B. Thomas, Inclusions in continuous casting of steel, in: XXIV National
Steelmaking Symposium, Morelia, Mich, Mexico 26–28 Nov. 2003, pp. 138–183.
[6] G. Shi, H. Atkinson, C. Sellars, C. Anderson, Maximum inclusion size in two clean
steels Part 1 Comparison of maximum size estimates by statistics of extremes and
generalized Pareto distribution methods, Ironmak. Steelmak. 27 (5) (2000)
355–360.
[7] G. Shi, H. Atkinson, C. Sellars, C. Anderson, Maximum inclusion size in two clean
steels Part 2 Use of data from cold crucible remelted samples and polished optical
cross-sections, Ironmak. Steelmak. 27 (5) (2000) 361–366.
[8] R. Dekkers, B. Blanpain, P. Wollants, F. Haers, C. Vercuyssen, B. Gommers, Non-
metallic inclusions in aluminum killed steels, Ironmak. Steelmak. 29 (6) (2002)
437–444.
[9] R. Dekkers, R. Blanpain, B. Plessers, J. Wollants, Steel cleanliness and hydrogen in
liquid steel, in: VII International Conference on Molten Slags Fluxes and Salts, The
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2004, pp. 753–762.
[10] C. Liu, R. Revilla, Z. Liu, D. Zhang, X. Li, H. Terryn, Effect of inclusions modified by
rare earth elements (Ce, La) on localized marine corrosion in Q460NH weathering
steel, Corr. Sci. 129 (2017) 82–90.
[11] A. Ghosh, P. Modak, R. Dutta, D. Chakrabarti, Effect of MnS inclusion and
R. Arreola-Herrera et al.
crystallographic texture on anisotropy in Charpy impact toughness of low carbon
ferritic steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 654 (2016) 298–308.
[12] F. Ebrahimi, H. Seo, Ductile crack initiation in steels, Acta Mater. 44 (2) (1996)
831–843.
[13] A. Ray, S. Paul, S. Jha, Effect of inclusions and microstructural characteristics on the
mechanical properties and fracture behavior of a high-strength low alloy steel, J.
Mater. Eng. Perform. 4 (6) (1995) 679–688.
[14] K. Yamamoto, H. Yamamura, Y. Suwa, Behavior of non-metallic inclusions in steel
during hot deformation and the effects of deformed inclusions on local ductility,
ISIJ Int. 51 (12) (2011) 1987–1994.
[15] X. Wang, K. Zhou, Three-phase elliptical inclusions with internal uniform hydro-
static stress resultants in anisotropic laminated plates, Euro. J. Mech. A-Solids 49
(2015) 125–136.
[16] Y. Dixin, X. Jingpei, Z. Kefeng, L. Zongfa, W. Aiqin, W. Wenyan, Numerical simu-
lation of stress field in inclusions of large rudder arm steel castings, China Foundry
6 (3) (2009) 219–225.
[17] H. Yu, H. Bi, X. Liu, Li Chen, Ni Dong, Behavior of inclusions with weak adhesion to
strip matrix during rolling using FEM, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (2009)
4274–4280.
[18] N. Matsuoka, M. Terano, T. Ishiguro, E. Abe, N. Yukawa, T. Ishikawa, Y. Ueshima,
K. Yamamoto, K. Isobe, Computer simulation of deformation behavior of non-me-
tallic inclusion in hot rolling, Proc. Eng. 81 (2014) 120–125.
[19] J. Guan, L. Wang, Ch. Zhang, X. Ma, Effects of non-metallic inclusions on the crack
propagation in bearing steel, Tribol. Int. 106 (2017) 123–131.
[20] D. Spriestersbach, P. Grad, E. Kersher, Influence of different non-metallic inclusion
types on the crack initiation in high-strength steels in the VHCF regime, Int. J. Fat.
64 (2014) 114–120.
[21] G. Roberts, G. Krauss, R. Kennedy, Tool Steels, ASM International, USA, 1998.
146
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 94 (2018) 134–146
[22] R. Arreola, A. Cruz, M. Suárez, R. Sánchez, The effect of cold forming on structure
and properties of 32 CDV 13 steel by radial forging process, Mater. Res. 17 (2)
(2014) 445–450.
[23] T. Denda, P. Bretz, J. Tien, Inclusion size effect on the fatigue crack propagation
mechanism and fracture mechanics of a superalloy, Metall. Trans. A 23 (1992)
519–526.
[24] COMSOL Multiphysics, Solid Mechanics module, User’s Guide, version 5.2a, Comsol
Inc., 2016 (License number: 3075805).
[25] DIN 50602, Metallographic examination; microscopic examination of special steels
using standard diagrams to assess the content of non-metallic inclusions, DIN, PA,
1985.
[26] ASTM , Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic
Materials, Annual Book ASTM Stand, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
[27] ASTM /E8M, Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials,
Annual Book ASTM Stand, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009.
[28] ASTM , Standard Test Method for Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials, Annual
Book ASTM Stand, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[29] M.D. House, C. Lakshmana Rao, B.N. Rao, Numerical modelling of failure of cement
concrete using a unit cell approach, Ind. Acad. Sci. (2011) 35–51.
[30] S. Shioya, On a semi-infinite thin plate with a circular inclusion under uniform
tension, JSME (1967) 1–9.
[31] J.S. Kirkaldy, J. von Destinon, R.J. Brigham, Simulation on banding in steels, Can.
Metall. Quart. 1 (1962) 59–81.
[32] N. Saeidi, A. Ekrami, Impact properties of tempered bainite-ferrite dual phase
steels, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 (2010) 5575–5581.
[33] D.T. Hoelzer, J.A. Ali, F. Ebrahimi, A study of the correlation between crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD) and stretch zone width (SZW), Scripta Metall. 20
(1986) 1575–1586.