ISIJ International,

ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1 Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1, pp. 176–185

Determining Hot Deformation Behavior of an Advance High

Strength Steel (AHSS) by Means of Dynamic Processing Maps

Xiang GAO,1) Démian RUVALCABA,2) Lu HAN,1) HongXiang LI,1)* Begoña SANTILLANA2) and
LinZhong ZHUANG1,2)

1) State Key Laboratory for Advanced Metals and Materials, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, 100083
China.
2) Research & Development, Tata Steel, 1970 CA IJmuiden, Netherlands.
(Received on June 15, 2018; accepted on September 6, 2018)

The deformation behavior of an Advance High Strength Steel (AHSS) with a composition of 0.22C-1Si-2Mn
was investigated by means of dynamic processing maps. The flow stress curves, which were determined
by tensile tests within the temperature range of 1 173 and 1 573 K and at strain rates between 10 − 3 and
1 s − 1, were used for constructing the processing maps based on the Dynamic Materials Modeling
approach (DMM). These maps were used to evaluate the optimum thermomechanical processing condi-
tions by identifying the stable “safe” regions for plastic flow. Microstructure and fracture analysis of the
test samples was performed and correlated to the processing maps. This analysis was used for determin-
ing the “safe” domains within the maps whereby plastic flow can be optimum for processing the material.
This study will allow us in determining optimal industrial processing routes for producing these steels and
to achieve the highest quality of the end product.

KEY WORDS: hot deformation; processing map; strain rate sensitivity; microstructure.

control the microstructure, avoid the formation of micro-

1. Introduction
Strict environmental regulations in the automotive indus-
try, mainly for reducing CO2 emissions, has motivated met-
allurgical researches in developing a wide range of new steel
grades that can allow the reduction of weight of automotive
parts without compromising its structural integrity while in
service.1) These new steel grades, such as the Dual Phase
(DP) Advance High Strength Steels (AHSS), have attracted
great industrial interest due to their adequate balance in
mechanical properties i.e. toughness, strength and ductility.2)
However, the high strength and toughness of these steels
may imply difficulties for their production. Also, consider-
ing the microstructural changes that accompany the plastic
deformation of these steels, it is wise to have full under-
standing of its behavior at critical processing temperatures
and strain rates. Localized strains due to the anisotropy of
the structure and distribution of phases may lead to the for-
mation of weak spots which can provoke failure of the work
piece during processing. Therefore, it is necessary to under-
stand their plastic behavior as a function of microstructure,
temperature, strain and strain rate, in order to avoid unstable
or “unsafe” processing routes.
During hot deformation (such as in the process of hot
rolling), the microstructure of metals goes through a series
of changes, which influence its plastic behavior. Thus,
one of the most important goals in hot deformation is to
* Corresponding author: E-mail: hxli@skl.ustb.edu.cn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2018-432
or macro defects or flow instabilities that can compro-
mise the material integrity during processing. Advanced
numerical models which correlate plastic flow with the
inherent material properties have facilitated the design
of optimum processing paths while identifying critical
parameters such as temperatures and strain rates. Material
models for hot deformation can predict optimum process
parameters and window range for process control for
given industrial schemes.3) The dynamic processing maps
determined with the Dynamic Materials Modeling approach
(DMM) is one of the most effective tools for determining
optimum processing parameters. This approach has been
validated and applied to a wide range of materials such
as: carbon-manganese-silicon steel,4) Aermet100 steel,5)
42CrMo steel,6) 15Cr-15Ni-2.2Mo-0.3Ti austenitic stainless
steel,7) 304L stainless steel,8) 2 519 A aluminum alloy,9)
commercial-purity aluminum,10) AZ31 magnesium alloy,11)
extruded AZ magnesium alloys,12) Ti-10V-4.5Fe-1.5Al
titanium alloy,13) Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy,14) cobalt,15)
zirconium alloy16) etc. It has been demonstrated that with
the use of processing maps, it is possible to obtain optimum
parameters for efficiently designing an effective metalwork-
ing processing route.17)
The strain rate sensitivity (m) is an important parameter
since that has direct impact on the final results of the pro-
cessing map. In most cases, materials exhibit positive values
of m, i.e. the flow stress increase with the increase of strain
rate, under which the deformation is stable. Nevertheless,
m may become negative in a certain range of strain rate

© 2019 ISIJ 176

 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1

and temperature. This may lead to material instabilities Table 1. Chemical compositions of DP steel (wt.%).
during plastic deformation,18) whereby accumulation of Fe C Si Mn P S Ti Al N
local strains may lead to periodic serrated changes on the
Bal. 0.22 1.0 2.1 0.003 0.013 0.001 0.03 0.0007
stress-strain curves.19) In this situation, the calculation of
the processing map may fail since negative values do not
satisfactorily enter in the solution due to the numerical
approach of the model which accounts for the calculation of
the natural logarithm of m. There are some papers18–21) that
reflect on cases whereby m ≤ 0. Other studies4–9,11–17,22–25)
which focus mainly on the development of processing maps,
do not discuss about cases whereby m ≤ 0, even when sig-
nificant oscillations have been identified in the stress-strain
curves.8,12,23,25)
The aim of the current investigation is to determine the
critical domains where plastic flow may be stable or “safe”
during hot deformation of a DP steel by means of a dynamic
processing map. This modeling approach may help us
understanding the influence of microstructural changes and
constitutive behavior on plastic deformation during process-
ing. The study is done within the critical temperature range
for hot processing (within 1 173 and 1 573 K). Experimental
data from the isothermal hot tensile tests based on the flow
stress curves were employed for developing the processing
maps. A discussion is given for the cases whereby m ≤ 0,
and where the corresponding area in the processing map
had to be defined by means of microstructure and fracture
analysis. Based on the calculated processing maps, the opti-
mum “safe” domains for hot deformation of the DP steel is
satisfactory suggested. Fig. 1. (a) Dimensions of the tensile specimens used in the Glee-
ble tests, and (b) schematic diagram of the heating-cooling
process, sample pulling and quenching. (Online version in
2. Experimental Procedure color.)

Steel ingots of 100 × 100 × 270 mm were produced in a

vacuum induction furnace at Tata Steel, in IJmuiden. The
chemical composition of the steel is shown in Table 1.
This steel corresponds to an Advance High Strength Steels
(AHSS), Dual Phase (DP) steel.
The isothermal hot tensile tests were performed on a
Gleeble 1 500 thermomechanical simulator at five differ-
ent temperatures (1 173, 1 273, 1 373, 1 473 and 1 573 K)
and at four strain rates (10 − 3, 10 − 2, 10 − 1 and 1 s − 1). The
dimensions of the cylindrical specimens and the schematic
diagram of the heating-cooling process for tensile testing
are shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), respectively. During the
tests, each specimen was rapidly heated up to 1 623 K at
a heating rate of 20 K/s and then held for 300 seconds for
homogenization. Afterwards, the specimens were cooled
down at a cooling rate of 5 K/s until reaching the testing
temperature, and then held again for 60 seconds prior to
sample pulling. This procedure was repeated at different
strain rates. The temperature of the specimen was monitored
by using a R-type (Pt-Pt13%Rh) thermocouple welded to
the mid-span surface of the specimen. After the tensile
tests, the specimens were immediately quenched in water
in order to “freeze” the microstructure. After the tests, the
quenched samples were cut along the longitudinal axes.
The cross-section of the samples was mechanically pol-
ished, and then etched in a mixture of saturation picric acid
and absolute alcohol (volume ratio 1:1) for about 20–30 s.
used to validate the results obtained from the dynamic pro-
cessing maps.
3. Basic Equations of the Dynamic Material Model
(DMM)
The Dynamic Materials Model approach (DMM) was
first proposed by Gegel and Prasad26) to describe plastic
deformation at high temperatures influenced by the micro-
structure and the constitutive behavior of the material. The
construction of the dynamic processing maps based on the
DMM approach consist of two parts: a) a power dissipation
efficiency parameter η related to plastic work and micro-
structural changes, and b) an instability parameter ξ related
to flow instabilities. The maps revealing stable “safe” and
unstable “unsafe” domains for plastic flow can be made by
superimposing the instability map over the power dissipa-
tion efficiency map.
a) Power dissipation efficiency η:
This parameter considers the dissipation of power during
hot workability. The parameter called total power (P) can
be represented as the sum of two dimensionless parameters
named: power content (G) and power co-content (J )3)
 
P      d   d  G  J ............... (1)
0 0

Subsequently, the microstructures were observed on a Zeiss Where σ and ε are flow stress and strain rate, respec-
Optical Microscope (OM). The microstructure images were tively. The G term represents the area under the curve of the

177 © 2019 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1
result obtained with the constitutive equation corresponding
to the power dissipated through heat increment in the work
piece during plastic deformation. The power co-content J
represents the area above the curve corresponding to power
dissipation involving microstructural changes due to phase
transitions and dynamic interaction of dislocations occurring
during deformation.26)
The flow stress σ is related to strain rate ε, at constant
temperature and strain, by the following equation:
  K  m ................................... (2)
Where K is a constant and m is the strain rate sensitivity
of flow stress. The strain rate sensitivity (m) can be related
to the power contents G and J by the following formula:
 log   d  ln   d dJ
m    ........... (3)
 log  d  ln    d dG
For pure metals, m can be considered as independent
of temperature and strain-rate, on the other hand, in alloy
systems, m changes as a function of temperature and
strain-rate.27)
At a given deformation temperature, J is determined by
integrating Eq. (3):
    m
J   d  ......................... (4)
0 m 1
This relationship indicates that the J co-content increases
with m. The J content becomes a maximum when m is equal
to 1, thus:
  
................................. (5)
J max  between 10 − 3 and 1 s − 1 and deformation temperatures of
2 between 1 173 and 1 573 K are shown in Fig. 2, respec-
The relation of J over Jmax represents the efficiency of
power dissipation (η):
J 2m
  ............................. (6)
J max m  1
The change of the η value with temperature and strain
rate gives a power dissipation map. Microstructure related
phenomena can be distinguished by the domains revealed
within this map.
b) Instability parameter ξ:
The instability parameter  ( ) is used to identify the
stable “safe” and unstable “unsafe” regions during plastic
deformation. This parameter is based on the concepts of
irreversible thermodynamics, whereby it is established that
a system may become unstable when the rate of entropy
generation in the material differs from the rate of entropy
imposed over the system. This thermodynamic instability
has an impact on the intrinsic workability of the material.
The unbalanced rate of entropy generation in a material dur-
ing plastic deformation is influenced by the inhomogeneity
of the material which in turn depends on: localized strain
accumulation, defects, precipitates, etc.28) The formula
describing instability in the system is given by:
 ln  m  m  1 
      m ................... (7)
 ln 
© 2019 ISIJ
The instability parameter  ( ) as a function of tem-
perature and strain rate results in an instability map. The
domains whereby  ( ) is negative corresponds to instabil-
ity regions. A superimposition of the instability map over
the power dissipation map gives the dynamic processing
map, which reveals the characteristic domains correspond-
ing to stable and unstable processing domains, i.e. “safe”
and “unsafe” zones, respectively. This is based on the
stability criteria proposed by Malas and Seetharaman29) and
Venugopal et al.30) as follows:
m  log  s
0  m  1,  0, s   1,  0 ..... (8)
  log  
  1 T    log  
The stable domains are related to regions whereby
Dynamic Recrystallization (DRX) and Dynamic Recovery
(DRV), leading to material softening, are dominant dur-
ing plastic deformation.31) On the other hand, localized
micro-defects such as: micro-cracks, voids, localized creep,
deformation bands, etc. lead to microstructure anisotropy
and therefore unstable plastic deformation.3) In order to
have good plastic deformation in the material, the process-
ing windows with the corresponding temperatures and strain
rates whereby stable or “safe” domains are present should
be selected while avoiding unstable or “unsafe” domains.5)
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Flow Stress Curves
The true stress-strain curves (flow stress curves) of the
DP steel obtained from the hot tensile tests at strain rates
tively. It can be seen that the influence of temperature and
strain rate on the flow stress is very significant. The flow
stress increases with increasing strain rate and decreases
with increasing temperature. These curves reflect the stages
of plastic flow typically found on steels during hot defor-
mation: Stage I (work hardening stage), Stage II (transition
stage) and Stage III (softening stage).32) The three different
stages of plastic flow can be distinguished by the plotting
the hardening modulus, as shown in Fig. 3 (Using the flow
stress-strain curve 1 273 K/10 − 1 s − 1 as an example). The
value of hardening modulus can be calculated from the true
strain and stress data obtained from the tensile tests by:
 .................................... (9)

The hardening modulus reveals the deflection points
within the stress-strain curves which reflect the three main
deformation stages. These deformations stages are defined
by the hardening and softening mechanisms competing dur-
ing deformation as follows:
a) Stage I, work hardening stage due to generation and
accumulation of dislocations which eventually restrict plas-
tic flow leading to strain hardening;
b) Stage II, transition stage, at this stage the rate of hard-
ening starts to diminish and the rate of softening induced
by DRV and DRX starts to dominate.33,34) In this region,
the dislocations rearrange and annihilate leading to the
formation of sub-grains through DRV and eventually to the
178
 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1

Fig. 2. The true stress-strain curves of the DP steel at different strain rates: (a) 10 − 3 s −1, (b) 10 − 2 s −1, (c) 10 −1 s −1 and (d)
1 s −1. (Online version in color.)

behavior of materials under various deformation condi-

tions,38) since it partly determines the peak value of flow
stress,35) which is one of the main parameters for limiting
the boundaries for plastic deformation. This study will focus
on the processing maps at the true strains of 0.1 and 0.3
which are the critical strains attained in steel processing.

4.2. Dynamic Processing Maps

4.2.1. Strain Rate Sensitivity Parameter (m)
For a given strain, the cubic spline interpolation is used
to define the intervals of log(σ) and log( ε). A cubic poly-
nomial fitting between the data log(σ) and log( ε) gives the
following expression:

Fig. 3. Variations of the work-hardening rate and true stress with

log   a  b log   c  log    d  log   ....... (10)
2 3
true strain during the tensile test at 1 273 K/10 −1 s −1.
(Online version in color.)
Where, a, b, c, d are polynomial coefficients. By taking
the partial derivative on Eq. (10), the following formula is
nucleation and growth of new finer grains through DRX. obtained:
c) Stage III, softening stage, at this stage DRX is the
main mechanism influencing plastic flow. New finer grains  log 
 b  2c log   3d  log    m ......... (11)
2
facilitate further softening of the material.33,35–37)  log 
When studying the constitutive behavior of materials,
emphasis is given to the description of work-hardening Strain rate sensitivity is small at the low deformation tem-

179 © 2019 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1
peratures. Small values of m such as: m = 0.001 to 0.06 have
almost negligible impact on flow stress. On the other hand,
the strain rate sensitivity can have a great impact on strain
localization which may further enhance the probability for
developing instabilities. Strain rate sensitivity values greater
than 0.3 may lead to superplastic behavior of the material,39)
whereby little increments in the strain rate may lead to a
large increase in the flow stress. Under this condition strain
localization can be delayed due to local strengthening of
the material.40)
The strain rate sensitivity maps for the DP steel at the
true strains of 0.1 and 0.3 are shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b),
respectively. It can be seen that overall the strain sensitivity
does not exceed the value of 0.2 over a wider extent within
the map. On the other hand, at high temperatures, larger
values of m can be observed, having maximum values from
0.4 to 0.73 as the strain increases from 0.1 to 0.3, respec-
tively. Two characteristic zones appear at the bottom right
corner of the strain rate sensitivity maps (labeled A in Fig.
4), which indicate that region whereby the material exhibits
super-plasticity (i.e. m > 0.3) (shown in olive shaded areas).
At these zones, softening, through DRV and DRX, is the
main mechanism governing plastic deformation. The zones
at the bottom mid-section of the maps (labeled B in Fig.
4) correspond to values of m < 0 (shown in blue shaded
areas) which are labeled as abnormal calculations in many
studies. According to Malas,20) negative values of the strain
rate sensitivity parameter m, are obtained only under the
Fig. 4. Strain rate sensitivity maps for the DP steel at true strain
of (a) 0.1 and (b) 0.3. (Online version in color.)
© 2019 ISIJ
conditions leading to localized dynamic strain aging due
to the interaction of solute atoms with active dislocations.
Bintu21) also proposed that the negative strain rate sensi-
tivity is particularly pronounced at larger strains whereby
strain localization may also occur. Thus, this phenomenon
has been mainly related to dynamic strain aging and to the
occurrence of localized Portevin-LeChatelier (PLC) defor-
mation bands.41) This behavior results in the observation of
the serrated stress-strain curves. However, according to the
previous studies, the typical temperature range for dynamic
strain aging is from 473 to 1 073 K for austenitic stainless
steels42) and 373 to 873 K for carbon steels (at carbon con-
tents ranged from 0.07 to 0.34 wt.%).43,44) Thus, based on
these studies, we may assume that the imposed temperatures
in the current study are sufficiently high so that dynamic
strain aging may be avoided.
Normally, Zone B should not exist in the current study
based on the fact that the stress should be increase within
the strains of 0.1 and 0.3. According to the monotonicity
of strain-stress, m should be greater than zero. The pos-
sible reason for the existence of Zone B may be due to
instabilities during testing. The fluctuations of the true
strain-stress curves at the strain rate of 10 − 3 s − 1 (see Fig.
2(a)) may prove this observation. A close-up look at the true
strain-stress curves at the strain rate of 10 − 3 s − 1 is shown in
Fig. 5. It can be seen that there are some minimal fluctua-
tions within curves, and such fluctuations can be acceptable
since the changes are relatively small. Zone C in Fig. 4(a) is
another small area whereby m < 0, which is caused by the
accumulative numerical errors produced during interpola-
tion and fitting.
4.2.2. Dynamic Processing Map and Microstructural
Validation
For the power dissipation map, η can be easily obtained
by Eq. (6). Similarly, for the instability map, with a quartic
polynomial fitting between the data ln[m/(m + 1)] and ln( ε),
the ξ( ε) can be calculated by Eq. (7). The dynamic process-
ing map obtained for the DP steel composite at strains of 0.1
and 0.3 are presented in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), respectively.
The color contours numbers represent the power dissipation
efficiency (η) in percentage. The red shaded areas in the
Fig. 5. The fluctuation of true strain-stress curves at strain rate of
10 − 3 s −1. (Online version in color.)
180
 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1
Fig. 6. Dynamic processing maps for the DP steel at true strains
of: (a) 0.1 and (b) 0.3. (Online version in color.)
map indicate regimes of flow instability (i.e. the “unsafe”
regions) whereas the blue shaded areas indicate the regimes
of m at negative values for material processing. Based on
Eq. (7), the blue shaded areas should be treated as unde-
fined areas, because a negative number does not satisfac-
tory enters in the calculation when determining its natural
logarithm. Therefore, in the present study, the instabilities
in blue shaded areas were further defined by microstructural
validation.
By comparing Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), it can be seen that the
type of deformation is very similar, which indicates that the
hot deformation process under these conditions is in general
very stable. In current study, the “safe” domain was further
calculated based on the Alexander stability criterion,45)
which can be expressed as follows:
m
0  m  1  C1 ,  0 (C 2),
  log  
........ (12)
1  log  s
s  1 (C 3),  0 (C 4)
T  1 T    log   ily identified. The lower ductility at 1 173 K is considered
The first condition of Alexander’s criterion is 0 < m ≤ 1.
In current study, it is assumed that C1 is true in the entire
computational domain. The second condition (C2) can be
calculated based on the Eq. (11). Similar to the calculation
method of m, the third condition (C3) can be obtained by
181
cubic spline interpolation and cubic polynomial fitting. For
the fourth condition (C4), the calculation is simplified in this
study and its calculation steps are as follows:
s s   log  
0 0
  log     log     log  
...... (13)
s s
m0 0
  log     log  
To ensure the precision, piecewise fitting is applied dur-
ing the calculation of C3 and C4. For C3, it should be noted
that there are some differences between the Alexander sta-
bility criterion and the stability criteria proposed by Malas
and Seetharaman and Venugopal et al. (i.e. Eq. (8)), which
will further affect the calculation results of C4.
Based on Alexander stability criteria, the “safe” domain
calculated for the DP steel at true strain of (a) 0.1 and (b)
0.3 are shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b), respectively. The
calculation results show that the C3 is true in the entire
calculation domain when strain rate is 0.1. It can be found
that the “safe” domain becomes narrower as the strain is
increased from 0.1 to 0.3. Combined with DMM model and
Alexander’s criterion, the processing maps at true strain of
(a) 0.1 and (b) 0.3 are shown in Figs. 7(c) and 7(d), respec-
tively. It can be seen that generally speaking, the instabil-
ity maps determined by the two methods have the similar
distribution rule. The cumulative error caused by cubic
spline interpolation and cubic polynomial fitting and the
simplification during the calculation are the main reasons for
the difference of the results. In previous studies, Samantaray
et al.46) had calculated the instability regions of modified
9Cr-1Mo steel during hot deformation process using various
instability criteria and DMM. It was found that Alexander’s
criteria over-predict the instability domains and the instabil-
ity map developed based on DMM can predict the instability
domains more precisely. Because the DMM model is the
focus of current study, the microstructure validation will be
based on the results obtained from DMM, while the results
calculated by Alexander’s criterion will only serve as a
reference. For analyzing the predicted “safe” and “unsafe”
domains, the obtained hot processing map can be divided
into six prominent zones as indicated in Figs. 7(c) and 7(d),
whereby Zone 4 corresponds to the “safe” domain for plas-
tic deformation. The microstructures in the corresponding
zones of the processing map are shown in Fig. 8.
Zone 1 and Zone 2, can occur at the testing temperature
of 1 173 K and 1 373–1 573 K, at high strain rates i.e.
above 10 − 1 s − 1, respectively. Void formation is the major
instability phenomena encountered in the samples processed
under those deformation conditions. The microstructure of
the samples corresponding to these domains, i.e. Zone 1 and
2, are shown in Figs. 8(a) and 8(b), respectively. From Fig.
8(a), the inhomogeneous distribution of voids can be eas-
as the main reason leading to the instability during the hot
deformation. Figure 8(a), show at the top-right of the image
the surface fracture of the sample, which indeed indicates
a type of fragile fracture having a wide area of detachment
at the break-up location. Due to the lower ductility, stress
concentration appears during the tests, leading to the oval
© 2019 ISIJ
 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1
Fig. 7. Calculated “safe” domain for the DP steel at true strain of (a) 0.1 and (b) 0.3; and the processing maps combined
with Alexander’s criterion at true strain of (c) 0.1 and (d) 0.3. (Online version in color.)
shape of the voids. Comparing with Figs. 8(a) and 8(b),
it can be seen that at the same strain rate, the formation
of voids become finer and uniformly distributed within
the microstructure when increasing temperature (at 1 473
K). Also, the top-right image in Fig. 8(b) shows a ductile
fracture as compared to the fragile fracture in Fig. 8(a), i.e.
the ductile fracture is evidenced by the narrow area of local
detachment (i.e. local point fracture of the sample). Zone 1
and 2 are labeled as an “unsafe” domains, a large number
of voids are located at the grain boundaries which is indica-
tive of instability. Theoretically, development of voids at
the grain boundaries can be divided into three stages: nucle-
ation, growth, and coalescence. The possible mechanisms
for void formation are: (1) slip intersections along the grain
boundaries whereby hard particles may cause local detach-
ment, (2) sliding of grains along grain boundaries leading
to local de-cohesion and (3) vacancy condensation at grain
boundaries.45)
Zone 3 corresponds also to an “unsafe” domain in the
processing map, which occurs at low strain rates (from 10 − 3
s − 1 to 10 − 2 s − 1) and around 1 273 K. The microstructure at
this zone (see Fig. 8(c)) is similar to that found in Zone 2
with a larger number of voids formed along the austenite
grain boundaries. The main differences between Zone 2 and
Zone 3 can be found when comparing the size and the distri-
bution of voids within the microstructure. A striking feature
© 2019 ISIJ
is that the void distribution in Zone 3 is more dispersed, and
the size of the void is generally larger than that in Zone 2.
The main reasons for this phenomenon can be attributed to
the larger grain size and lower strain rate in zone 3. Larger
grain size makes voids distributed more dispersed along the
grain boundaries, and lower strain rates provide longer time
for the growth of voids.
In order to further distinguish between the “safe” and
“unsafe” domains and to correlate these to the microstruc-
ture, Zone 4 was selected as one of an optimal processing
condition for the analysis, which spreads over a wider
range of temperatures, i.e. 1 350–1 500 K and strain rates,
i.e. 10 − 2-10 − 1 s − 1. The efficiency is varied from 26.2%
to 40.7% at the strain of 0.1, and 33.8% to 50.7% at the
strain of 0.3. Taking 1 473 K/10 − 2 s − 1 as an example, the
microstructure corresponding to this condition is shown in
Fig. 8(d). It can be clearly seen that the microstructure of
the sample is composed of defect-free uniform equiaxed
austenite grains. During the tests, the martensitic phase is
formed due to quenching, so it is difficult to observe the cor-
rugated/serrated former austenite grain boundaries.6) Based
on flow behavior, the characteristics of the microstructure
and the efficiency of power dissipation, it can be said that
the selected optimal hot deformation condition is acceptable
whereby DRV and DRX are the main softening mechanisms
which dominate at this processing condition. Yet, the type of
182
 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1

Fig. 8. Microstructures of the DP steel deformed at (a) Zone1, 1 173 K/1 s −1; (b) Zone 2, 1 473 K/1 s −1; (c) Zone 3, 1 273
K/10 − 2 s −1; (d) Zone 4, 1 473 K/10 − 2 s −1; (e) Zone 5, 1 173 K/10 − 3 s −1 and (f ) Zone 6, 1 373 K/10 − 3 s −1. (Online
version in color.)

fracture in Fig. 8(d) indicates that the sample is less ductile
as compared to the sample in Fig. 8(b), i.e. the sample at
1 473 K/10 − 2 s − 1 has a wider fracture surface as compared
to the sample at 1 473 K/1 s − 1. This may be due to differ-
ence in austenite grain size, the sample in Fig. 8(b) is finer
as compared to the sample in Fig. 8(d). A finer austenite
grain size increases ductility due to the increase in sliding
planes along the austenite grain boundaries and induces
softening. The finer austenite grain size of the sample at
1 473 K/1 s − 1 may be due to the higher strain rate, as
compared to the sample at 1 473 K/10 − 2 s − 1. An increase
in strain rate leads to an acceleration on the generation of
dislocations which induces grain refinement through the
DRX mechanism while the DRV mechanism lowers. The
sample at 1 473 K/1 s − 1 may have reached softening due
to grain refinement followed by the formation of voids due

183 © 2019 ISIJ

 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1
to strain localization caused by high dislocation density
regions. Thus the sample corresponding to Zone 2 may be
more ductile but more unstable as compared to the sample
corresponding to Zone 4.
Zone 5 and Zone 6 correspond to the undefined areas in
the dynamic processing maps whereby m < 0, which are
found at around 1 173 K/10 − 3 s − 1 and 1 373 K/10 − 3 s − 1,
respectively. From the analysis of the microstructure in the
corresponding zones, it can be seen that intergranular crack-
ing is evident near the fracture found in the sample in Zone
5 (see Fig. 8(e)). From previous studies,47) the origin of such
large cracks may be due to precipitation of carbides and/or
nitrides. Another cause may be due to severe embrittlement
caused by precipitation of sulphides and iron eutectics, hav-
ing a low melting point, which subsequently melt leading
to a local de-cohesion.48) This is often observed at the high
strain rates after reheating and at high temperatures. More-
over, Fig. 8(e) shows that the sample has large austenite
grains which lead to anisotropy of the microstructure. Under
such conditions, the rate of entropy in the material will dif-
fer significantly with the rate of entropy imposed over the
system, thus the instability will be significantly high leading
to the formation of large cracks. This indicates that Zone 5
is significantly a “very unsafe” domain for processing the
material. On the other hand, uniformly distributed equiaxed
fine austenite grains and no evident flow instabilities were
found in the sample corresponding to Zone 6 (see Fig.
8(f)). In this case the microstructure is similar to Zone 4
having a slightly larger austenite grain size in the sample in
Zone 6 as compared to the sample in Zone 4. Based on the
microstructure of the sample corresponding to Zone 6 (Fig.
8(f )), it can be said that Zone 6 is a “safe” domain. More-
over, a ductile surface fracture can be seen in this sample,
i.e. top-right image in Fig. 8(f ), similar to that found in the
sample corresponding to the “unsafe” Zone 2 (Fig. 8(a)).
However, the grains of the sample in Zone 6 are larger and
defect free as compared to the sample in Zone 2.
The current analysis shows that the dynamic processing
maps are useful for determining the “safe” domains for plas-
tic deformation. The corresponding Zones within the maps
have been successfully correlated to the microstructure and
fracture surface of the samples tested. Void formation is
the main cause of instability during processing, whereby it
is influenced by the competing softening mechanism during
hot deformation i.e. through DRV and DRX. Temperature
and strain rate influence the grain size and the mechanical
properties of the samples which in turn influence the for-
mation and distribution of voids. Moreover, the undefined
Zones within the maps (due to the systematic error caused
when m < 0 in the DMM approach) have been further cor-
related with the microstructure analysis. This correlation
allowed us to labeled Zone 5 as “very unsafe”, while Zone 6
has been labeled as a “safe” domain for the current DP steel.
Furthermore, it seems that the sample in Zone 6 is more
ductile as compared to the sample in Zone 4 which is the
Zone that indicates a fully “safe” processing condition. The
high ductility (based on the surface fracture) of the sample
in Zone 6, at high temperature and low strain rates, may be
due to local creep. The creep softening mechanism may also
be the reason for the fluctuations found on the flow stress
curves leading the values of m < 0.
© 2019 ISIJ
5. Conclusions
Based on the DMM approach, the dynamic processing
maps were determined for evaluating the optimum thermo-
mechanical processing conditions, i.e. “safe” and “unsafe”
zones, based on the instability criteria for flow behavior.
Based on this analysis and correlation with the microstruc-
ture and fracture analysis of the samples we have reached
the following conclusions:
(1) The strain sensitivity parameter m < 0 is caused by
fluctuation during the experimental testing and the accumu-
lative error during the calculation. The dynamic processing
maps in the areas where m < 0 were redefined by correlating
the processing conditions with the microstructure and frac-
ture of the tested samples. The formation and distribution
of voids are the main instabilities found on the samples that
are within the “unsafe” domains of the dynamic processing
maps.
(2) A successful correlation of the correponding Zones
within the processing maps with the microstructure was
achieved. In the case of undefinied Zones within the maps
we have determined, based on the microstructure correla-
tion, that the Zone 5 can be defined as a very “unsafe”
processing window due to the formation of large cracks
which may eventually induce failure of the work piece.
On the other hand, Zone 6 has been regarded as a “safe”
processing window whereby creep facilitates ductility due
to high temperature and low strain rates. Also, the sample
in Zone 6 showed a uniform microstructure with no visible
instabilities such as voids.
(3) Finally, Zone 4 was found to be the optimum domain
for hot deformation for the DP steel, which is processed
within the temperature range of 1 350–1 500 K and strain
rate range of 10 − 2–10 − 1 s − 1. Defect-free equiaxed austenite
grains can be observed in the samples deformed within this
region and does correlate well with the “safe” domain of
the calculated dynamic processing map. The main softening
mechanisms which control plastic flow in this “safe” domain
are DRV and DRX. Zone 4 has been suggested as the “safe”
domain for hot deformation for the DP steel.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the international cooperative
project between the University of Science and Technology
Beijing (USTB) and Tata Steel, Research & Development
(R&D). The authors also would like to thank the support
from the Chinese government “111” project (B07003) and
for the mutual international communication. The support
from Ms. Yan Zhang, during the hot tensile tests performed
at the Gleeble machine, is deeply appreciated.
REFERENCES
1) Y. Murata, S. Ohashi and Y. Uematsu: ISIJ Int., 33 (1993), 711.
2) C. C. Tasan, M. Diehl, D. Yan, M. Bechtold, F. Roters, L.
Schemmann, C. Zheng, N. Peranio, D. Ponge and M. Koyama: Annu.
Rev. Mater. Res., 45 (2015), 391.
3) Y. V. R. K. Prasad and T. Seshacharyulu: Int. Mater. Rev., 43 (1998),
243.
4) M. Arvinth Davinci, D. Samantaray, U. Borah, S. K. Albert and A.
K. Bhaduri: Mater. Des., 88 (2015), 567.
5) G. Ji, F. Li, Q. Li, H. Li and Z. Li: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 527 (2010),
1165.
6) Y. C. Lin and G. Liu: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 523 (2009), 139.
7) P. V. Sivaprasad, S. Venugopal, S. Venugopal, V. Maduraimuthu, M.
184
 ISIJ International, Vol. 59 (2019), No. 1

Vasudevan, S. L. Mannan, Y. V. R. K. Prasad and R. C. Chaturvedi: Morgan, K. A. Lark and D. R. Barker: Metall. Trans. A, 15 (1984),
J. Mater. Process. Technol., 132 (2003), 262. 1883.
8) S. Venugopal, S. L. Mannan and Y. V. R. K. Prasad: Metall. Trans. 27) P. Dadras and J. F. Thomas: Metall. Trans. A, 12 (1981), 1867.
A, 23 (1992), 3093. 28) Y. Prasad: Indian J. Technol., 28 (1990), 435.
9) H. Z. Li, H. J. Wang, X. P. Liang, H. T. Liu, Y. Liu and X. M. Zhang: 29) J. C. Malas and V. Seetharaman: JOM, 44 (1992), 8.
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 528 (2011), 1548. 30) S. Venugopal, V. M. Muthu and S. Mannan: Microstructure Mod-
10) E. S. Puchi and M. H. Staia: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 29 (1998), eling and Prediction During Thermomechanical Processing, JOM,
2345. Pittsburgh, (2001), 85.
11) Y. V. R. K. Prasad and K. P. Rao: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 487 (2008), 31) A. A. Omar and J. M. Prado: Weld. Int., 26 (2012), 921.
316. 32) Y. C. Lin, M.-S. Chen and J. Zhong: Comput. Mater. Sci., 42 (2008),
12) F. A. Slooff, J. S. Dzwonczyk, J. Zhou, J. Duszczyk and L. 470.
Katgerman: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 527 (2010), 735. 33) E. I. Poliak and J. J. Jonas: ISIJ Int., 43 (2003), 684.
13) V. V. Balasubrahmanyam and Y. V. R. K. Prasad: Mater. Sci. Eng. 34) P. A. Manohar, K. Lim, A. D. Rollett and Y. Lee: ISIJ Int., 43 (2003),
A, 336 (2002), 150. 1421.
14) Y. V. R. K. Prasad and T. Seshacharyulu: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 243 35) L. X. Wang, G. Fang, M. A. Leeflang, J. Duszczyk and J. Zhou: J.
(1998), 82. Alloy. Compd., 622 (2015), 121.
15) B. Paul, R. Kapoor, J. K. Chakravartty, A. C. Bidaye, I. G. Sharma 36) S. Ramanathan, R. Karthikeyan and G. Ganasen: Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
and A. K. Suri: Scr. Mater., 60 (2009), 104. 441 (2006), 321.
16) J. K. Chakravartty, Y. V. R. K. Prasad and M. K. Asundi: Metall. 37) E. S. Puchi-Cabrera, M. H. Staia, J. D. Guérin, J. Lesage, M. Dubar
Trans. A, 22 (1991), 829. and D. Chicot: Int. J. Plast., 54 (2014), 113.
17) Y. V. R. K. Prasad, D. H. Sastry and S. C. Deevi: Intermetallics, 8 38) R. Liang and A. S. Khan: Int. J. Plast., 15 (1999), 963.
(2000), 1067. 39) M. A. Khaleel, H. M. Zbib and E. A. Nyberg: Int. J. Plast., 17 (2001),
18) R. C. Picu, G. Vincze, J. J. Gracio and F. Barlat: Scr. Mater., 54 277.
(2006), 71. 40) J. Thomas, Jr.: Process Modeling Applied to Metal Forming and
19) R. C. Picu: Acta Mater., 52 (2004), 3447. Thermomechanical Processing, AGARD, Essex, (1984), 1.
20) J. C. Malas: Ph.D. thesis, Ohio University, (1991), 60, https://etd. 41) L. Chen, H.-S. Kim, S.-K. Kim and B. C. De Cooman: ISIJ Int., 47
ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/ohiou1173324636/inline, (2007), 1804.
(accessed 2018-02-01). 42) K. Peng, K. Qian and W. Chen: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 379 (2004), 372.
21) A. Bintu, G. T. Vincze, R. C. Picu, A. B. Lopes and I. Bdikin: Mater. 43) C. C. Li and W. C. Leslie: Metall. Trans. A, 9 (1978), 1765.
Sci. Eng. A, 674 (2016), 98. 44) R. R. U. Queiroz, F. G. G. Cunha and B. M. Gonzalez: Mater. Sci.
22) S. Venugopal, S. Venugopal, P. V. Sivaprasad, M. Vasudevan, S. Eng. A, 543 (2012), 84.
L. Mannan, S. K. Jha, P. Pandey and Y. V. R. K. Prasad: J. Mater. 45) S. V. S. Narayana Murty, B. Nageswara Rao and B. P. Kashyap: Int.
Process. Technol., 59 (1996), 343. Mater. Rev., 45 (2000), 15.
23) R. Łyszkowski and J. Bystrzycki: Intermetallics, 14 (2006), 1231. 46) D. Samantaray, S. Mandal and A. K. Bhaduri: Mater. Des., 32 (2011),
24) Y. V. R. K. Prasad, S. Sasidhara and V. K. Sikka: Intermetallics, 8 716.
(2000), 987. 47) Y. Maehara, K. Yasumoto, H. Tomono, T. Nagamichi and Y.
25) D. Samantaray, S. Mandal and A. K. Bhaduri: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Ohmori: Mater. Sci. Technol., 6 (1990), 793.
528 (2011), 5204. 48) M. Wakoh, T. Sawai and S. Mizoguchi: ISIJ Int., 36 (1996), 1014.
26) Y. V. R. K. Prasad, H. L. Gegel, S. M. Doraivelu, J. C. Malas, J. T.

185 © 2019 ISIJ