Dr. Tresa M.

Pollock
Co-Editors in Chief
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A

Dear Dr. Pollock,

We are pleased to resubmit our research manuscript entitled “Effects of Size and Distribution of Spheroidized
Cementite on Void Initiation in Punched Surface of Medium Carbon Steel” for consideration for publication
in Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A as Technical Publication. The paper was submitted on January
22nd, 2019 (E-TP-19-126-A), and it was rejected as a result of the first peer review. Therefore, we conducted
additional experiments and revised this paper based on the peer review. In addition, we requested native
speakers of English to proofread our English writing (Editage)
Voids, initiated near the punched surface during the punching process and one of the parameters characterizing
a punched surface, affect secondary workability of annealed medium carbon steel sheets. Thus, to reduce the
number of voids and clarify the void initiation mechanism is needed. This manuscript investigated the effects of
the size and distribution of spheroidized cementite on the characteristics of a punched surface and factors for void
initiation under shearing deformation.

The most important findings are as follows. The punched surface of the steel sheets with a smaller size and larger
number of spheroidized cementites has a larger number of voids near the punched surface and smaller size of
dimples. Moreover, the stress triaxiality around cementites seems to be an important factor for initiation of voids
at the interface between cementite and the ferrite matrix, and the larger amount of cementites decreases the factor
for void initiation around cementites. These findings are relevant to the focus of your journal because they
represent the relationship between material processing issues such as punched surface characteristics and
microstructure such as spheroidized cementites. We believe that our manuscript will help your readers to obtain
practical knowledge to improve punched surfaces from the viewpoint of the microstructure of materials.

A presentation related to this paper has already been made at MAPT2019, but this paper describes the results of
a more detailed this study. There is no duplicate data in this paper. All authors have approved the manuscript and
agree with its submission to Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A.

Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Ken SAITO (Corresponding author)

Graduate School of Fundamental Science and Engineering, Waseda University,
59-305, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan
Email: vn.saito@fuji.waseda.jp TEL: +81-3-5286-8126
 Answers to the reviewer’s comments

Effects of Size and Distribution of Spheroidized Cementite on Void Initiation in Punched

Surface of Medium Carbon Steel

Ken Saito, Chikara Inoue, Jin Ikegawa, Kazuhiko Yamazaki, Sota Goto, Masato Takamura,
Shunsuke Mihara, Shinsuke Suzuki

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions which are very helpful to improve our
manuscript. We re-wrote the correct sentences with blue character in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Points Detracting):

Although the work is interesting and the reviewer is well aware of challenges associated with this kind of
experimental/modelling research, the selected modelling strategy and experimental work have fundamental
issues that makes it unsuitable for the publication, even with major corrections, at the current format. here are
some of the main issues with the paper:

Comments 1.
The most fundamental issue with the paper is that the mentioned "zooming analysis" is the standard "Multi-scale
modelling" strategy that is already embedded in commercial codes such as Abaqus and used in many published
papers for modelling of manufacturing processes such as rolling and machining.

Answer 1.
We agree with the reviewer. Multi-scale modeling has already been widely used. As the reviewer pointed out, the
originality of this study is not developing of a new simulation method, but clarification of the stress dispersion
during blanking by refining the spheroidized cementite experimentally using multi-scale modeling. Therefore,
we corrected the structure of introduction. (p.3 lines 41-63)

1. Introduction

Punching is one of the most important press working processes [1] used to pierce holes in a metallic sheet by shearing and

fracturing, where many voids are initiated near the punched surface. As voids near the fracture surface deteriorate the secondary

formability [2,3], the characteristics of punched surfaces have required improvement [4]. Many experimental and numerical studies

on the relationship between the punching process or tool shapes and the characteristics of the punched surface have been carried out

[5–9].

However, voids are also known to initiate in the area around hard phase like cementite. It has been reported that when a steel

sheet has a constant cementite volume fraction, the strain around the cementite decreases with decreasing cementite size [10].

Furthermore, some studies have considered the relationship between cracks in the punched surface and precipitates or inclusions in
the material [11,12]. For example, Okano et al. [12] clarified that the number of cracks on a punched surface decreases when the

steel sheet contains a larger number of precipitates or inclusions. As the mechanism of this phenomenon, they asserted that the large

number of voids that were initiated from the precipitates and inclusions dispersed the stress acting on each void, which thereby

allowed them to barely exceed the criteria for crack propagation. Therefore, these results suggest that reducing the cementite

diameter can prevent significant crack propagation. However, there are only a few reports that discuss void initiation around the

hard phase in relation to the specific stress distribution around the hard phase during punching.

The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of the size and distribution of spheroidized cementites on the characteristics

of the punched surface and the factors for the initiation of voids at the interface between cementite and the ferrite matrix under

shearing deformation by using multiscale modeling.

Comments 2.
The authors need to use correct terminology and refer to the required references. the authors have used the already
deformed microstructure (Fig. 4) as the initial undeformed state for the micro-scale FE model, this by itself is a
wrong assumption as the used micrograph should show the final status of the deformation rather than the initial
one!

Answer 2.
We apologize that the explanation was not enough. The initial cementite distribution was estimated by inverse
analysis with simulation from the cementite distribution after deformation. Since the method of inverse analysis
was not explained in the previous manuscript, we described the analysis method clear. (pp.5-6, lines 135 - 145)
and added Figs. 4 and 5.

A multiscale modeling was performed in this study for a detailed analysis at the microscopic scale with a reasonable computational

cost, as explained schematically in Figs. 4 and 5. The procedure of the multiscale modeling was as follows:

1. Analysis of the interrupted punching test by using a global model with larger FEs (Figs. 4(a), 4(b)).

2. Deformed cementites distribution obtained by using the SEM image (Fig. 4(d)) and preparation of microstructural FE model (Fig.

4(c))

3. Interpolation of inverse displacement conditions to the microstructural FE model (Fig. 4(c)) and acquiring the initial cementites

distribution (Fig. 4(e)).

4. Reconstruction of the initial microstructural FE model. (Fig. 5(c))

5. Interpolation of displacement conditions to the microstructural FE model (Fig. 5(c)), and acquisition of the stress and strain

distribution around spheroidized cementites (Fig. 5(d)).

Comments 3.
The validation of the macro and micro model is very poor and based on a qualitative comparison with a colour
map (Fig 12). this might have been better done with the force-displacement signal or more quantitative measure

Answer 3.
Thank you for your suggestion. We added the punch force–displacement diagrams as Figure 12 (p.12) and
improved the text as follows. (lines 252 - 274)

To examine the validity of FE analysis, punch force–displacement diagrams of the experimental values and analytical values were

compared. The experimental values were calibrated by the following method due to occurrence of elastic deformation of the die and

testing machine during pressing.

1. Stopping to push the punch by uniaxial testing machine before the steel sheet fractured, and obtaining the amount of the cross-

head movement x displayed on the tester.

2. Cutting the steel sheets and measuring the punched depth 𝑥𝑓 .

3. Calculating the amount of the die deformation 𝑥𝑒 (𝐹𝑓 )from the difference between the amount of movement of the crosshead

obtained in step 1 𝑥(𝐹𝑓 ) and the punched depth in step 2 𝑥′(𝐹𝑓 ).

𝑥𝑒 (𝐹𝑓 ) = 𝑥(𝐹𝑓 ) − xa − 𝑥′(𝐹𝑓 ), (5)

′
where 𝐹𝑓 is the final punch force (step 1); 𝑥 is the true sheet deformation; 𝑥𝑒 (𝐹) is the elastic deformation of the die and testing

machine during punching, xa is the slippage of the punch.

4. Calculating the stiffness k N of the testing machine and die using Eq. 6 based on the final load 𝐹𝑓 and the amount of the die and

the testing machine deformation using Eq. 5. The experimental values were calibrated using Eq. 7.
𝐹𝑓
kN = (6)
𝑥𝑒 (𝐹)

𝑥 ′ = 𝑥(𝐹𝑓 ) − xa − 𝑥𝑒 (𝐹) (7)

Fig. 12 Punch force–displacement diagram of the experimental value and the simulated value
Figure 12 shows the experimental results and the punch force-displacement diagram of the FE analysis.

Comparing the calibrated experimental values with the simulated value, the results were in good agreement. In addition, because

this FE analysis does not consider fracturing, the crack cannot be simulated to the extent by which the entering load decreases.

However, because the punched depth is smaller than the fracture depth, this approximation is caused by a small effect on the stress–

strain distribution of the multiscale modeling.

As noted in section 4.3, the height of shear droop in the FE analysis was slightly larger than that in the experiment at almost the

same punch penetration depth. However, the FE analysis value does not reflect the effect of springback because the punch load was

not removed. Considering the effect of springback, the height of the shear droop in the FE analysis would be smaller than the result

and closer to the average value of the experiments.

In addition, Fig 13(a) shows the cross section of the deformation area of a θL specimen that was pressed until immediately before
rupture, and Fig. 13(b) shows the stress triaxiality distribution in the same area of Fig. 13(a). A crack propagated along the area

where the high stress triaxiality was observed [19,20]. Therefore, the FE analyses of the interrupted punching test in this study were

valid.

Comments 4.
The selected material model ignores the strain rate effect on the deformation and damage mechanics, this has not
been covered at all.

Answer 4.
Since the strain rate dependency may not be neglected, experimental values (void size distribution, dimple
diameter and roughness) were obtained at slow punching speed with 1 mm / min. In this paper, we used the same
punching speed of 1 mm / min. (p.4, lines 98-99)

The punching velocity was 1 mm/min, which was chosen so that the effect of strain rate could be negligible.

Comments 5.
It is not clear why they authors have used two different speeds for their experiments and these are not linked in
the paper properly as the damage at the inclusion (cementite particles) interfaces could well be strain rate
dependent etc.

Answer 5.
The punching tests were performed at the maximum speed with a universal testing machine so as to be close to
the speed used in the industry. However, just as the reviewer pointed out, punching tests and interrupted punching
tests should be performed at the same velocity. Therefore, comparison between results at 500 mm / min and 1
mm / min is not suitable. We performed additional experiments and obtained experiment data with punching
speed of 1 mm / min (void size distribution, dimple diameter (p.10, lines 227-228) and roughness) in Fig. 8, Fig.
9 and Fig.10.

The SEM images of the fracture surfaces of each specimen are shown in Fig. 9. In Fig. 9, the punched surface of θL displayed larger

dimples, and the sizes of the dimples were similar. In contrast, θS displayed many small dimples of various sizes. The average size

of the dimples in θL was 2.48±0.54 2.43±0.38 µm, whereas the average size in θS was 1.61±0.29 1.65±0.13 µm.
Comments 6.
The authors have rightly tried to remove the Mn segregation layer by grinding the centre line of the sheet, however
this could affect the grain morphology and distribution. it should have been explained what type of grinding has
been used and whether it has affected the microstructure of the material. a micrograph in ND-RD plane should
have been included in the paper

Answer 6.
We agree with the reviwers and have incorporated this suggestion throughout our paper. When comparing near
the grinding surface and the center of the sheet, no noticeable material flow was observed (lines 210-211). Also,
we included the ND-RD plane to the Figure 7．

Figure 7 shows the SEM images of the microstructures of each type of annealed specimen. The cementites in the steel sheet shown

in Fig. 7(a) are larger in size and smaller in number than those in the other sheet shown in Fig. 7(b). Therefore, the steel sheets

shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b) are called θL and θS in this paper. The average grain sizes of ferrite (α) and cementite (θ) were θL: 9.1±0.3

μm (α) and 1.2±0.07 µm (θ), θS: 8.9±0.3 μm (α) and 0.7±0.03 µm (θ). Microstructure deformation by grinding was not observed

near the ground surface.

Fig. 7 SEM images of microstructures of steel sheets containing (a) larger size and smaller
number of cementites (θL) and (b) smaller size and larger number of cementites (θS).
Comments 7.
The Authors have used Stress triaxiality and hydrostatic stress component to investigate the damage process,
however according to Fig 11 these two are showing similar pattern and the colour bar is an only scaled value
between the two. additionally as there is no damage/fracture model included the presented results can not be
conclusive.

Answer 7.
In this study, physical considerations have not been made when comparing the void generation position with
stress triaxiality distribution or hydrostatic pressure distribution. Therefore, the content was changed from
examining the void initiation factor during punching to examining the effect of stress triaxiality on void initiation.
(Fig. 14)(p.13, lines 282-291)

The penetration depths of the interrupted punching test specimens for observation of the microstructure in the deformation area

were measured. The depths were 0.26 mm and 0.22 mm for θL and θS, respectively. These results were applied to the FE analyses

of the microstructure. Figure 14 shows one of the SEM images observed at the center of the deformation area of the θL specimen

and the distributions of the equivalent plastic strain, the hydrostatic stress and the stress triaxiality in the ferrite matrix in the FE

analysis of the microstructure by the zooming method. The microstructural FE model reproduced the shape of the cementite in the

SEM image well. Comparing the areas where voids initiated in the SEM image and each FE model, the void initiation areas matched

some of the areas with high values of both hydrostatic stress and stress triaxiality (highlighted by circles in Fig. 14). This tendency

was also observed in the other microstructural FE models of θL and θS.

Comments 8.
The English needs to be improved as well as the presentation style specially between lines 255-270

Answer 8.
We apologize for our poor English. The relevant part described the fraction of the fracture surface and shows
validity of FE analysis. We considered that the punch force-displacement diagram was more appropriate to show
the validity of the FE analysis than to show fraction of fracture surface based on comment 3. Therefore, the refer
to the fraction of fracture surface was excepted.

Comments 9.
Almost none of the selected parameters are justified, including the speed of the experiments, FE variables etc.

Answer 9.
This comment is related to comments3 and 4. Please see answer 3 and answer 4 above.

Comments 10.
As mentioned earlier the so called Zooming strategy is the standard Multi-scale modelling approach, however a
wrong assumption has been used in the paper and there is not mesh sensitivity study or justification for the
selected element sizes in the micro and macro models.

Answer 10.
When the element size of the small θ the same as that of the large θ, the maximum value of the stress triaxiality
of the small θ at interfaces of the cementite and ferrite was rounded. Therefore, the minimum size of the elements
for constituting the cementite precipitate was 0.15 µm in Model (1) in order to set the element size of the
cementites to be relatively the same as that in the other five models as shown Fig. 15. (p.14, lines 312-314)

To estimate the effects of the size and distribution of cementite, the six qualitative FE models of the microstructure in Fig. 15 were

analyzed. The cementite location numbers were defined as Ⅰ to Ⅳ (Fig. 15). Model (1) includes one cementite with a diameter

of 3 µm at location Ⅰ, Models (2) to (5) include one cementite with a diameter of 1 µm at locations Ⅰ to Ⅳ, respectively, and

Model (6) contains four cementites (φ 1 µm) at locations Ⅰ–Ⅳ. The material properties and analysis method of these models are

the same as the θL FE model of the microstructure described in Section 3.2. When the element size of the small θ was the same as

that of the large θ, the maximum value of the stress triaxiality of the small θ at interfaces of the cementite and ferrite was rounded.

Therefore, the minimum size of the elements constituting the cementite precipitate was 0.15 µm in Model (1) to set the element size

of the cementites to be approximately the same as that in the other five models, as shown Fig. 15.

Comments 11.
There is not explanation on how the void sizes were measured from SEM micrographs (Fig 8) and whether it was
any initial void in the microstructures before the punching experiment

Answer 11.
We added Fig.2(d), the explanation of voids measurement method (p.4, lines 106-107) and the explanation of
dimples measurement method (p.4, lines 112-117). In addition, we included explanation of initial void in the
microstructures before the punching experiment.

Punching tests were carried out on both types of annealed punching test specimens with a universal testing machine (AutographTM,

AG-I-250kN, Shimadzu Corp.). Figure 2(a) shows a schematic of the punching test. The diameters of the punch and die were 10

mm and 10.4 mm, respectively. Thus, the clearance was 20%. The punching velocity was 1 mm/min, which was chosen such that

the effect of strain rate could be negligible.

To observe the void distribution near the punched surface, specimens were cut in the thickness direction along a line parallel to the

rolling direction and passing through the center of the punching hole (Fig. 2(b)). Areas within 100 µm from the fracture surface on

the cross section were then observed for each specimen with a scanning electron microscope (SEM, JSM-6060, JEOL Ltd.). The

acceleration voltage was set to 15 kV in this study. This 100 µm area from the surface was divided into four regions, as shown in

Fig. 2(c). The total number of voids and the areas of each void were measured with WinROOFTM (Mitani Corp.) in the four divided

areas. Voids with a length of 0.5 μm or more were measured as shown Fig. 2(d). In addition, the roughness of the fracture surfaces

perpendicular parallel to the rolling direction was measured with a laser microscope (VK9510, Keyence Corp.) at five points on

each surface, as shown in Fig. 2(c). The maximum height Rz and the arithmetic average roughness Ra (high-pass cutoff value λC:

80 µm, low pass cutoff value λS: 2.5 µm) were adopted as indicators of roughness. Moreover, the fracture surface was observed
with the SEM at an angle of 22.5° from the thickness direction (Fig. 2(c)). The average sizes of the dimples on the fracture surface

of each type of specimen were measured using these SEM images. The dimple diameter was measured using the intercept technique.

In the punching direction for each steel fracture surface, 15 test lines, 50 µm long, were drawn. The dimple diameter on each test

line was calculated by division of the length by the number of the dimples on the test line; the arithmetic mean among the 15 test

lines was calculated for the dimple diameter.

1 Title
2 Effects of Size and Distribution of Spheroidized Cementite on Void Initiation in Punched Surface of
3 Medium Carbon Steel
4
5 Authors
6 Ken SAITO1, Chikara INOUE1, Jin IKEGAWA1, Kazuhiko YAMAZAKI2, Sota GOTO3, Masato
7 TAKAMURA1,4, Shunsuke MIHARA4, Shinsuke SUZUKI1,5
8
9 Affiliations
10 *1: School of Fundamental Science and Engineering, Waseda University,
11 59-305, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan
12 *2 JFE Steel Corporation,
13 1 Kawasaki-cho, Chuo, Chiba 260-0835, Japan
14 *3 JFE Steel Corporation,
15 1-1 Minamiwatarida-cho, Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa, Japan
16 *4 RIKEN Center for Advanced Photonics,
17 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan
18 *5: Kagami Memorial Research Institute of Materials Science and Technology,
19 2-8-26, Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-0051, Japan
20
21
22 Corresponding author
23 Ken Saito: vn.saito@fuji.waseda.jp

1
24 Abstract
25 In this study, we investigated the effects of the size and distribution of spheroidized cementite on
26 the characteristics of a punched surface and the effect of stress triaxiality on void initiation at the
27 interface between the cementite (θ) and ferrite matrix under shearing deformation. Punching and
28 interrupted punching tests were conducted with two types of annealed medium carbon steels, θL and
29 θS, that contained larger cementites with lower density and smaller cementites with higher density,
30 respectively. The microstructural deformation in the interrupted punching test was simulated by the
31 finite-element (FE) method. Based on SEM images of the microstructures and the microstructural FE
32 models, the stress triaxiality around cementites is the important factor for void initiation. Moreover,
33 the microstructural FE models revealed that the larger amount of cementites decreases the stress
34 triaxiality around cementites. This mechanism explains why the number of voids in the area farther
35 from the surface of θS was less than that in θL. In contrast, the number of voids near the punched
36 surface was greater in θS than in θL, due to the high stress triaxiality caused by large shearing
37 deformation. Stress triaxiality appears to change the critical equivalent plastic strain for void initiation.
38
39 Keywords
40 Punching, Medium Carbon Steel, Spheroidized Cementite, Stress Triaxiality, Void-Initiation Factor

2
41 1. Introduction
42 Punching is one of the most important press working processes [1] used to pierce holes in a metallic
43 sheet by shearing and fracturing, where many voids are initiated near the punched surface. As voids
44 near the fracture surface deteriorate the secondary formability [2,3], the characteristics of punched
45 surfaces have required improvement [4]. Many experimental and numerical studies on the relationship
46 between the punching process or tool shapes and the characteristics of the punched surface have been
47 carried out [5–9].
48 However, voids are also known to initiate in the area around hard phase like cementite. It has been
49 reported that when a steel sheet has a constant cementite volume fraction, the strain around the
50 cementite decreases with decreasing cementite size [10]. Furthermore, some studies have considered
51 the relationship between cracks in the punched surface and precipitates or inclusions in the material
52 [11,12]. For example, Okano et al. [12] clarified that the number of cracks on a punched surface
53 decreases when the steel sheet contains a larger number of precipitates or inclusions. As the mechanism
54 of this phenomenon, they asserted that the large number of voids that were initiated from the
55 precipitates and inclusions dispersed the stress acting on each void, which thereby allowed them to
56 barely exceed the criteria for crack propagation. Therefore, these results suggest that reducing the
57 cementite diameter can prevent significant crack propagation. However, there are only a few reports
58 that discuss void initiation around the hard phase in relation to the specific stress distribution around
59 the hard phase during punching.
60 The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of the size and distribution of spheroidized
61 cementites on the characteristics of the punched surface and the factors for the initiation of voids at the
62 interface between cementite and the ferrite matrix under shearing deformation by using multiscale
63 modeling.
64
65 2. Experimental Procedure
66 2.1 Specimen Preparation
67 Medium carbon-steel sheets with a thickness of 4 mm were chosen for this study. The chemical
68 composition of these steel sheets was Fe-0.36C-0.20Si-0.71Mn-0.13Cr. These steel sheets were
69 produced by rolling process after continuous casting. To prepare two kinds of steel sheets, containing
70 different average sizes of spheroidized cementite, the steel sheets were annealed by separate methods,
71 as follows: (1) by holding the sheet at a temperature above the Ac1 transformation point for a short time
72 and keeping the temperature lower than the Ae1 transformation point for a long time, and (2) by holding
73 the sheet at a temperature lower than the Ae1 transformation point for a long time. The average grain
74 sizes of the ferrite and cementite of these two types of steel sheets were measured by electron back-
75 scatter diffraction (EBSD, JAMP-9500F, JEOL Ltd.). The average grain sizes were weighted by the
76 area fraction of each grain size.
77 These steel sheets were ground 0.4 mm from one side and 2.6 mm from the other side to remove the
78 centerline segregation of Mn formed during continuous casting [13], as centerline segregation affects
79 the punched surface [14]. The sheet thickness after grinding was 1 mm. Specimens for the tensile test,
3
80 punching test, and interrupted punching test were prepared from these two types of steel sheets. Figure
81 1 shows the geometry of the specimens. The specimen in Fig. 1 is a No. 5 tensile test specimen in
82 accordance with Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) Z 2241 [15]. The specimens for the punching tests
83 and the interrupted punching tests were 50-mm squares.

84
85 Fig. 1 Geometry of specimen for tensile test. (R.D.: rolling direction)
86
87 2.2 Tensile Test
88 Tensile tests were carried out to obtain the material properties for the finite-element (FE) analysis
89 explained in the following section. The two types of annealed specimens were tested with a universal
90 testing machine (AutographTM, AG-100kNC, Shimadzu Corp.) until the specimens ruptured. The
91 cross-head speed was 3.0 mm/min. The elongation was measured with a digital video extensometer
92 (TRviewXTM, Shimadzu Corp.).
93
94 2.3 Punching Test and Evaluation of Punched Surface
95 Punching tests were carried out on both types of annealed punching test specimens with a universal
96 testing machine (AutographTM, AG-I-250kN, Shimadzu Corp.). Figure 2(a) shows a schematic of the
97 punching test. The diameters of the punch and die were 10 mm and 10.4 mm, respectively. Thus, the
98 clearance was 20%. The punching velocity was 1 mm/min, which was chosen such that the effect of
99 strain rate could be negligible.
100 To observe the void distribution near the punched surface, specimens were cut in the thickness
101 direction along a line parallel to the rolling direction and passing through the center of the punching
102 hole (Fig. 2(b)). Areas within 100 µm from the fracture surface on the cross section were then observed
103 for each specimen with a scanning electron microscope (SEM, JSM-6060, JEOL Ltd.). The
104 acceleration voltage was set to 15 kV in this study. This 100 µm area from the surface was divided into
105 four regions, as shown in Fig. 2(c). The total number of voids and the areas of each void were measured
106 with WinROOFTM (Mitani Corp.) in the four divided areas. Voids with a length of 0.5 μm or more were
107 measured as shown Fig. 2(d). In addition, the roughness of the fracture surfaces parallel to the rolling
108 direction was measured with a laser microscope (VK9510, Keyence Corp.) at five points on each
109 surface, as shown in Fig. 2(c). The maximum height Rz and the arithmetic average roughness Ra (high-
110 pass cutoff value λC: 80 µm, low pass cutoff value λS: 2.5 µm) were adopted as indicators of roughness.
111 Moreover, the fracture surface was observed with the SEM at an angle of 22.5° from the thickness
112 direction (Fig. 2(c)). The average sizes of the dimples on the fracture surface of each type of specimen
113 were measured using these SEM images. The dimple diameter was measured using the intercept
114 technique. In the punching direction for each steel fracture surface, 15 test lines, 50 µm long, were
4
115 drawn. The dimple diameter on each test line was calculated by division of the length by the number
116 of the dimples on the test line; the arithmetic mean among the 15 test lines was calculated for the
117 dimple diameter.

118
119 Fig. 2 Schematics of punching test and observation area. (a) Arrangement of punch, die, holder, and
120 specimen. (b) Specimen after punching. (c) Fracture surface and neighboring cross section of fracture
121 surface (h: vertical height from burr). (d) SEM image of voids.
122
123 2.4 Interrupted Punching Test and Observation of Microstructure
124 Interrupted punching tests of both types of annealed specimens were performed with the same
125 equipment as in the punching test (Fig. 3(a)). The punching velocity was 1 mm/min, and a pressing
126 depth of approximately 0.25 mm was used for observation of the microstructures at the center of the
127 deformation area by SEM (Fig. 3(b)). In the specimens that were pressed for approximately 0.25 mm,
128 the penetration depth was measured.

129
130 Fig. 3 Schematic of interrupted punching test and observation area. (a) Arrangement of equipment.
131 (b) Cross section of the shearing deformation area.
132
133 3. FE Analysis
134 3.1 Multiscale modeling
135 A multiscale modeling was performed in this study for a detailed analysis at the microscopic scale
5
136 with a reasonable computational cost, as explained schematically in Figs. 4 and 5. The procedure of
137 the multiscale modeling was as follows:
138 1. Analysis of the interrupted punching test by using a global model with larger FEs (Figs. 4(a), 4(b)).
139 2. Deformed cementites distribution obtained by using the SEM image (Fig. 4(d)) and preparation of
140 microstructural FE model (Fig. 4(c))
141 3. Interpolation of inverse displacement conditions to the microstructural FE model (Fig. 4(c)) and
142 acquiring the initial cementites distribution (Fig. 4(e)).
143 4. Reconstruction of the initial microstructural FE model. (Fig. 5(c))
144 5. Interpolation of displacement conditions to the microstructural FE model (Fig. 5(c)), and
145 acquisition of the stress and strain distribution around spheroidized cementites (Fig. 5(d)).

146
147 Fig. 4 Initial cementites distribution acquisition method. (a) Global model and defined microscopic
148 region before analysis. (b) Global model and defined microscopic region after analysis. (c)
149 Microstructural FE model before analysis. (d) SEM image of interrupted punching specimen
150 referenced for modeling of cementite geometries in microstructural FE model and (e) microstructural
151 FE model analyzed by interpolated displacement conditions. (ⅰ–ⅸ: number of the node from which
152 displacement is to be extracted)

6
153
154 Fig. 5 Procedure of multiscale modeling. (a) Global model and defined microscopic region before
155 analysis. (b) Global model and defined microscopic region after analysis. (c) Microstructural FE model
156 before analysis. (d) SEM image of interrupted punching specimen referenced for modeling of
157 cementite geometries in microstructural FE model and (e) microstructural FE model analyzed by
158 interpolated displacement conditions. (ⅰ–ⅸ: number of the node from which displacement is to be
159 extracted)
160
161 3.2 Material Model and Simulation Conditions for Global Analysis
162 First, the interrupted punching test was simulated for the global model of multiscale modeling. In
163 this simulation, it was assumed that the material was homogeneous, isotropic, and elastoplastic. The
164 work hardening characteristic of the material was approximated by the Swift hardening law, which is
165 expressed as follows:
166 σ = 𝐾(𝜀 + 𝜀 ) , (2)
167 where σ, K, ε0, εp, and n are the true stress, stress amplitude, strain-shift parameter, plastic strain, and
168 hardening exponent, respectively. The values of K, ε0, and n for both types of annealed specimens were
169 determined from true stress–plastic strain curves obtained by the tensile tests. The value of Young’s
170 modulus for each specimen was also determined from the tensile tests.
171 Figure 6 shows the global model of the FE simulation. In this study, two-dimensional axisymmetric
172 analysis was performed using an elastoplastic FE code, STAMP 3D [16]. The punch, die, and holder
173 were assumed to be rigid bodies. The radii of the cutting edges of the die and punch were 0.05 mm and
174 the friction coefficient was 0.13. The penetration depth was determined experimentally from the
175 interrupted punching test.

7
176
177 Fig. 6 Initial arrangement of global FE model of interrupted punching test. (a) Overall view. (b)
178 Arrangement of elements in deformation area.
179
180 3.3 Material Models and Simulation Methods for Microstructure Analyses
181 The 20-µm square region subjected to the microstructure analysis was defined in the global FE model
182 of the interrupted punching test, where the geometries of cementite particles were modeled referring
183 to the SEM image of the specimen. The region of microstructure analysis corresponded to the area of
184 16 elements (four elements on each side) of the global model, as shown in Figs. 5(a) and (b). A
185 microstructural FE model of the same size was created. The minimum size of the elements was 0.05
186 µm in the microstructural FE model, which constituted the microstructure of the ferrite matrix and
187 cementite precipitates. Each side of the microstructural model was divided into 100 elements.
188 Cementites were modeled only in a 10µm square at the center of the microstructural FE model to
189 prevent the displacement constraints on the boundary of the model from affecting the behavior of the
190 cementite modeled area. In other words, a marginal area with a homogeneous structure surrounded the
191 cementite modeled area (Fig. 5(c)).
192 The displacement field over the microstructural model can be defined through an interpolation from
193 the displacements of nine nodes of the global model (node ⅰ (Δx1,Δz1) to ⅸ (Δx9,Δz9), as shown in Figs.
194 5(a) and (b)). In this study, the interpolation functions of a nine-node quadratic quadrilateral
195 isoparametric element were applied to impose the displacement constraints on the boundary of the
196 microstructural model [17]. Finally, FE analysis of the microstructural model was performed
197 considering the deformation field obtained from the global FE model as well as the microstructure
198 including cementite particles through the multiscale modeling (Figs. 5(c) and (d)).
199 The material properties of the ferrite matrix in the microstructural FE model were the same as those
200 used in the corresponding analyses of the global models. The cementite part was assumed to be elastic,
201 and the parameters were determined by referring to the literature [18].
8
202
203
204 4. Results
205 4.1 Microstructures of Two Types of Annealed Specimens
206 Figure 7 shows the SEM images of the microstructures of each type of annealed specimen. The
207 cementites in the steel sheet shown in Fig. 7(a) are larger in size and smaller in number than those in
208 the other sheet, shown in Fig. 7(b). Therefore, the steel sheets shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b) are called θL
209 and θS in this paper. The average grain sizes of ferrite (α) and cementite (θ) were θL: 9.1±0.3 μm (α)
210 and 1.2±0.07 µm (θ), θS: 8.9±0.3 μm (α) and 0.7±0.03 µm (θ). Microstructure deformation by grinding
211 was not observed near the ground surface.

212 Fig. 7 SEM images of microstructures of steel sheets containing (a) larger size and smaller number of
213 cementites (θL) and (b) smaller size and larger number of cementites (θS).
214
215 4.2 Evaluation of Punched Surface
216 Figure 8 shows the void distributions in the four divided areas within 100 µm of the fracture surface.
217 The horizontal axis is the area of each void expressed logarithmically, and the vertical axis is the
218 number of voids in three specimens. In the divided area 25 µm from the punched surface, the number
219 of voids in θS was larger and the percentage of small voids with sizes of approximately 0.2 µm2 in
220 total tended to be larger than in θL. In contrast, θS contained a smaller number of voids than θL in the
221 three areas from 25 µm to 100 µm from the surface.

222

9
223 Fig. 8 Distribution of voids inside the punched surface. (L: distance from punched surface)
224
225 The SEM images of the fracture surfaces of each specimen are shown in Fig. 9. In Fig. 9, the punched
226 surface of θL displayed larger dimples, and the sizes of the dimples were similar. In contrast, θS
227 displayed many small dimples of various sizes. The average size of the dimples in θL was 2.43±0.38
228 µm, whereas the average size in θS was 1.65±0.13 µm.

229 Fig. 9 SEM images of fracture surface of (a) θL and (b) θS.
230
231 Figure 10 shows the roughness of the fracture surface of each steel sheet. In Fig. 10, the roughness
232 of the fracture surfaces of both steel sheets was nearly the same, but the fracture surface of θS tended
233 to be slightly smoother.

234
235 Fig. 10 Roughness distribution of the punched surface.
236
237 4.3 Identification of Hardening Model
238 The true stress–plastic strain curves obtained by the tensile tests are shown in Fig. 11. The fitted
10
239 Swift’s curve of each steel is also shown by a dotted line in Fig. 11. The equation of each curve is
240 described as follows:
241 θL: σ = 766.08(0.0013980 + 𝜀 ) . , (3)
.
242 θS: σ = 797.41(0.0014505 + 𝜀 ) . (4)
243 These values of the fitting parameters in Swift’s equations were applied to the FE models. The Young’s
244 moduli of θL and θS were obtained from Fig. 11 and were also applied to the FE models. The values
245 applied in the FE analyses are listed in Table 1.

246
247 Fig. 11 True stress–plastic strain curves of tensile tests.
248
Table 1 Conditions of FE analyses
Parameter θL θS Cementite
K 766.08 797.41 -
ε0 0.001398 0.0014505 -
n 0.214401 0.189753 -
Yield Stress σY [MPa] 186.932 230.335 -
Young’s Modulus E [MPa] 202760 198395 189000
Poisson’s Ratio ν 0.30 0.30 0.26
249
250 4.4 Validity of FE Model of Interrupted Punching Test
251 To examine the validity of FE analysis, punch force–displacement diagrams of the experimental
252 values and analytical values were compared. The experimental values were calibrated by the following
253 method due to occurrence of elastic deformation of the die and testing machine during pressing.
254 1. Stopping to push the punch by uniaxial testing machine before the steel sheet fractured, and
255 obtaining the amount of the cross-head movement 𝑥 displayed on the tester.
256 2. Cutting the steel sheets and measuring the punched depth 𝑥 .
257 3. Calculating the amount of the die deformation 𝑥 𝐹 from the difference between the amount of
258 movement of the crosshead obtained in step 1 𝑥 𝐹 and the punched depth in step 2 𝑥′ 𝐹 .
259 𝑥 𝐹 = 𝑥 𝐹 − x − 𝑥′ 𝐹 , (5)
260 where 𝐹 is the final punch force (step 1); 𝑥 is the true sheet deformation; 𝑥 (𝐹) is the elastic
11
261 deformation of the die and testing machine during punching, x is the slippage of the punch.
262 4. Calculating the stiffness k of the testing machine and die using Eq. 6 based on the final load 𝐹
263 and the amount of the die and the testing machine deformation using Eq. 5. The experimental values
264 were calibrated using Eq. 7.

265 k = ( )
(6)

266 𝑥 = 𝑥 𝐹 − x − 𝑥 (𝐹) (7)

267 Fig. 12 Punch force–displacement diagram of the experimental value and simulated value.
268
269 Figure 12 shows the experimental results and the punch force-displacement diagram of the FE analysis.
270 Comparing the calibrated experimental values with the simulated value, the results were in good
271 agreement. In addition, because this FE analysis does not consider fracturing, the crack cannot be
272 simulated to the extent by which the entering load decreases. However, because the punched depth is
273 smaller than the fracture depth, this approximation is caused by a small effect on the stress–strain
274 distribution of the multiscale modeling.
275 In addition, Fig 13(a) shows the cross section of the deformation area of a θL specimen that was
276 pressed until immediately before rupture, and Fig. 13(b) shows the stress triaxiality distribution in the
277 same area of Fig. 13(a). A crack propagated along the area where the high stress triaxiality was
278 observed [19,20]. Therefore, the FE analyses of the interrupted punching test in this study were valid.

279 Fig. 13 Deformation regions of interrupted punching test. (a) Experiment. (b) FE analysis.
280
12
281 4.5 Comparison of Results of Interrupted Punching Test and FE Model
282 The penetration depths of the interrupted punching test specimens for observation of the
283 microstructure in the deformation area were measured. The depths were 0.26 mm and 0.22 mm for θL
284 and θS, respectively. These results were applied to the FE analyses of the microstructure. Figure 14
285 shows one of the SEM images observed at the center of the deformation area of the θL specimen and
286 the distributions of the stress triaxiality in the ferrite matrix in the FE analysis of the microstructure by
287 multiscale modeling. The microstructural FE model reproduced the shape of the cementite in the SEM
288 image well. Based on comparison of areas where voids initiated in the SEM image and each FE model,
289 the void-initiation areas matched some of the areas with high values of stress triaxiality (highlighted
290 by circles in Fig. 14). This tendency was also observed in the other microstructural FE models of θL
291 and θS.

292
293 Fig. 14 SEM images of microstructure of θL specimen and distribution of stress triaxiality of
294 microstructural FE analysis. (Red circles: Void-initiation areas and corresponding positions in
295 microstructural FE models)
296
297 5. Discussion
298 5.1 Factors of Void Initiation under Shearing Deformation
299 As explained in the previous section, Fig. 14 compares one of the SEM images observed at the
300 center of the deformation area in the interrupted punching test of the θL specimen and the results of an
301 analysis of the microstructural FE model referring to the SEM image. The void-initiation areas in the
302 SEM image match some of the areas with highly concentrated stress triaxiality. Consequently, stress
303 triaxiality is an important factor for void initiation under shearing deformation, and these factors appear
304 to change the critical equivalent plastic strain for void initiation.
305
306 5.2 Evaluation of Effect of Size and Distribution of Cementite
307 To estimate the effects of the size and distribution of cementite, the six qualitative FE models of the
308 microstructure in Fig. 15 were analyzed. The cementite location numbers were defined as Ⅰ to Ⅳ (Fig.
309 15). Model (1) includes one cementite with a diameter of 3 µm at location Ⅰ, Models (2) to (5) include
13
310 one cementite with a diameter of 1 µm at locations Ⅰ to Ⅳ, respectively, and Model (6) contains four
311 cementites (φ 1 µm) at locations Ⅰ–Ⅳ. The material properties and analysis method of these models
312 are the same as the θL FE model of the microstructure described in Section 3.2. When the element size
313 of the small θ was the same as that of the large θ, the maximum value of the stress triaxiality of the
314 small θ at interfaces of the cementite and ferrite was rounded. Therefore, the minimum size of the
315 elements constituting the cementite precipitate was 0.15 µm in Model (1) to set the element size of the
316 cementites to be approximately the same as that in the other five models, as shown Fig. 15.

317
318 Fig. 15 Qualitative microstructural FE models including (1) one cementite with diameter of 3 µm at
319 location Ⅰ, (2) one cementite with diameter of 1 µm at location Ⅱ, (3) one cementite with diameter of
320 1 µm at location Ⅲ, (4) one cementite with diameter of 1 µm at location Ⅲ, (5) one cementite with
321 diameter of 1 µm at location Ⅳ, and (6) four cementites with diameters of 1 µm at locations Ⅰ–Ⅳ.
322
323 Figure 16 shows results of the stress triaxiality distribution for each model. As shown in Fig. 16(a),
324 the stress triaxiality is concentrated on the upper right side (U) and lower left side (L) of each cementite.
325 Similarly, in the observation of the microstructure in the deformation area of the interrupted punching
326 test specimen, voids tended to initiate at the upper right side and lower left side interfaces of cementite
327 and ferrite (when the deformation area on the right side of the punch was observed). Thus, these
328 qualitative analyses are valid for simulation of microstructural deformation and considering the effects
329 of the diameter and distribution of cementite, respectively.

14
330
331 Fig. 16 Results of qualitative microstructural FE analyses. (a) Distribution of stress triaxiality, (b)
332 Maximum value of stress triaxiality at each area. (U: upper right area of cementite, L: lower left area
333 of cementite)
334
335 Figure 16(b) shows the maximum stress triaxiality value at each area where stress triaxiality
336 concentrated. The horizontal axis shows the stress triaxiality concentration areas for each cementite at
337 locations Ⅰ to Ⅳ, and the vertical axis is the maximum stress triaxiality in each area. Based on the
338 values of stress triaxiality at Ⅰ(L) and Ⅰ(U) in Models (1) and (2), the maximum values of stress
339 triaxiality are nearly the same, even though the diameter of the cementite is three times larger in Model
340 (1). On the other hand, when the result of Model (6) is compared with that of Models (2) to (5), the
341 maximum values of the stress triaxiality around each cementite in (6) are lower than those in (2) to (5),
342 except at Ⅰ(L) and Ⅲ(U). This result indicates that the stress triaxiality around cementites seems to be
343 dispersed by increasing the number of cementites. At Ⅰ(L) and Ⅲ(U), the maximum values of stress
344 triaxiality in (6) are higher than those in (2) and (4), even though the number of cementites is larger in
345 Model (6). This result seems to be caused by interaction between areas where the stress triaxiality is
346 concentrated. Therefore, the position and distance of the cementites also affect the distribution of the
347 stress triaxiality around cementites. Hence, the value of the stress triaxiality around cementites
348 probably decreases with an increase in the number of cementites. Moreover, the position and distance
349 of the cementites also affect the stress triaxiality distribution.
350
351 5.3 Difference of Void Distribution Depending on Difference of Microstructure
352 The considerations in the previous section seem to describe a difference in the void distributions of
353 θL and θS, as shown in Fig. 8. In areas further from the punched surface (three divided areas 25–100
354 µm from the surface in Fig. 8), the value of stress triaxiality around each cementite in θS was smaller
15
355 than that in θL because the larger number of cementites in θS dispersed the stress triaxiality around
356 each cementite. This resulted in a decrease in the number of cementites that satisfied the conditions for
357 void initiation from the interface between the cementites and the ferrite matrix, and, as a result, the
358 number of voids in θS was less than that in θL.
359 On the other hand, a larger number of voids initiated in θS in the area near the punched surface (one
360 divided area 0–25 µm from the surface in Fig. 8). This result seemed to be caused by the large shearing
361 deformation near the punched surface. As mentioned above, a greater number of cementites dispersed
362 the stress triaxiality around each cementite. However, those values became increasingly large with
363 increasing plastic deformation in the punching process, and the increase in plastic deformation also
364 increased the value of the equivalent plastic strain. These factors seemed to contribute to a gradual and
365 continuous increase in the number of cementites that satisfied the conditions for void initiation. Finally,
366 the number of cementites in θS that satisfied the conditions for void initiation exceeded the number of
367 cementites that satisfied those conditions in θL, and the number of voids in θS became greater than
368 that in θL.
369 In addition, this mechanism is expected to be one of the reasons for the various sizes of dimples on
370 the fracture surface of θS (Fig. 9(b)). The main factor determining the size of the dimples seems to be
371 the size of the cementites [21]. Although θS mainly contains small cementites, some cementites are
372 relatively large, especially those that exist on the boundaries of three or more ferrite grains. This
373 distribution of the cementite size led to the various sizes of dimples. Another reason for the various
374 sizes of the dimples in θS is considered to be the dispersion of void-initiation factors. In the early stage
375 of punching deformation, a smaller number and smaller size of voids were generated in θS than in θL
376 due to the dispersion of void-initiation factors. As the plastic deformation became larger, those voids
377 grew [22], and small new voids were subsequently initiated because of the large equivalent plastic
378 strain. These various sizes of voids also seemed to contribute to the various sizes of dimples.
379 In contrast, θL contained larger cementites of a relatively uniform size [21], and large void-initiation
380 factors acted on each cementite due to the smaller number of cementites. As a result, voids probably
381 initiated around the same time in the early stage of punching deformation. For these reasons, it is
382 thought that larger dimples of similar sizes occurred on the fracture surface of θL.
383
384
385 6. Conclusion
386 In this study, the effects of the size and distribution of spheroidized cementites on the characteristics
387 of the punched surfaces of two types of annealed steel sheets were investigated. In addition, the stress
388 components for the initiation of voids at the interface between cementite and the ferrite matrix under
389 shearing deformation were discussed based on FE analyses. The relationship between the
390 characteristics of the microstructure and punched surface was also considered in terms of the
391 distribution of void-initiation factors around cementites.
392
393

16
394 (1) The punched surface of the steel sheets with a smaller size and greater number of spheroidized
395 cementites had the following characteristics compared with the steel sheets with a larger size and lesser
396 number of spheroidized cementites.
397 1. More voids near the fracture surface and fewer in the area farther from the surface.
398 2. Various size dimples and smaller average dimple size.
399 3. Smoother fracture surface.
400
401 (2) The key factor for void initiation at the interface between cementite and the ferrite matrix is
402 considered to be stress triaxiality under shearing deformation.
403
404 (3) The value of stress triaxiality tends to decrease with an increase in the number of cementites. The
405 position and distance of cementites also affect the distribution of stress triaxiality.
406
407 (4) In the steel sheet with a smaller size and higher density of cementite, the number of voids became
408 smaller in the area farther from the punched surface due to the dispersion of void-initiation factors.
409 However, a larger number of voids initiated at the area near the punched surface because of the increase
410 in the values of the void-initiation factors and equivalent plastic strain caused by large shearing
411 deformation.

17
412 References
413 [1] S. Yu, X. Xie, J. Zhang and Z. Zhao: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2007, vol. 187-188, pp. 169-172.
414 [2] Y. Ito and Y. Nakazawa: Journal of the JSTP, 2010, vol. 51, 1063-1067.
415 [3] R. Nishimura, Y. Ito, M. Nakata and Y. Nakazawa: Journal of the JSTP, 2016, vol. 57, pp. 1062-
416 1069.
417 [4] T. Fujita, N. Kariya N. Nakamura and H. Nakata: Tetsu-to-Hagané, 2005, vol. 91, pp. 775-782.
418 [5] Z. Tekiner, M. Nalbant and H. Gurun: 2006, Mater. Des., 2006, vol. 27, pp. 1134-1138.
419 [6] S. Qin, L. Yang and J. Peng: Appl. Mech. Mater., 2009, vol. 16-19, pp. 495-499.
420 [7] T. Tanaka, S. Hagihara, Y. Tadano, S. Yoshimura, T. Inada, T. Mori and K. Fuchiwaki: Mater. Trans.
421 JIM., 2011, vol. 52, pp. 447-451.
422 [8] X. Wu, H. Bahmanpour and K. Schmid: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2012, vol. 212, pp. 1209-
423 1224.
424 [9] J.A. Soares, M.L. Gipiela, S.F. Lajarin and P.V.P. Marcondes: Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2013,
425 vol. 65, pp. 451-457.
426 [10] M. Maeda, J. Shimamura and S. Suzuki: ISIJ Int., 2018, vol. 58, pp. 1490.
427 [11] R. Okamoto, Y. Taniguchi and Y. Fukuyama: CAMP-ISIJ, 2005, vol. 18, pp. 540.
428 [12] T. Okano, K. Sakumoto, K. Yamazaki, S. Toyoda and S. Suzuki: Key Eng. Mater., 2016, vol. 716,
429 pp. 643-651.
430 [13] G. Krauss, Solidification: Metall. Mater. Trans., B, 2003, vol. 34B, pp. 781-792.
431 [14] K. Sakumoto, K. Yamazaki, T. Kobayashi and S. Suzuki: Key Eng. Mater., 2014, vol. 622-623, pp.
432 1075-1080.
433 [15] JIS Z 2241, Japanese Industrial Standards Committee, 2011.
434 [16] M. Banu, M. Takamura, T. Hama, O. Naidim, C. Teodosiu and A. Makinouchi: J. Mater. Process.
435 Technol., 2006, vol. 173, pp. 178-184.
436 [17] R.H. Wagoner and J.-L. Chenot: Metal Forming Analysis, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2001,
437 pp. 82-84.
438 [18] K. Shibanuma, S. Aihara and S. Ohtsuka: Tetsu-to-Hagané, 2013, vol. 99, pp. 582-591.
439 [19] D. Brokken, W.A.M. Brecelnams and F.P.T. Baaijens: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 1998, vol. 83,
440 pp. 192-199.
441 [20] K. Nahshon and Z. Xue: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2009, vol. 76, pp. 997-1009.
442 [21] M. Kim, J. Shin, Y. Choi and S. Lee: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2016, vol. 47A, pp. 1761-1769.
443 [22] D. Kwon and R.J. Asaro: Metall. Trans. A, 1990, vol. 21, pp. 117-134.
444
445 List of Figures
446 Fig. 1 Geometry of specimen for tensile test. (R.D.: rolling direction)
447
448 Fig. 2 Schematics of punching test and observation area. (a) Arrangement of punch, die, holder, and
449 specimen, (b) Specimen after punching and (c) Fracture surface and neighboring cross section of
450 fracture surface. (h: vertical height from burr) (d) SEM image of voids.
18
451
452 Fig. 3 Schematic of interrupted punching test and observation area. (a) Arrangement of equipment, (b)
453 Specimen after interrupted punching test and (c) Cross section of shearing deformation area.
454
455 Fig. 4 Obtainment of cementite distribution before punching; (a) Global model and defined
456 microscopic region before analysis, (b) Global model and defined microscopic region after analysis,
457 (c) Microstructural FE model before analysis, (d) SEM image of interrupted punching specimen
458 referenced for modeling of cementite geometries in microstructural FE model and (e) Microstructural
459 FE model analyzed by interpolated displacement conditions. (ⅰ-ⅸ: number of node from which
460 displacement is to be extracted)
461
462 Fig. 5 Procedure of multiscale modeling; (a) Global model and defined microscopic region before
463 analysis, (b) Global model and defined microscopic region after analysis, (c) Microstructural FE model
464 before analysis, (d) SEM image of interrupted punching specimen referenced for modeling of
465 cementite geometries in microstructural FE model and (e) Microstructural FE model analyzed by
466 interpolated displacement conditions. (ⅰ-ⅸ: number of node from which displacement is to be
467 extracted)
468
469 Fig. 6 Initial arrangement of global FE model of interrupted punching test. (a) Overall view, (b)
470 Arrangement of elements in deformation area.
471
472 Fig. 7 SEM images of microstructures of steel sheets containing (a) larger size and smaller number of
473 cementites (θL) and (b) smaller size and larger number of cementites (θS).
474
475 Fig. 8 Distribution of voids inside punched surface. (L: distance from punched surface)
476
477 Fig. 9 SEM images of fracture surface of (a) θL and (b) θS.
478
479 Fig. 10 Roughness distribution of punched surface.
480
481 Fig. 11 True stress-plastic strain curves of tensile tests.
482
483 Fig. 12 Punch force - displacement diagram of the experimental value and the simulated value
484
485 Fig. 13 Deformation regions of interrupted punching test. (a) Experiment, (b) FE analysis.
486
487 Fig. 14 SEM images of microstructure of θL specimen and distribution of stress triaxiality of
488 microstructural FE analysis. (Red circles: Void initiation areas and corresponding positions in
489 microstructural FE models)
19
490
491 Fig. 15 Qualitative microstructural FE models including (1) one cementite with diameter of 3 µm at
492 location Ⅰ, (2) one cementite with diameter of 1 µm at location Ⅱ, (3) one cementite with diameter of
493 1 µm at location Ⅲ, (4) one cementite with diameter of 1 µm at location Ⅲ, (5) one cementite with
494 diameter of 1 µm at location Ⅳ and (6) four cementites with diameters of 1 µm at locations Ⅰ-Ⅳ.
495
496 Fig. 16 Results of qualitative microstructural FE analyses. (a) Distribution of stress triaxiality, (b)
497 Maximum value of stress triaxiality at each area. (U: upper right side area of cementite, L: lower left
498 side area of cementite)
499
Table 1 Conditions of FEM analyses
Parameter θL θS Cementite
K 766.08 797.41 -
ε0 0.001398 0.0014505 -
n 0.214401 0.189753 -
Yield Stress σY [MPa] 186.932 230.335 -
Young’s Modulus E [MPa] 202760 198395 189000
Poisson’s Ratio ν 0.30 0.30 0.26
500

20
 Table 1 Conditions of FEM analyses
Parameter θL θS Cementite
K 766.08 797.41 -
ε0 0.001398 0.0014505 -
n 0.214401 0.189753 -
Yield Stress σY [MPa] 186.932 230.335 -
Young’s Modulus E [MPa] 202760 198395 189000
Poisson’s Ratio ν 0.30 0.30 0.26