Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 3442–3449

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

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

Characterization of microstructure obtained by quenching and partitioning

process in low alloy martensitic steel
C.Y. Wang ∗ , J. Shi, W.Q. Cao, H. Dong
National Engineering Research Center of Advanced Steel Technology, Central Iron & Steel Research Institute, Beijing 100081, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Microstructure of low alloy martensitic steel treated by quenching and partitioning (Q&P) process was
Received 20 November 2009 characterized by means of SEM, TEM, EBSD and XRD. Mechanical properties of steel processed by Q&P
Received in revised form 31 January 2010 and the same steel processed by quenching and tempering (Q&T) were measured by uniaxial tensile
Accepted 4 February 2010
test. The study suggests that microstructure is mainly composed of three phases, i.e. initial martensite,
fresh martensite and retained austenite. The initial martensite formed at the first quenching step is easily
etched; the fresh martensite is formed at the final quenching step and looks like ‘blocky’ type phase with
Keywords:
size about 0.2–3 ␮m, and the retained austenite is mainly located on the packet boundary and initial
Martensite
Heat treatment
austenite grain boundary. The measured volume fractions and carbon contents of these phases were
Quenching and partitioning (Q&P) slightly different from those predicted by the constrained paraequilibrium (CPE) model proposed by
Retained austenite Speer, which was interpreted by the effects of the different grain sizes of the untransformed austenite
after first quenching. Mechanical properties of steels processed by Q&P assume much higher strength
and ductility than those processed by Q&T. It is concluded that Q&P process is a promising approach
to control the multiphase structure with hard matrix and a ductile retained austenite, which gives an
excellent combination of strength and ductility.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (martensite-finish) to create a mixture of martensite phase and

TRIP (transformation-induced plasticity) steel has been studied
worldwide since 90s of the last century and it was demon-
strated that TRIP steel has an excellent combination of strength
and ductility [1–3]. For example, the tensile strength is about
600 MPa and total elongation is about 40% for TRIP600, which
is significantly higher than other conventional advanced high-
strength steels (AHSS) [4]. However, compared with the martensitic
steel (normally tensile strength exceeds 1200 MPa), its tensile
strength is relative low due to the large grains and soft ferrite
matrix. In order to increase the tensile strength of steel with good
ductility, replacing ferrite matrix with martensite may be an effec-
tive way to achieve higher tensile strength levels and relative
high ductility [5,6]. In light of this idea, quenching and parti-
tioning (Q&P) process was proposed by Speer to produce steels
with carbon-enriched retained austenite within martensitic matrix
[7].
Q&P process involves mainly two steps [8], i.e., quenching step
and partitioning step. The former is to quench the austenized
steel to a temperature between the Ms (martensite-start) and Mf
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 010 62185775; fax: +86 010 62182308.
E-mail address: wangcunyu@nercast.com (C.Y. Wang).
untransformed austenite phase. The latter is to reheat this steel
directly to a temperature no less than the applied quenching tem-
perature to stabilize the untransformed austenite, during which
carbon is expected to be rejected from supersaturated martensite
phase to austenite phase. At last, the steel is quenched to room
temperature after Q&P process. Theoretically [9], with the help
of silicon and/or aluminum to suppress carbide precipitation, the
final microstructure of steel treated by Q&P process should mainly
include initial martensite (carbon depleted martensite, formed
at the first quenching), fresh martensite (relative higher carbon
martensite, formed at the final quenching), and retained austenite.
A detailed characterization on the microstructure of Q&P steel, such
as the initial martensite, fresh martensite and retained austenite,
is necessary to improve the heat treatment process, and to design
the microstructure for a special application.
So far few reports on microstructure characteristics of steels
treated by Q&P process have been reported [10,11] and no identi-
fication has been carried out on the characters of initial martensite
and fresh martensite. In this paper, the microstructure characteri-
zation of martensitic steel treated by Q&P process was investigated
based on the terminology of initial martensite, fresh martensite and
retained austenite. The improved mechanical properties resulting
from the Q&P processing were discussed based on the multiphase
structure characters.

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2010.02.020
 C.Y. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 3442–3449
Table 1
Heat treatment parameters (temperature (T) and time (t)) of both Q&P and Q&T.
Process Austenization T(t)
Q&P Q&P 1 900 (15 min)
Q&P 2 900 (15 min)
Q&P 3 900 (15 min)
Q&P 4 900 (15 min)
Q&P 5 900 (15 min)
Q&P 6 900 (15 min)
Q&T Q&T 1 900 (15 min)
Q&T 2 900 (15 min)
Q&T 3 900 (15 min)
Q&T 4 900 (15 min)
Q&T 5 900 (15 min)
2. Experimental procedures
A low alloy steel, which is a kind of wear resistant steel invented
by Central Iron & Steel Research Institute (CISRI), was melt in an
electrical arc furnace having capacity of 30 t and then rolled into
billet with sectional dimension of 100 mm × 100 mm; samples for
the experiment were prepared from bar with diameter of 16 mm
forged from the billet. The composition of this steel is: 0.21%C,
1.75%Si, 0.29%Mn, 1.03%Cr, 2.86%Ni, 0.31%Mo, 0.08%V, 0.049%Nb,
0.001%S, and 0.006%P (wt.%). Its Ms of 375 ◦ C was measured by
dilatometer analysis. Samples were subjected to Q&P treatments
which involves austenitizing at 900 ◦ C for 15 min firstly, followed
by quenching into salt bath in temperature range of 200–350 ◦ C for
1 min, then partitioning in another salt bath at 500 ◦ C for 10 min,
lastly quenching into water, the processing parameters were given
in Table 1. For comparison, traditional quenching and tempering
(Q&T) processes were carried out as well; the processing param-
eters were also given in Table 1. Tensile tests were performed on
the dog-bone shaped specimens with gauge length of 25 mm and
diameter of 5 mm at a strain rate of 10−3 /s in an Instron machine
(WE-300) at ambient temperature.
The volume fractions of retained austenite of specimens treated
by Q&P4 and Q&T2 were measured by X-rays diffraction (XRD),
samples were first ground and mechanically polished, and then
electrolytically polished for stress relieving in a solution of chromic
acid and distilled water (1:9). Samples were scanned over a 2 range
from 45◦ to 115◦ with a step size of 0.02◦ and a dwelling time of 2 s in
PHILIPS APD-10 XRD, operated at 35 V and 35 mA with a graphite
monochromator and filtered cobalt radiation. Austenite peaks of
{2 0 0}, {2 2 0}, {3 1 1} and ferrite peaks of {2 0 0}, {2 1 1} were mea-
sured for the calculation of the volume fraction of austenite of each
peak according to Eq. (1) and the volume fraction of austenite is the
average of Vi .
1 on this different etching behavior, it can be concluded that the eas-
Vi =
1 + G(I˛ /I )
where Vi is the volume fraction of austenite for each peak, I␣ and
I␥ is the integrated intensity of ferrite and austenite peaks, G-value
for each peak was used as follow, 2.5 for I␣(2 0 0) /I␥(2 0 0) , 1.38 for
I␣(2 0 0) /I␥(2 2 0) , 2.02 for I␣(2 0 0) /I␥(3 1 1), 1.19 for I␣(2 1 1) /I␥(2 0 0) , 0.06
for I␣(2 1 1) /I␥(2 2 0), 0.96 for I␣(2 1 1) /I␥(3 1 1). Austenite carbon content
was calculated by Eq. (2) [12].
a0 = 3.555 + 0.044x
where a0 is austenite lattice parameter in Angstroms and x is carbon
content in weight percent. The lattice parameter was estimated
from an average based on the {2 2 0} and {3 1 1} austenite peaks.
Microstructures of specimens of Q&P4 were evaluated with
second electron microscopy (SEM, S-4300), transmission electron
microscopy (TEM, H-800) and electron back scattered diffractions
in field-gun SEM (EBSD/FG-SEM), microstructure of specimen of
3443
Quenching T(t) Partitioning T(t) Tempering T(t)
200 (1 min) 500 (10 min)
220 (1 min) 500 (10 min)
250 (1 min) 500 (10 min)
280 (1 min) 500 (10 min)
300 (1 min) 500 (10 min)
350 (1 min) 500 (10 min)
Room temperature 200 (2 h)
Room temperature 300 (2 h)
Room temperature 400 (2 h)
Room temperature 500 (2 h)
Room temperature 600 (2 h)
Q&T2 was evaluated through SEM as well. For the microstructure
observation in SEM, samples were ground and polished mechani-
cally, and then etched by 2% nital for 30 s. The volume fraction and
size of the blocky phase were measured using SISC-IAS image anal-
ysis apparatus, from which the equivalent area diameter (DEAD ) of
the fresh martensite was calculated. For the microstructure exami-
nation in TEM and EBSD, samples were firstly ground mechanically
to a thickness of about 0.04 mm, and then were electro-polished
in a twin-jet machine in a solution of 5% perchloric acid and 95%
alcohol at about −20 ◦ C. The orientation and phase mapping by
EBSD was conducted at a step size of 50 nm and measured area
about 20 ␮m × 20 ␮m. The EBSD data analyses were carried out by
TSL-OIM commercial software.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. The microstructure features of steel after Q&P process
Microstructures obtained by Q&T and Q&P processes were
characterized by SEM, and shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen that
the microstructure obtained through Q&T process is typical lath
martensite, from which the packets, blocks and martensitic laths
can be distinguished clearly (Fig. 1a). However, the microstructure
obtained by Q&P process (Fig. 1b) is completely different, from
which not only lath martensitic structure but a trigonal and/or
quadrangular blocky phase with size significantly larger than the
martensitic lath can be observed. Also with changing the etching
time, it was found that the martensitic matrix structure was eas-
ily etched, whereas the blocky phase structure was difficult to be
examined without further heat treatment. It is well known that
the microstructure of the tempered martensite is easy to be etched
compared with that of the fresh martensite, due to the precipita-
tion nucleation and growth of the cementite after tempering. Based
(1)
ily etched martensitic matrix is the initial martensite formed in the
first quenching step and the block phase is a new phase transformed
from the untransformed austenite during the second quenching
step. In order to measure the volume fraction of different phases,
the blocky phase was highlighted into white color (Fig. 1c) and its
volume fraction and size were measured by SISC-IAS image analysis
apparatus. The size distribution of the blocky phase as highlighted
in Fig. 1c was revealed in Fig. 1d. It can be seen that the mean
(2) area diameter ranged from 0.2 to 3 ␮m. This size distribution of
the blocky phase indicates the non-uniform phase transformation
in the first pass quenching process, which will be discussed further
in Section 3.4.
To characterize the microstructure of the ‘blocky’ phase, the Q&P
processed specimen was tempered at 200 ◦ C again for one hour, and
further etched by 2% nital solution. A slightly refined lath marten-
sitic microstructure was found in the ‘blocky’ phase as revealed
in Fig. 2. The statistics results show that the volume fractions of
3444 C.Y. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 3442–3449
Fig. 1. SEM micrographs of experimental steel: (a) treated by conventional Q&T process (Q&T2), (b) treated by Q&P process (Q&P4), (c) the blocky phase of Q&P4 highlighted
by white color and (d) size distribution of blocky phase of Q&P4.
the blocky phase and the easily etched matrix are about 26.4%
and 73.6%, respectively. It can be seen that the former is close to
the value of 34.8%, which is the volume fraction of untransformed
austenite predicted from Koistinen–Marburger relationship (Eq.
(3)) [13] assuming all carbon partitioned from initial martensite to
untransformed austenite. Based on the martensitic microstructure,
Fig. 2. Microstructure of Q&P steel further tempered at 200 ◦ C for 1 h to highlight
the microstructure of the blocky phase.
the agreement of the volume fraction between the blocky phase and
the untransformed austenite, the blocky phase could be proved to
be the product of the untransformed austenite and thus is the fresh
martensite.
f = 1 − fM = exp(−˛(Ms − Mq )) (3)
where f , fM , Ms , Mq , ˛ are the volume fraction of retained austenite,
volume fraction of martensite, starting martensitic transforma-
tion temperature and quenching temperature and a constant of
1.1 × 10−2 , respectively.
EBSD (electron back scattering diffraction) is an effective
method to identify different phases, such as that of ␣-Fe and ␥-Fe
[14]. The results analyzed by EBSD in FEG-SEM for sample treated
by Q&P4 process and its microstructure measured in S-4300 SEM in
the same area were presented in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the blocky
phase is easily identified in the microstructure measured from SEM
(Fig. 3a) and the corresponding phase (Fig. 3b) and crystal orien-
tation can be identified through EBSD map (Fig. 3c and d). In the
phase map, the bright dots were applied to represent the ␥-phase,
and the black ones the ␣-phase, respectively (Fig. 3b). Based on the
microstructure characteristics of the fresh martensite as analyzed
above, the blocky phase in SEM map can be clearly identified as the
fresh martensite. Similar to the SEM micrographs as revealed in
Fig. 2, no clear retained austenite can be found (zone within white
dashed lines). It seems that retained austenite mainly distributes in
the boundary of packet and original austenite grain but not in the
blocky phase. The total volume fraction of retained austenite phase
 C.Y. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 3442–3449 3445

Fig. 3. Distribution of ␥-Fe and ␣-Fe of 21Si2Ni3 steel treated by Q&P process. (a) SEM map indicating the blocky phase as highlighted by dashed line, (b) phase map showing
the distribution of the retained austenite after Q&P process, (c) the orientation map (IPF) of the fresh martensite and (d) the orientation relationship between the blocky
phase revealed in the (0 0 1) pole figure of austenite.

measured by EBSD map is about 6.8%, which is slightly lower than
that of 8.4% measured by XRD. This difference of the measured data
may be caused by the small size or thickness (<100 nm) of retained
austenite, which could not be measured by EBSD.
The initial martensite and the fresh martensite were trans-
formed from austenite at different stages and their parent austenite
with different compositions. It would be very interesting to mea-
sure the orientation relation between them. Fig. 3c shows the
morphologies of the blocky phase in the IPF color map, which is
one blocky phase as revealed in Fig. 3a. In order to understand
the transformation behavior of the retained austenite, the ori-
entation relationship of the blocky phase (the fresh martensite)
and the surrounded initial martensite lath was presented in the
{0 0 1} pole figure of austenite (Fig. 3d). It can be seen easily that
the orientation relationship of both fresh martensite and the ini-
tial martensite follows K–S orientation relationship law [15]. The
microstructure of the fresh martensite transformed from carbon-
enriched untransformed austenite was further examined by TEM
as Fig. 4. According to the findings from SEM, both trigonal (Fig. 4a)
and quadrangular (Fig. 4b) blocky phase can be found. Compared
with the low temperature tempered martensite structure, four dis-
tinguished features can be stressed here, firstly its refined blocky
size of fresh martensite is about 0.2–3 ␮m, secondly its lath thick-
ness is about 0.1–0.2 ␮m, which is thinner than that of 0.2–0.3 ␮m
of the initial martensite lath, thirdly only one single set of packet
exists in one fresh martensite grain and lastly the thickness of the
retained austenite films is less than 100 nm (Fig. 4c and d).
3.2. Carbon distribution and austenite volume fraction in Q&P
Microstructure
The difference in solubility of carbon between ferrite and
austenite at 500 ◦ C leads to the redistribution of carbon between
martensite and austenite, which is called carbon partitioning. The
3446 C.Y. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 3442–3449

Fig. 4. TEM results of Q&P microstructure (a) trigonal blocky phase, (b) quadrangular blocky phase, (c) bright-field image of the fresh martensite lath in the blocky phase
and (d) dark-field image indicating the thin films of austenite in the blocky phase.

carbon distribution in the initial martensite and the block phase
was measured qualitatively by electron energy disperse spec-
troscopy (EDS) in SEM in this study. The carbon distribution along
white horizontal lines was presented in Fig. 5a and b. It is well
known that the carbon content cannot be measured quantitatively,
but it still gives us the difference of carbon content in different
phases qualitatively. It can be seen from Fig. 5a and b that the car-
bon content of ‘blocky’ type phase (i.e. fresh martensite) is higher
than that of the matrix (the initial martensite). This result suggests
that carbon partitioned from initial martensite to the untrans-
 C.Y. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 3442–3449
Fig. 5. Qualitative measurement of carbon distribution in Q&P microstructure (a)
site 1 and (b) site 2, both show the higher carbon content in the blocky phase (fresh
martensite) than that in the initial martensite.
formed austenite and enriched it with carbon during isothermal
heat treatment at 500 ◦ C. The volume of retained austenite is about
8.4% for sample treated by Q&P4 process and 3.3% for that treated
by Q&T2 process, which is clearly revealed by diffraction profile
(Fig. 6).
Fig. 6. XRD pattern of samples treated by Q&P process (Q&P4) and conventional
Q&T process (Q&T2).
3447
Fig. 7. mechanical properties of samples treated by traditional Q&T or Q&P (a) engi-
neering tensile stress–strain curves of steel after processing by Q&T or Q&P and (b)
The products of tensile stress (Rm) to total elongation (A) as a function of tensile
strength.
3.3. Tensile stress–strain curves
Fig. 7 shows the engineering stress–strain curves of samples
treated by Q&T and Q&P processes as given in Table 1. The cor-
responding mechanical properties, such as tensile strength (Rm ),
yield strength (Rp0.2 ), uniform elongation (Agt ), total elongation
(A) and area reduction (Z), are summarized in Table 2. It can
be seen from the engineering stress–strain curves (Fig. 7a) and
Table 2 that the uniform elongation can be up to an average
value of ∼8% of the Q&P processed samples, which is higher
than ∼5% of the Q&T treated ones. Also during Q&T process,
low temperature tempering only decreases the tensile stress
(Rm ) with no improvement on the ductility and high temper-
ature can slightly improve the ductility but the tensile stress
(Rm ) decreases dramatically. However, during Q&P process, the
tensile strength is about 1400 MPa and ductility is improved to
about 16.5%. The product of tensile strength to total elongation
(Rm × A) of both Q&P and Q&T processed steel was calculated and
given in Table 2. It can be seen that the Rm × A of Q&P processed
steels can be up to 24 GPa%, better than that up to 22 GPa% pro-
cessed by Q&T as revealed in Fig. 7b, this means that the Q&P
process not only keeps high tensile strength but also improves
the ductility compared with conventional Q&T process. In con-
trast with the improved tensile elongation at extra high strength
(Rm ∼ 1400 MPa), the area reduction (Z) as indicated in Table 2
is slightly lower for Q&P processed sample than that of the Q&T
treated ones. The reason of this decreased area reduction needs
further study.
3448 C.Y. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 3442–3449

Table 2
Mechanical properties of Q&P processed steel and Q&T processed steel.

Process Rm (MPa) Rp0.2 (MPa) A (%) Agt (%) Z (%) Rm × A (GPa%)

Q&P Q&P 1 1370 985 15.5 7.3 59.0 21.2

Q&P 2 1380 835 16.5 7.3 57.0 22.8
Q&P 3 1400 855 17.0 8.0 55.5 23.8
Q&P 4 1390 933 16.3 8.0 56.8 22.6
Q&P 5 1390 810 15.5 8.3 49.5 21.5
Q&P 6 1430 715 16.5 8.5 53.0 23.6

Q&T Q&T 1 1550 1300 14.3 4.3 61.8 22.1

Q&T 2 1520 1325 13.0 3.5 60.8 19.7
Q&T 3 1475 1325 13.8 3.5 59.5 20.3
Q&T 4 1330 1160 16.0 5.8 61.0 21.3
Q&T 5 1225 1185 18.3 6.8 63.5 22.4

3.4. Discussion
3.4.1. Microstructure and mechanical properties
From the microstructure observation in this study, it can be sum-
marized here that, the microstructure of experimental steel treated
by Q&P process consists of: (i) the initial martensite with thickness
about 0.2–0.3 ␮m and volume fraction about 65.2% (Fig. 4a and b),
which is easily etched due to the high temperature tempering after
first quenching (Fig. 1a and b), (ii) the fresh martensite with thick-
ness about 0.1–0.2 ␮m and volume fraction about 26.4% (Fig. 4c and
d), which transformed from the carbon-enriched untransformed
austenite, and (iii) the retained austenite mainly located in the
packet boundaries and the original austenite boundaries with vol-
ume fraction of about 8.4% and carbon content of about 0.91%
(Fig. 3a and b), which was usually thought to be a part of the
untransformed austenite retained in the first quenching process.
Other interesting features are the single set of packet in one blocky
phase and the orientation relationship follows K–S law as found
in conventional quenched steel, which may be attributed to the
ultrafine grain size (0.2–3 ␮m) of the austenite after the first pass
quenching.
Based on the austenite characterization by EBSD, TEM and XRD,
it can be found that Q&P process is more effective to increase the
retained austenite and to obtain the hard matrix phases. Thus the-
oretically the high tensile strength and improved ductility could
be obtained through Q&P process. The engineering stress–strain
curves show (Fig. 7) that the improved ductility of steel after
Q&P process mainly stems from the improved uniform elongation,
which benefits from the increased volume fraction of austenite
phase and composite microstructure (Fig. 6). Thus it was proved in
this study that the idea of Q&P process to obtain a multiphase struc-
ture with hard matrix and retained austenite is feasible, because the
initial martensite and the fresh martensite can provide a high ten-
sile strength and while the retained austenite can provide a good
ductility, and multiphase microstructure can prohibit crack initia-
tion and propagation effectively. As compared with TRIP steel, the
product of Rm to A for experimental steel treated by Q&P is up to
24 GPa%, which is higher than that of about 21 GPa% for TRIP600
[16]. Also the tensile strength of experimental steel after Q&P pro-
cess is about 1400 MPa, which is about twice of that of TRIP800.
Thus it can be concluded Q&P technique is a promising way for the
ultrahigh-strength steel to obtain relative high ductility level.
3.4.2. Phase fractions and carbon content comparison between
experimental observation and CPE model prediction
According to constrained paraequilibrium (CPE) model [17] pro-
posed by Speer et al., the volume fraction of different phases, such as
martensite volume fraction was calculated to be about 64.80%, the
fresh martensite volume fraction is about 30.71%, and the retained
austenite volume fraction is about 4.49% with carbon concentration
is about 0.68% according to CPE model. The experiment measured
values and the calculated values of Q&P4 were given in Table 3. It
can be seen that the calculated results of different phases by CPE
model are roughly in agreement with our measured values. The
differences of the retained austenite fraction and its carbon con-
tent can be found easily in Table 3, which may be explained by
the inhomogeneous phase transformation in the first quenching
process and the different carbon partitioning behavior in austenite
phase with different grain size during partitioning process. As it is
well known that the packet of low carbon martensite may form by
two types of mechanism; one is side-by-side nucleation of plate, the
other is subdivision of the prior initial austenite grain size resulting
from the introducing of martensitic lath in different places [18–20].
Actually the martensitic transformation is rather complicated, it
could be expected that the untransformed austenite grain size may
be quite small in the grain boundary and packet boundary regions
but may be larger in the volume surrounded by packets. As we
know the smaller the austenite grains, the larger the interface area
between austenite grains and their surrounded martensite phase
per austenite volume (interface area per volume (Sv) can be sim-
ply written as Sv = 2/D, here Sv and D is the interface area and
the austenite grain size after first quenching process, respectively).
Thus for the small austenite grain, its larger interface area gives
it more tunnels per volume to absorb carbon from its neighbors
than that of large austenite grains. This theoretically results in the
high carbon content in the small austenite grains located in the
prior grain boundary and packet boundary regions. Both the higher
carbon content and its smaller grain size would increase thermal
stability [21,22] of the untransformed austenite grains in the packet
and original austenite grain boundaries. However, for the large
sized untransformed austenite, its carbon content is lower than that
of the small sized austenite due to its less interface area or tunnels
to absorb carbon from its neighbored martensite phase. If the mea-
sured carbon content and volume fraction is applied to calculate
the carbon content in the fresh martensite under the assumption
that apart from the carbon in the retained austenite, the left carbon
are all located in the fresh martensite, then the carbon content in
the fresh martensite (Cfresh-M ) can be calculated as follows (Eq. (4))
Table 3
Volume fractions and carbon contents of initial martensite, fresh martensite and
retained austenite after Q&P process.
Phase Predicted volume fraction Measured volume fraction
(carbon content) (carbon content)

initial martensite, the fresh martensite and the retained austenite Initial martensite 64.80% 65.22%
after Q&P process, can be calculated. In present case, experimental Fresh martensite 30.71% 26.38%
Retained austenite 4.49% (0.68) 8.40% (0.91)
steel was quenched to 280 ◦ C and partitioned at 500 ◦ C. The initial
 C.Y. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 3442–3449
using the data given in Table 3,
Cav − f C
Cfresh-M =
ffresh-M
where Cav , C␥ , f␥ and ffresh-M are the average carbon content, car-
bon content in the retained austenite, retained austenite fraction
and fresh martensite fraction, respectively. The average carbon con-
tent in the fresh martensite is about 0.5% at the most, which is
not enough for the large grained austenite to be retained at room
temperature, thus it transforms into fresh martensite. Both exper-
imental measurement of carbon content in retained austenite and
the calculated value of carbon content in the fresh martensite sug-
gest that there was an inhomogeneous distribution of carbon in
austenite phase after partitioning process. The difference in both
size and carbon content as discussed above may interpret why
only small size or nano-thickness austenite were retained, whereas
the large sized austenite transformed into the blocky typed fresh
martensite after Q&P process. This interpretation on the inhomoge-
neous carbon content distribution is supported by the much higher
carbon content in the retained austenite as measured experimen-
tally by XRD than the theoretical calculation value based on the
homogeneous carbon partitioning behavior in all untransformed
austenite as proposed by Speer [17].
As discussed above the grain size of the untransformed austen-
ite after the first quenching process plays an important role in
the diffusion of the carbon atoms and the final volume fraction
of retained austenite. Further theoretical calculation of the carbon
distribution related to austenite grain size distribution and carbon
diffusion kinetics is necessary, it helps to understand the inho-
mogeneous distribution and thermal stability related to the size
effects of austenite grains. Also compared with the conventional
Q&T process, the Q&P process results in a microstructure with rela-
tive strong matrix and ductile retained austenite, and thus it would
be more effective to give an excellent combination of strength and
ductility and this turned out to be true in this study.
4. Conclusions
Microstructure of 21Si2Ni3 steel treated by Q&P process is char-
acterized in detail in this study through SEM, TEM, EBSD and XRD.
The results were summarized as follows,
(1) It was found that the blocky phase is the fresh martensite, which
follows the K–S orientation relationship as the initial marten-
site does. The fresh martensite lath thickness is slightly thinner
than that of the initial martensitic lath, which was attributed to
the enrichment of carbon atom in the untransformed austenite.
3449
(2) The microstructure after Q&P is a mixture of initial martensite,
fresh martensite and the retained austenite. And the retained
(4) austenite is mainly distributed in the high angle boundary
region, such as the prior austenite grain boundary and the
packet boundary.
(3) The experiment measured phase volume fraction and their
carbon content are roughly in agreement with that predicted
from the CPE model as proposed by Speer. The differences
of retained austenite fraction and its carbon content between
measured values and CPE model predicted values were mainly
attributed to the different grain size of the untransformed
austenite formed in the first quenching process and the differ-
ent carbon partitioning behaviors during partitioning process.
(4) The low carbon steel processed by Q&P consists of a strong
matrix (initial martensite and the fresh martensite) and the
ductile retained austenite, which gives an excellent combina-
tion of strength and ductility.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by both National High-Tech Research
and Development program No. 2009AA03Z519 and National Basic
Research Program of China (973 program) No. 2010CB630803
References
[1] X. Wang, S. Wang, L. Hua, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 11 (1995) 440.
[2] K. Sugimoto, M. Kobayashi, S. Yasuki, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 28A (1997) 2637.
[3] B.C. De Cooman, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 8 (2004) 285.
[4] Wang Xiao-dong, Wang Li, Rong Yong-hu, Heat Treatment 23 (6) (2008) 8.
[5] H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, R.W.K. Honeycombe, Steels: Microstructure and Proper-
ties, 3rd ed., Elsevier, UK, 2006.
[6] G. Krauss, Steels: Processing, Structure, and Performance, ASM International,
USA, 2008.
[7] D.K. Matlock, V.E. Brautigam, J.G. Speer, Mater. Sci. Forum 426–432 (2003) 1089.
[8] D.V. Edmonds, K. He, F.C. Rizzo, et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. A 438–440 (2006) 25.
[9] F.L.H. Gerdeman, Diploma Thesis, Aachen University of Technology, Germany,
2004.
[10] M.J. Santofimia, L. Zhao, R. Petrov, J. Sietsma, Mater. Charact. 59 (2008) 1758.
[11] M.J. San tofimia, L. Zhao, J. Si etsma, Met. Mater. Trans. A 40A (2009) 46.
[12] B.B. Cullity, Elements of X-Ray Diffraction, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., Inc., 1978.
[13] D.P. Koistinen, R.E. Marburger, Acta Metall. 7 (1959) 59.
[14] J.R. Michael, R.P. Goehner, MSA Bull. 23 (1993) 168.
[15] S. Morito, H. Tanaka, R. Konishi, et al., Acta Mater. 51 (2003) 1789.
[16] M.A. Mingtu, M.F. Shi, Iron Steel 39 (7) (2004) 68.
[17] J. Speer, D.K. Matlock, B.C. Cooman, et al., Acta Mater. 51 (2003) 2600.
[18] A.R. Marder, G. Krauss, Trans. ASM 62 (1969) 957.
[19] G. Krauss, A.R. Marder, Met. Trans. 2 (1971) 2343.
[20] J.M. Marder, A.R. Marder, Trans. ASM 62 (1969) 1.
[21] S.V.D. Zwaag, L. Zhao, S.O. Kruijver, et al., ISIJ Int. 42 (2002) 1565.
[22] K. Suginoto, N. Usui, M. Kobayashi, et al., ISIJ Int. 32 (12) (1992) 1311.