resistance at the part/tool interface in hot stamping
Communication
Investigation of Thermal and
Mechanical Properties of
Quenchable High-Strength Steels
in Hot Stamping
ANTON GORRIÑO, CARLOS ANGULO,
MAIDER MURO, and JULIAN IZAGA
The interfacial heat transfer coefficient (IHTC) is
determined in the industrial range of contact pressure
applied during the hot stamping process of boron steel
sheets, under similar conditions to those used in indus-
trial practice. The mechanical properties and
microstructure of the parts are also examined. More-
over, the influence of the stamping pressure on the
IHTC is investigated in detail via mechanical property
and microstructural characterization.
DOI: 10.1007/s11663-016-0662-5
 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM
International 2016
The demand for reductions in vehicular weight and
higher levels of safety, compared to current levels, has
led to an increase in the use of ultra-high-strength steels
(UHSS) in the manufacture of new structural compo-
nents. Hot stamping technology can be used for A- and
B-pillar reinforcements, roof rails, side-wall members,
and beams for crash management structures. Compared
with cold-formed parts, hot-stamped parts exhibit better
formability at high temperatures, without the occur-
rence of springback on the final part (Merklein and
Lechler).[1] This technology has significant potential for
minimizing the weight of components by reducing the
sheet thickness and the number of body in white (BIW)
components. This reduction can be achieved by inte-
grating two or three parts into one, through the use of
quenchable steels during the hot stamping process. In
order to meet this requirement, careful control of the
mechanical, metallurgical, and thermal aspects of the
process is essential. Abdulhay et al.[2] designed an
experimental device to estimate the thermal contact
ANTON GORRIÑO and CARLOS ANGULO, Associate Profes-
sors, are with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Bilbao, Spain. Contact e-mail:
carlos.angulo@ehu.es MAIDER MURO and JULIAN IZAGA,
Researchers, are with the Metallurgy Research Centre IK4 AZTER-
LAN, Durango, Spain.
Manuscript submitted December 9, 2015.
Article published online April 5, 2016.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
experiments under different contact pressures (10 to
30 MPa). Hu et al.[3] analyzed the effects of temperature,
pressure, and oxide scale thickness on interfacial heat
transfer coefficient (IHTC) in the cooling process.
Nishibata and Kojima[4] investigated the effect of the
cooling rate on the hardness and microstructure of the
hot-stamped boron steel containing 0.2 mass pct
carbon.
The number of steel parts manufactured by hot
stamping (also known as the press hardening process)
has increased significantly in recent years (Karbasian
and Tekkaya).[5]
However, compared with that needed for cold stamp-
ing, the design and optimization of the hot stamping
process require considerable knowledge of heat transfer,
metallurgy, and mechanical behavior. Merklein et al.[6]
investigated the characterization of the cooling behavior
of boron manganese steel blanks with respect to partial
press hardening. Bardelcik et al.[7] investigated the effect
of cooling rate on the high strain rate behavior of
hardened boron steel. Naderi et al.[8] hot stamped four
high-strength non-boron alloyed steels using water and
nitrogen cooling media, and performed microstructural
analyses, lateral and surface hardness profiling, as well
as tensile tests of these hot-stamped samples. Bosetti
et al.[9] developed an experimental apparatus with a
cooling water system to identify the dependence of
IHTC on the applied contact pressure. Determination of
the link between this design and optimization and the
IHTC values is therefore essential (Caron et al.,[10]
Zhang et al.).[11]
The aim of this work is to develop a practical method
for determining the IHTC, with the aid of the devices
and equipment used to conduct the tests. The depen-
dence of the IHTC on the applied contact pressure is
determined. Two rounds of tests were performed.
Figure 1 shows the press used in the first round of
testing. An Al-Si pre-coated quenchable 22MnB5 steel,
referred to commercially as USIBOR 1500P
(ArcelorMittal), is investigated; 3-mm-thick
240 9 240 mm samples are used during this study. A
1-mm-diameter hole is machined transversally to a
depth (~120 mm) that reaches the central part of the
test sample and a 1-mm-diameter type K thermocouple
is placed in each hole.
The test samples are heated in an approximately
2 m 9 3 m 9 1 m (width 9 length 9 height) electric resis-
tance furnace, without the use of a protective atmo-
sphere. Once the heating time has elapsed, the robot is
moved to the mouth of the furnace and placed on hold
until the door is opened. The robot then extracts the test
sample from the furnace and places it on the fixed part
of the die.
A flat demonstrator die that has an approximately
300 9 300 mm active surface is used. The fixed and the
movable parts of the die consist of cooling circuits,
VOLUME 47B, JUNE 2016—1527

Fig. 1—Press used in the first round of tests.
Fig. 2—Fixed part of the demonstrator die.
Fig. 3—Thermogram of the sample at the time of die opening.
which are composed of 13 holes that have a nominal
diameter of 10 mm. The temperature of the cooling
water [292 K (19 C)] is controlled by the corresponding
cooling tower. In addition, the die is composed of the
QRO 90 Supreme material that has a hardness of 50
HRC. The fixed part of the demonstrator die is shown in
Figure 2.
1528—VOLUME 47B, JUNE 2016
Tests were conducted at pressures of 2.5 and 5 MPa
during the first round of testing, and the samples were
heated and cooled for 435 and 8 seconds, respectively.
Thermographic examinations were performed using a
FLIR SC600-Series device. Figure 3 shows the thermo-
gram of a sample subjected to a pressure of 2.5 MPa, at
the time of die opening. The cooling rate is slower at the
corners, whose temperature is 423 K (150 C), than that
in the rest of the sample, where a homogeneous
temperature of ~393 K (~120 C) is obtained.
Recording of the data is begun upon the entry of the
sample into the die and continued until the die is
opened. The cooling of the sample is subsequently
analyzed.
In all cases, the calculated heat transfer coefficient at
the blank/tool interface is stabilized within 6 to 8 sec-
onds, and it, thereafter, has little or no influence on the
final mechanical properties. This is confirmed by the
corresponding cooling rates that are substantially higher
than the critical rate.
The IHTC a between the blank and the die is given as
follows (Merklein and Lechler):[1]
 
cp  q  V TðtÞ  Tu
a¼ ln ; ½1
At T0  Tu
where T0 and T(t) are the respective initial and actual
temperature of the blank during the test; Tu, cp, q, V,
and t are the temperature of the die [defined at a con-
stant value of 333 K (60 C)], specific heat of the
material (with a constant value of 466 J/Kg K),
Fig. 4—Normalized interfacial heat transfer coefficient (IHTC) ob-
tained at pressures of 2.5, 5, and 10 MPa.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

Fig. 5—Zones subjected to mechanical and metallurgical testing.
density of the sample, volume of the sample, and the
time elapsed during cooling, respectively. However, the
actual effective contact surface cannot be determined,
and hence A is set equal to the geometrical dimension
of the samples quenched between the dies.
The second round of tests was conducted at pressures
of 2.5, 5, and 10 MPa, for heating and cooling times of
480 and 10 seconds, respectively. Data from these tests
were recorded every tenth of a second by a thermocou-
ple. Figure 4 shows the normalized IHTC obtained at
the aforementioned pressures.
The specimens were inspected after the first round of
tests. These samples have high hardness, and therefore
the specimens were obtained via wire electrical discharge
machining (EDM). Three zones (A, B, and C) in the
sample were demarcated, as shown in Figure 5.
The mechanical characteristics of the materials were
determined via tensile tests performed, in accordance
with EN ISO 6892-1: 2010, on flat 12.5-mm-wide
specimens. The results of these tests are shown in
Table I. As shown in the table, the yield and ultimate
tensile strengths of the hot-stamped samples vary from
1163 to 1201 and 1493 to 1503 MPa, respectively. The
identification numbers 1 and 2 correspond to samples

Table I. Results of the Tensile Tests

Tensile Tests

Zone B Zone C

Specimen Identification Rp0,2 (MPa) Rm (MPa) A (Lo = 50 mm) (Pct) Rp0,2 (MPa) Rm (MPa) A (Lo = 50 mm) (Pct)
1 1182 1493 8.1 1187 1502 8.1
2 1181 1498 8.7 1189 1495 8.7
3 1178 1496 8.8 1184 1499 8.7
4 1163 1501 7.1 1201 1503 8.4

Table II. Vickers Hardness and the Equivalent HRC Values

1 2 3 4

2.5 MPa 2.5 MPa 5 MPa 5 MPa

Specimen Zone Core Periphery Core Periphery Core Periphery Core Periphery
a 514 465 488 469 485 465 484 469
523 469 484 464 490 469 473 465
521 454 476 457 485 469 476 469
Average zone a 519 463 483 463 487 468 478 468
b 499 472 484 477 473 477 469 459
503 478 464 480 489 466 485 483
521 470 467 476 487 469 479 471
Average zone b 508 473 472 478 483 471 478 471
c 472 457 484 459 501 472 484 455
480 454 482 460 503 465 487 466
477 457 482 464 489 462 497 461
Average zone c 476 456 483 461 498 466 489 461
Average 501 464 479 467 489 468 482 466
Rockwell C Hardness
Average 46.1 46.6 45.8 46.2 45.8 46.0 45.9 46.1

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B VOLUME 47B, JUNE 2016—1529

subjected to a contact pressure of 2.5 MPa; numbers 3
and 4 correspond to samples subjected to a contact
pressure of 5 MPa.
Moreover, Vickers hardness control measurements
were performed, in accordance with EN ISO 6507-1:
2006, on the core and periphery of the metallographic
specimens. Table II shows the hardness values deter-
mined in zones a, b, and c. The average micro-hardness
value across the zones was converted to HRC hardness,
in accordance with EN ISO 18265: 2006—the conver-
sion was performed by using Table B.2 ‘‘Conversion of
values of hardness–hardness and hardness–tensile
strength to quenching and tempering steels’’.
As shown in Figure 6, three metallographic samples
(Aa, Ab, and Ac zones) of each specimen were prepared.
The results show that the specimens have a martensitic
structure (base steel), which is indicative of a successful
quench. Furthermore, a fully martensitic structure
(Figure 6) is obtained when a pressure of 2.5 MPa is
applied.
The evolution of the AlSi coating is also analyzed;
special emphasis is placed on the total thickness and the
thickness of the diffusion layer. Table III shows the
thickness values measured in zones a, b, and c. The
results indicate that iron has spread to the coating
surface, thereby forming a ternary structure, Al-Si-Fe,
that is typical of AlSi coatings after quenching. In
addition, the coating consists of various sublayers that
have differing chemical compositions, and the diffusion
sublayer (next to the base steel) is, in fact, the most
representative of the material. Figure 7 shows the
typical AlSi coating formed after hot stamping.

Fig. 6—Micrograph showing the martensitic structure (sample sub- Fig. 7—Micrograph showing the AlSi coating (sample subjected to a
jected to a pressure of 2.5 MPa, zone c). pressure of 2.5 MPa, zone c).

Table III. Characteristics of the AlSi Coating

Thickness (lm)

1 2 3 4

2.5 MPa 2.5 MPa 5 MPa 5 MPa

Specimen Zone Total Diffusion Layer Total Diffusion Layer Total Diffusion Layer Total Diffusion Layer
a 43.3 12 42.6 10.3 45.7 11.7 42.6 11.7
42.2 12.6 46.1 11.9 44.6 10.3 41.7 11.7
44.8 13.4 43.9 12.1 47.4 13.1 42 11.1
Average zone a 43.4 12.7 44.2 11.4 45.9 11.7 42.1 11.5
b 36.9 12.3 43.7 13.1 50.6 11.7 39.7 11.7
46 10.6 36.3 11.4 45.7 11.4 40 9.7
41.7 12.3 44.9 11.4 47.7 13.4 40 11.4
Average zone b 41.5 11.7 41.6 12 48 12.2 39.9 10.9
c 49.4 13.1 50.9 10.9 44.3 13.4 44.5 11.4
38.3 12 45.7 12.6 43.2 13.4 44.8 14.3
50.6 12.6 44.6 13.1 42.6 14.3 43.7 13.1
Average zone c 46.1 12.6 47.1 12.2 43.4 13.7 44.3 12.9
Average 43.7 12.3 44.3 11.9 45.8 12.5 42.1 11.8

1530—VOLUME 47B, JUNE 2016 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

 This paper describes a procedure used to determine
the IHTC between the blank and the dies during hot
stamping of high-strength steels. The developed proce-
dure employs an experimental technique, through which
the IHTC can be determined by measuring the temper-
ature inside the part.
The results presented support the following prelimi-
nary conclusions. The mechanical properties fulfill the
strength specifications and the specimens all have a
martensitic structure (base steel). Furthermore, appro-
priate quenching was applied in all cases, and therefore
the resulting cooling rates were significantly higher than
the ‘‘critical quench rate’’. The results confirm that a
martensitic microstructure is attainable even at low
contact pressures. Moreover, the test samples, as well as
the periphery and core of each sample, have similar
micro-hardness values. Thermographic devices are
essential for confirmation of the uniform temperature
along the surface of the blank and the corresponding
microstructural homogeneity that leads to uniform
mechanical properties.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding pro-
vided by the Department of Research and Universities of
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
the Basque Government under Grant No. IT432-10, and
the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU under
Program No. UFI 11/29. The authors also thank Ges-
tamp GTH for having allowed them to use their facilities,
which made this investigation possible.
REFERENCES
1. M. Merklein and J. Lechler: SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf., 2008, vol.
1, pp. 411–26.
2. B. Abdulhay, B. Bourouga, and C. Dessain: Appl. Therm. Eng.,
2011, vol. 31, pp. 674–85.
3. P. Hu, L. Ying, Y. Li, and Z. Liao: J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
2013, vol. 213, pp. 1475–83.
4. T. Nishibata and N. Kojima: J. Alloys Compd., 2013, vol. 577S,
pp. S549–54.
5. H. Karbasian and A.E. Tekkaya: J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
2010, vol. 210, pp. 2103–18.
6. M. Merklein, J. Lechler, and T. Stoehr: Int. J. Mater. Form., 2009,
vol. 2, pp. 259–62.
7. A. Bardelcik, C.P. Salisbury, S. Winkler, M.A. Wells, and M.J.
Worswick: Int. J. Impact Eng., 2010, vol. 37, pp. 694–702.
8. M. Naderi, M. Ketabchi, M. Abbasi, and W. Bleck: J. Mater.
Process. Technol., 2011, vol. 211, pp. 1117–25.
9. P. Bosetti, S. Bruschi, T. Stoehr, J. Lechler, and M. Merklein: Int.
J. Mater. Form., 2010, vol. 3, pp. 817–20.
10. E.J.F.R. Caron, K.J. Daun, and M.A. Wells: Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf., 2014, vol. 71, pp. 396–404.
11. Z. Zhang, P. Gao, C. Liu, and X. Li: Metall. Mater. Trans. B,
2015, vol. 46B, pp. 2419–22.
VOLUME 47B, JUNE 2016—1531