Quenching and Partitioning Steel

David V. Edmonds
Institute for Materials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, U.K.
Emmanuel de Moor
David K. Matlock
John G. Speer
Advanced Steel Processing and Products Research Center, Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
Colorado, U.S.A.

Abstract
Quenching and partitioning of steels refers to a novel approach to steel heat treatment developed relatively
recently, soon after the turn of the twenty-first century. This new procedure is coupled with appropriate
alloying to ensure the correct evolution of a duplex austenite–martensite microstructure in low- and high-
alloy steels. The austenite is stabilized by carbon partitioning from martensite during heat treatment and
this resultant microstructure has been shown to provide quenched and partitioned steels, commonly
referred to as Q&P steels, with combinations of properties potentially attractive for a wide range of
applications. The Q&P process and associated mechanisms are briefly described, along with selected
property measurements and prospective products. Given the novelty of the concept, and its development
over a relatively short timescale, the ideas, understanding, and progress are presented roughly in the order
with which they occurred, giving a record of the timeline from invention to potential applications.

INTRODUCTION TO THE QUENCHING AND temperatures below Ms (where bainite might still form
PARTITIONING CONCEPT from untransformed austenite) small amounts of austenite
Quench—Quenching

could be retained without the formation of any “carbide-

Quenching and partitioning is a very new experimental
heat treatment procedure; nevertheless, the early concept
and its potential for industrial exploitation has already been
subjected to scrutiny and evaluation by a number of inde-
pendent studies, many reviewed in the recent literature,[1–5]
where there is already evidence for early industrial appli-
cation. The concept of the quenching and partitioning heat
treatment[6,7] followed from studies on Si-containing trans-
formation-induced plasticity (TRIP) sheet steels by
Gallagher et al.[8] This development followed earlier stud-
ies that employed alloying with Si to delay the onset of
carbide precipitation in the bainite reaction, thus allowing
undisturbed metallographic examination of the austenite to
bainite transformation in attempts to identify microstruc-
tural details of the transformation mechanism.[9–15] The
resultant fine-scale bainite/austenite microstructures held
promise of better combinations of strength and toughness
for steels based upon bainite.[16–21] This bainite was known
to be “carbide-free bainite,” an aggregate of bainitic ferrite
laths interwoven with thin films of retained austenite, the
latter phase stabilized by carbon prevented from precipitat-
ing as carbide by the Si alloying.[11,12,22] The new TRIP
steels employed such duplex austenite–bainite structure,
where the thermally stabilized retained austenite phase
provided useful formability, which made them gain interest
as advanced high-strength steels for automotive applica-
tions.[23] However, it was noticed that after holding at
free bainite.” In consequence, carbon partitioning from
martensite was hypothesized to have contributed to the
stabilization of this austenite, a mechanism of carbon
enrichment of retained austenite that had previously been
identified by Sarikaya et al.[24] Two factors of immediate
interest in producing a duplex austenite–ferrite microstruc-
ture via a martensite route rather than a bainite route were
the potential to control the austenite fraction and its car-
bon concentration, determined most simply by the mar-
tensite fraction, decoupled from the transformation to
bainitic ferrite as in the bainite case, and the fast
partitioning kinetics that could be aligned to rapid indus-
trial processing of high tonnage steel products. In addition,
the long-standing practice of quenching and tempering
steels is well understood.[25,26] This is of benefit to under-
standing the partitioning stage during Q&P treatment,
which is also, effectively, a tempering treatment of the
martensite phase. The quenching and partitioning, or
Q&P process, was thus conceived to employ carbon
enrichment from martensite to develop new steel micro-
structures containing controlled fractions, chemistries,
and stabilities of retained austenite.
The quenching and partitioning concept also addresses
interesting questions concerning the use of carbon in steel
alloying.[27] Carbon, a relatively low-cost alloying ele-
ment, has been the key element in the constitution of steels
(and cast irons) for many centuries, resulting from the

Encyclopedia of Iron, Steel, and Their Alloys DOI: 10.1081/E-EISA-120048860

2776 Copyright © 2015 by Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved.
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel
variety of microstructures and mechanical properties
developed by thermal and mechanical treatment. How-
ever, many recent developments in high tonnage ferritic
steels have concentrated upon reducing carbon concen-
tration and/or carbon effects, for example, in construc-
tional steels to improve weldability and toughness, and in
automotive steels to reduce strain ageing and improve
formability. In conventional quenched and tempered mar-
tensitic steels, it is also necessary to control the effects of
carbon, which, although imparting strength economically
can also lead to a variety of complications, e.g., quench
cracking or temper embrittlement. In contrast, the philos-
ophy in acicular steels (bainite or martensite) with
retained austenite is to prevent carbide formation (hence
they are essentially “carbide-free”), thereby improving,
for example, toughness, not by reducing carbon, but by
removing carbon from the acicular ferritic phase (where it
may be damaging to properties) to the austenite phase. In
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
the first instance, therefore, the retained austenite acts as a
carbon sink to protect the ferrite from problems such as
those mentioned earlier. Importantly, in the context of
Q&P treatment, the carbon stabilizes the austenite against
further decomposition. It should be noted that this is the
opposite approach to that employed during the conven-
tional tempering of martensite, where further decomposi-
tion of any remaining untransformed austenite is usually
encouraged (by tempering) in order to stabilize the micro-
structure. In consequence, in Q&P steels, the stabilized
retained austenite remains as a potentially ductile FCC
phase fraction during subsequent deformation, or alterna-
tively, may undergo strain-assisted transformation to
enhance work hardening and formability.
The concept of the austenite phase acting also as a
carbon receptor or safe “sink” in the microstructure might
also be extended to a consideration of other elements that
can prove problematic in high-strength steels. Hydrogen,
in particular, has long been known to be deleterious to
ductility and toughness in high-strength martensitic steels,
and it has also been reported that susceptibility to hydro-
gen embrittlement increases with carbon content.[28] In
consequence, one might speculate that removing both car-
bon, and potentially also hydrogen, from the martensitic
phase during the partitioning treatment should improve the
resistance of Q&P steels to hydrogen embrittlement. As
for the case of carbon, hydrogen has a higher solubility
and lower diffusivity in austenite than in ferrite. In fact,
there is evidence that in the case of carbide-free bainite the
thermal and mechanical stability of the retained austenite
phase was unaffected by hydrogen, although the presence
of retained austenite could nonetheless have a beneficial
influence on the susceptibility of the steels studied to
hydrogen embrittlement.[29] A clear trend toward lower
embrittlement emerged as the stability of the retained aus-
tenite increased, concluded to be due to morphology, i.e.,
increased fraction of thin interlath films of austenite over
coarser blockier austenite regions. Moreover, in a further
2777
study of the coarser aggregate grain structure of a duplex
stainless steel charged with hydrogen, it was illustrated
using a hydrogen microprint and a microautoradiography
technique that hydrogen might be trapped at ferrite/
austenite boundaries and within austenite grains.[30]
Consequently, it is not inconceivable that a similar
mechanism, whereby hydrogen partitions to the retained
austenite phase, might act to protect the high-strength
martensitic phase against hydrogen embrittlement in a
Q&P microstructure.
The essential and simplest elements of quenching and
partitioning, as demonstrated during its initial creation
are: (1) suitable alloying to control carbide formation
and (2) an interrupted quench designed only to decom-
pose partially the parent austenite to martensite. The
interrupted quench to a carefully controlled temperature
between Ms and Mf, in the absence of extensive carbide
precipitation, allows carbon transport from the supersat-
urated martensite phase to the austenite phase that is
untransformed, the partitioning stage of the process. An
untransformed austenite fraction can thus be thermally
stabilized to temperatures lower than Mf, generally to
room temperature. Thermal profiles of this heat treatment
are shown schematically in Fig. 1; the partitioning stage
can be accomplished at the same temperature as the
quench (“one-step” Q&P) or at a higher temperature
(“two-step” Q&P). In the early studies, the interrupted
quench temperature (denoted QT in Fig. 1) was above
Quench—Quenching
room temperature, and this can suit certain industrial heat
treatment procedures, but more recently it has been dem-
onstrated that alloying can be used to adjust the Ms–Mf
range such that, for example, quenching to room temper-
ature can also be employed, usually with a two-step pro-
cess with partitioning at an elevated temperature.[31–33]
AT
Temperature
PT, t
2nd-Step
Ms
1st-Step
QT
Mf
Time
Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the thermal processing concept
for Q&P treatment. AT, QT, and PT are austenitizing,
quenching, and partitioning temperature, respectively; Ms and
Mf are martensite start and finish temperatures; and t is time.
 2778
The interrupted quench distinguishes Q&P from the more
conventional Q&T (quench and temper) processing,
since the partitioning step influences the extent of mar-
tensite transformation during further cooling to room
temperature or to below Mf.
Before realizing any potential benefits of the Q&P heat
treatment, it is first necessary to understand the potential
for carbon partitioning and thus the extent to which the
partitioning mechanism might be capable of stabilizing the
untransformed austenite. It is helpful that the partitioning
kinetics for some similar processes has been examined by
others.[34,35] Thus, a preliminary thermodynamic analysis
indicated that carbon transport between the as-quenched
martensite and untransformed austenite fractions should
continue until the carbon potential becomes equal in mar-
tensite and austenite.[6] However, in this initial analysis
any competition for carbon from, say, conventional tem-
pering reactions, was ignored. In addition, it was assumed
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
that fixed fractions of martensite and austenite would be
established prior to partitioning, recognizing early on that
the initial fractions of martensite and austenite present after
the interrupted quench could have an important influence
on the level of austenite carbon enrichment achieved by the
end of the partitioning step. It was also assumed in early
calculations that these phase fractions would remain con-
stant during partitioning, i.e., that the martensite/austenite
interfaces would remain immobile. This is not an unrea-
sonable starting assumption given that the mobility of
Quench—Quenching
interstitial carbon might be expected to be much higher
than the mobility of the martensite/austenite interface at
partitioning temperatures of, for example, 200–450
C,
which are much lower than temperatures more typical of
diffusional austenite decomposition. Equilibrium calcula-
tions illustrated the potential levels of carbon enrichment
for completely immobile interfaces. These idealized condi-
tions, where the martensite and austenite fractions are fixed
(i.e., the interface is constrained), and the chemical poten-
tial of carbon is uniform in the two phases, have become
known as “constrained carbon equilibrium” or CCE, and
define the endpoint of equilibrium partitioning.[6,36,37] The
CCE condition depends on the phase fractions of martens-
ite and austenite. The ideal thermodynamic models then
indicate that almost all of the carbon should reside in the
austenite after partitioning, rather than in the martensite
where it is much less soluble.[1,6]
The early theoretical developments were followed by
experimental verification; interrupted quenching to con-
trol the fractions of martensite and untransformed aus-
tenite, followed by thermal treatment to allow carbon
partitioning. The well-known relationship of KoistInen
and Marburger[38] was applied for a given steel (and aus-
tenite) chemical composition as the simplest means to
estimate the expected phase fractions, both during the
initial interrupted quench, and then, after partitioning, dur-
ing final cooling (final quenching) to room temperature.
Firstly, empirical relationships are used to predict Ms
Quenching and Partitioning Steel
for the applicable austenite composition, and then the
Koistinen–Marburger equation to relate the extent of mar-
tensite transformation to the amount of undercooling
below the Ms temperature:
2
f m ¼ 1  e1:1 x 10 ðMs QTÞ
(1)
where fm is the fraction of austenite that transforms to
martensite upon quenching to a temperature QT below
Ms. This provided a simple and useful means to predict
the potential austenite fraction that could be stabilized
as a function of the initial quench temperature.[7] This
approach assumed that all of the carbon partitioned to
the untransformed austenite, disregarding interface
mobility and other mechanisms competing for carbon
such as carbon trapping at dislocations, carbide forma-
tion and decomposition of the austenite by bainite forma-
tion. However, this simple model provided early
guidance to Q&P heat treatment, and importantly identi-
fied an expected “peak” in the final retained aus-
tenite fraction at a certain “optimum” quenching
temperature. Fig. 2 illustrates this important correlation
between the interrupted quench temperature (QT) and the
0.5
Minitial quench
initial quench
0.4
0.3
Phase fraction
0.2 Mfinal quench
0.1
final
0
0 100 200 300 400
Quench temperature (°C)
Fig. 2 Predicted Q&P microstructure components for 0.19C
steel containing 50% intercritical ferrite vs. quench temperature,
assuming full partitioning prior to final quenching to room tem-
perature. The final austenite fraction at room temperature is
given by the solid bold line. Dashed lines represent the austenite
and martensite (M) present at the initial quench temperature, and
the additional martensite formed during the final quench to room
temperature. For this example, Minitial quench+ Mfinal quench+ γfinal
= 0.5, and the intercritical ferrite fraction is 0.5.
Source: From Speer et al.[7]
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel
microstructure developed under ideal partitioning condi-
tions, i.e., total carbon partitioning to austenite. The
illustration in Fig. 2 is for a 0.19C steel intercritically
annealed to produce 50% ferrite at the austenitizing tem-
perature (AT) prior to Q&P treatment, which, if it is also
assumed that all of the carbon resides in the remaining
parent austenite, means that the austenite carbon concen-
tration is effectively doubled prior to the interrupted
quench. This provides a further means of control over
the final Q&P microstructure. Fig. 2 shows that the
amount of martensite formed during the initial quench
increases at lower quench temperatures, as expected, but
thereby reduces the amount of austenite that remains
before partitioning. In consequence, under the condition
of a low quench temperature and abundant martensite for-
mation sufficient carbon is available during partitioning
to stabilize the low balancing fraction of untransformed
austenite, but the final fraction of very well-stabilized
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
austenite must also be low. Conversely, at high quench
temperatures, the amount of martensite formed is low,
and in consequence, less carbon is available for part-
itioning to the balancing fraction of untransformed austen-
ite. If this fraction of austenite is too high, it may receive
insufficient carbon to provide complete stabilization dur-
ing the final cooling stage. In consequence, the final frac-
tion of stabilized austenite may also be low. Between
these two comparatively extreme conditions, an initial
quench temperature is expected to exist which will result
in a fraction of martensite which will provide exactly the
correct concentration of carbon during the partitioning
step to stabilize the balancing fraction of untransformed
austenite after final cooling. This leads to an optimum
value of QT to give the peak in the final stabilized austen-
ite fraction.
Preliminary experimental work[39–42] verified the
Q&P concept. Experimental steels based upon typical
0.2C automotive steel (as a potential high-strength sub-
stitute for bainitic TRIP steel) and a 0.6C bar steel
grade 9260 were used. These contained sufficient sili-
con addition to suppress competition from cementite
precipitation during partitioning. Fig. 3 indicates metal-
lographically a substantial quantity of retained austenite
(approximately 25 vol.% based on x-ray diffraction
measurements) interspersed with partitioned martensite,
and is a typical result of these early studies. Impor-
tantly, this fraction of retained austenite was greater
than that which could be achieved by direct quenching
to room temperature, thus providing the initial evidence
to verify austenite stabilization by the proposed carbon
partitioning mechanism.
Preliminary studies were also made of the partitioning
kinetics of carbon from supersaturated martensite to aus-
tenite under ideal conditions. Rapid escape of carbon from
martensite to untransformed austenite is critical to the
Q&P concept to pre-empt normal tempering characteris-
tics, especially carbide formation, which would limit the
2779
10 μm
Fig. 3 Light optical micrograph (Nital etch) from 0.6C, 2.0Si
steel after austenitizing, quenching to 190
C, and partitioning for
30 sec at 400
C.
Source: From Gerdemann et al.[39,40]
availability of free carbon to stabilize austenite. Once in
austenite, this risk is reduced because carbide precipitation
in austenite is sluggish.[43]
Simulations of ideal carbon partitioning using
DICTRA software[44] revealed two significant results:
Quench—Quenching
firstly, that carbon drains from supersaturated ferrite very
rapidly, in microseconds, but secondly, that it takes two or
three orders of magnitude longer to homogenize across the
austenite regions.[45,46] In the example of Fig. 4, carbon
depletion of the ferrite at 400
C occurs in less than 0.1 sec
while the austenite takes around 10 sec to reach a uniform
carbon concentration.
It has also been shown, as illustrated in Fig. 5, that the
time required to homogenize the austenite carbon concen-
tration could significantly influence (even unexpectedly
increase) final fractions of stabilized austenite during
industrial heat treatment procedures.[47]
More recently, helping to overcome concerns about the
mechanism of carbon enrichment of austenite during the
partitioning treatment, rather than conventional temper-
ing reactions, it has been demonstrated in a model Fe–25
wt.% Ni–0.4 wt.% C alloy by direct observations at the
atomic scale, using atom probe tomography coupled with
two-dimensional calculations, that carbon partitioning
occurred down to very low temperatures ~75
C.[48]
Unambiguous carbon partitioning from martensite to aus-
tenite in Fe–C–Ni alloys was reported during quenching
and partitioning. A carbon-depleted zone in the martens-
ite and a carbon-enriched zone in the austenite in the
vicinity of the interface were also found. The growth rate
of the carbon-depleted zones obtained was parabolic
suggesting that the partitioning process is diffusion-
controlled.
 2780 Quenching and Partitioning Steel

250 250

200 200
Aus Fer Aus Fer
150 150

W (C)
W (C)
0.0001 sec 0.001 sec
100 100

50 50
10–400 10–400
0 7 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 0 7 14 19 24 29 34 39 44

250 250
200 200
Aus Fer Aus Fer
150 150
W (C)

W (C)
0.01 sec 0.1 sec
100 100
50 50
10–400 10–4
00
0 7 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 0 7 14 19 24 29 34 39 44
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016

250 250
200 Aus 200
Fer Aus Fer
150 150
W (C)

10 sec
W (C)

1 sec
100 100
50 50
10–4 10–400
00
0 7 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 0 7 14 19 24 29 34 39 44
Quench—Quenching

10–8 Distance 10–8 Distance

Fig. 4 Carbon concentration profiles (wt.%) in the martensitic ferrite (Fer) and adjacent austenite (Aus) during partitioning at 400
C for
times ranging from 104 to 10 sec, calculated for Fe–0.19%C–1.59%Mn–1.63%Si. The thicknesses of the ferritic laths and interlath
austenite films (distance scale in meters) represent average values measured experimentally for each phase by TEM observation.
Source: From Rizzo et al.[45] and Edmonds et al.[46]

0.2
1
QT=295°C 0.0001sec Partition Time,sec
Local fraction of stable austenite

0.001sec 0.0001
0.16 0.001
Final austenite fraction

0.8 0.01sec
0.01
0.1 sec
0.1
1
0.6 0.12 10
Hehemann
et al.[10]
1 sec
0.4 0.08

10 sec
0.2 0.04

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 100 200 300 400
Distance (μm) Quench temperature (°C)
(A) (B)

Fig. 5 (A) Calculated local fraction of stable austenite present across the distance of an austenite film, calculated for a 0.19%C–1.59%
Mn–1.63%Si steel containing ~30% austenite at the quench temperature (295
C). The distance from the center of the austenite film to the
interface is taken to be 0.07 μm (cf. Fig. 4). Partitioning times include 0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, and 10 sec. (B) Final austenite fraction
versus quench temperature of a 0.19%C–1.59%Mn–1.63%Si composition; the solid curve is derived by not taking into account
partitioning kinetics (see Fig. 2), whereas the individual data points are derived by taking into account partitioning kinetics.
Source: From Clarke et al.[47]
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel 2781

MICROSTRUCTURAL ANALYSIS by methods of specimen preparation, but samples more

The early metallographic studies using mainly light opti-
cal microscopy and x-ray diffraction have since been
supplemented by more detailed examination employing
higher resolution techniques, e.g., scanning and trans-
mission electron microscopy, atom probe tomography
(as briefly mentioned already earlier) and synchrotron
neutron diffraction. It has also been possible to address
(even if indirectly) the question of microstructural evo-
lution during the interrupted quenching and partitioning
steps at elevated temperatures, difficult to study and
generally inferred from dilatometer studies[49–52] and
metallographic examination[53–55] after a final quench
back to room temperature. This helps to dispel the pos-
sibility that Q&P might simply be isothermal transfor-
mation to bainite;[56] refined lath martensite and bainite
can often be difficult to differentiate microstructurally,
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
of the specimen volume.[31–33,57,58]
Thus, experimental alloys for which ambient tempera-
tures lie between Ms and Mf have allowed direct inspection
by x-ray and neutron diffractometry of the constituent
parts of the microstructure during the sequential steps
of Q&P treatment.[31–33,57,58] Immediately, this enabled
confirmation that a martensite/austenite structure existed
prior to partitioning. Furthermore, in-situ neutron diffrac-
tometry using a furnace located in the neutron beam line
also allowed real-time direct observation and measurement
of structural evolution during partitioning anneals at ele-
vated temperatures (Fig. 6). Lattice parameter data suggest
that supersaturated BCT martensite achieves thermody-
namic equilibrium during partitioning by a sequence of
“internal” partitioning to crystallographic defects, “exter-
nal” partitioning to austenite, and finally, formation of
equilibrium carbides. Evidence for carbon diffusion from

especially at low resolutions and without electron dif-
fraction data. A further complication is the use of x-ray
diffraction alone to measure accurately the final fraction
of stabilized austenite, which is likely to be unstable to
specimen preparation. This shortcoming can be over-
come by also using neutron diffraction which is not
limited to surface measurement, likely to be influenced
supersaturated martensite to retained austenite, in the form
of lattice dilatation increasing with partitioning time, is
consistent also with an observed increase in thermal and
mechanical stability of the austenite. However, the peak
austenite carbon concentration, as estimated from the lat-
tice parameter data, is much lower than would be expected
if 100% of the alloy carbon content partitioned to

Quench—Quenching
500
FCC carbon (wt %) Temperature (°C)

400
300
200
100
0
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25

1.0
Phase fraction

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Lattice strain (%)

1.25 BCC Martensite Fig. 6 In-situ neutron diffraction results

1.00 FCC Austenite during heating (partitioning) of a 0.64C–
0.75 BCT Martensite 4.57Mn–1.30Si steel following quenching
0.50 to room temperature, indicating phase frac-
0.25 tions, austenite carbon concentration, and
lattice strains.
00:00 00:10 00:20 01:00 02:00 03:00 Sources: From Edmonds et al.[56] and
Time (hh:mm) Bigg.[57]
 2782
austenite. The shortfall can be explained by “internal”
partitioning to crystallographic defects before carbon dif-
fusion in austenite is thought to become kinetically signif-
icant. Any precipitation of metastable transition carbides
will also contribute to the shortfall.
However, the effect of martensite fraction upon carbon
partitioning potential is apparent, and it has also been
demonstrated that substantial carbon enrichment of the
retained austenite phase can be achieved by increasing
the carbon content of the decomposing austenite phase,
either by increasing the carbon content of the steel or by
an appropriate intercritical annealing treatment of lower
carbon steel.[58,59] At high carbon contents in relatively
leanly alloyed steels, the former approach might require
refrigeration to develop the appropriate two-phase
interrupted quench structure below a depressed Ms tem-
perature. Consequently, modifying the austenite carbon
concentration via intercritical annealing lower carbon
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
steel might be a more favorable alternative heat treatment.
Detailed microstructural observation following Q&P
treatment, principally by scanning and transmission elec-
tron microscopy, confirmed that the basic Q&P micro-
structure is generally based upon lath or plate martensite
with interlath or interplate films of retained austenite, but
also frequently, at higher carbon levels, plate martensite
with carbon enriched austenite regions.[4] However, this
basic microstructure may also be overlaid by a variety of
other features that may occur during the stages of heat
Quench—Quenching
treatment following the interrupted quench, such as pre-
cipitates of transition carbide or cementite (associated
with tempering of the initial martensite formed at the
interrupted quench temperature, QT), bainite (possibly
formed by insufficient hardenability during a slack
quench, but more likely to have formed isothermally dur-
ing the partitioning step), or fresh martensite (untempered)
formed during a final quench to room temperature.
In the 0.6 C, 2% Si steel discussed earlier it was found
that austenite stabilization was less effective at a lower
partitioning temperature of 250
C in comparison to 400
C,
and that extensive precipitation of transition carbides
occurred at the lower temperature, as shown in Fig. 7.[53]
This difference has been attributed to the Si alloying addi-
tion that causes strong suppression of cementite (which
forms at higher temperatures) and weak suppression of
transition carbide (which forms at lower temperatures). It
is well known that during the tempering of martensite Si
can affect cementite precipitation, stabilizing transition car-
bides to higher temperatures.[60–64] Whilst the majority of
Q&P studies have focused on Si-containing grades, alumi-
num additions have also been explored because of their
ability to promote carbon-enriched retained austenite in
some bainitic TRIP steels. However, thus far, different
investigators have, on balance, shown that aluminum is
most likely to be less effective than silicon for stabilizing
austenite in Q&P steels.[55,62,65,66] Molybdenum, however,
Quenching and Partitioning Steel
appears to stabilize austenite for longer times at higher
partitioning temperatures in Si-added steels, which could
potentially be of importance to hot-dip coated sheet prod-
ucts where partitioning is accomplished in conjunction with
coating.[67] Researchers have also reported property
enhancements from elevated levels of Mn and Cr.[68–72]
It is, perhaps, worthwhile mentioning that the principle
alloying addition used to depress Ms such that the austen-
ite/martensite microstructure at the interrupted quench tem-
perature, QT, could be examined at room temperature
(prior to partitioning at an elevated temperature), as men-
tioned already above, was Mn, up to ~5 wt.% concentra-
tion. During partitioning, the austenite phase fraction
remained relatively stable, and it has been suggested that
such an alloy could form the basis for a high-strength form-
able steel that can be relatively easily manufactured via the
Q&P process.[33] In a parallel study attractive properties
were obtained in Si-added Q&P steels with Mn contents of
8 wt.% and Ni contents of 14 wt.%, respectively.[72] Ni
additions to Si-added steels have also been shown to result
in high retained austenite fractions after Q&P treat-
ment.[55,73] Specific experiments have been conducted in
order to establish the absence of bainite formation during
partitioning, thus providing assurance of the development
of a Q&P microstructure based solely upon martens-
ite.[55,56] Alloying, principally with Ni, avoided the eventu-
ality of bainite formation during partitioning, confirmed by
comparative metallographic observations that indicated dis-
tinctly different microstructures in the same steel, either
given a Q&P treatment or directly isothermally transformed
to bainite at the Q&P partitioning temperature used (e.g.,
Fig. 8[55]). In consequence of these reports, further studies
will undoubtedly explore a broader range of alloying effects
in Q&P steels in the future.
In the earlier studies, deviations from the ideal condi-
tions required to stabilize the maximum fractions of
untransformed austenite were assumed to be tempering
phenomena such as carbon trapping and carbide formation
during the partitioning treatment, along with the lesser
possibility of bainite formation. Subsequently, the Q&P
model was expanded to include the possibility of interface
migration,[74–80] which in the first models had been
regarded as stationary or constrained. This allowed the
deviation of the chemical potential of iron to provide
a driving force for interface migration when the
“constrained carbon equilibrium” or CCE condition is
achieved. Iron atom migration between the austenite and
martensite phases during partitioning allows the austenite
fraction to vary in a range outside of that predicted by the
initial model, which previously defined the endpoint of
equilibrium partitioning. The new model thus developed
also revealed the possibility that the austenite/martensite
interface could potentially migrate either way to achieve
the equilibrium state, leading to more, or less, austenite
than previously predicted.[78]
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel 2783

0.5 μm
(A) (B)
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016

Quench—Quenching
0.5 μm
(C) (D)

Fig. 7 TEM micrographs from 0.6C, 2Si steel: (A) Bright-field and (B) dark-field using (1¯1 1) epsilon carbide reflection, showing
extensive transition carbide precipitation after quenching to 150
C and partitioning at 250
C. (C) Bright-field and (D) dark-field using
(0 0 2) austenite reflection revealing austenite after quenching to 190
C and partitioning at 400
C.
Source: From Edmonds et al.[53]

MECHANICAL BEHAVIOUR strength by deploying the potentially higher strength

Microstructural Influence
Advanced high-strength steels with microstructures
containing significant fractions of retained austenite, such
as Q&P steels, are the subject of growing commercial
interest. This is because carbon-enriched metastable
retained austenite is considered beneficial since transfor-
mation plasticity during deformation, i.e., the TRIP phe-
nomenon, can contribute to work hardening, formability,
and fracture toughness. A significant driver has been the
major requirement for formability at increased strength
levels in advanced low carbon steels for automotive appli-
cation. This has led to the interest in automotive TRIP
steels based initially upon bainitic ferrite with retained
austenite phase. The Q&P process offers the possibility to
extend the range of automotive TRIP steels to higher
levels achievable from martensite.
However, Q&P processing should be of potential
interest whenever retained austenite is considered to
offer enhanced performance characteristics, and has also
been applied to a variety of product concepts including
cold-rolled and coated sheet steel, plate and hot-rolled
sheet steel, heat-treated bar and wire[81] products and
ductile cast iron.[1] The primary intent is usually to
obtain metastable retained austenite in combination with
a strong martensitic matrix. High strength is thus
achieved in combination with TRIP behavior to enhance
an important property for the application of interest, such
as ductility/formability, resistance to brittle fracture,
damage tolerance in rolling contact, etc.
An advantage of basing the microstructure around mar-
tensite is the extensive understanding and literature on this
microstructure. For example, as was soon pointed out,[53]
 2784
25 μm
(A)
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
25 μm
(C)
Fig. 8 Microstructures of 0.6C–0.95Mn–1.96Si steel given either, (A) and (B) Q&P treatment with partitioning at 400
C for 120 sec
Quench—Quenching
(QT = 190
C), or, (C) and (D) austempering treatment at 400
C for 120 s. (A) and (C) Light optical micrographs (Nital etch); (B) and (D)
TEM bright-field images.
Source: From Edmonds et al.[55]
it should be possible to control tempering of the martensite
phase which inevitably occurs during the partitioning
treatment.
The formation of transition carbides is one example of a
mechanism that “competes” with carbon partitioning. Given
the Q&P descriptions presented thus far this competing
reaction can be considered detrimental in that it limits the
extent of austenite stabilization that may be possible, but it
was suggested early on that it could also be made beneficial
via contribution to the martensitic matrix strength.[53] Thus,
some research groups have more recently employed the
terminology Q–P–T, or “quenching, partitioning, and tem-
pering,” as a variation of the original Q&P concept to
emphasize the operation of these additional mechanisms
during Q&P processing.[75,82–85] These researchers advocate
adding stronger carbide formers, e.g., Nb, which will
strengthen the martensite fraction by a secondary hardening
reaction.
Another potential competing mechanism often cited is
the formation of bainite. However, it is thought that frac-
tions of bainite in the final microstructure need not be
deleterious to final mechanical properties either, because
this bainite is likely to be “carbide-free” owing to the high
Quenching and Partitioning Steel
0.5 μm
(B)
2 μm
(D)
Si content of the steel. In fact, another variation of the
original Q&P concept is Q–P–A, or “quenching,
partitioning, and austempering,” which promotes a further
low-temperature austempering (“A”) treatment following
partitioning to induce very thin bainitic ferrite plates from
the carbon-enriched untransformed austenite.[86] The final
overall austenite content will be reduced but the fine-scale
nanostructured bainite can be “carbide-free.” Such com-
plex multiphase microstructures are likely to provide a
new generation of steels for more demanding future engi-
neering requirements.
Since cementite retardation is required to enable carbon
depletion of martensite through transport into austenite, a
large number of studies mentioned already have employed
variations on TRIP-type compositions,[41,47,51,66,67] involv-
ing mainly Si, Al, and/or P alloying, in order to make low
carbon TRIP steel alloys suitable for Q&P processing. An
interesting question concerns the balance between Si and Al
alloying; the effects of the (partial) replacement of Si by Al
on austenite retention and tensile properties following Q&P
processing have been presented in.[66] Silicon is believed
undesirable for hot dip galvanizing coating processes as
adherent silicon oxides result in poor Zinc wettability,[87]
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel 2785

18 18
MoCMnSi
350ºC 16
16
400ºC
14 450ºC 14

12 12
CMnSi

fγret (Vol%)
fγret (Vol%)

10 10

8 8

6 6
CMnSi
4 4 350ºC
400ºC
2 2 450ºC
CMnAlSi
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Partitioning time (sec) Partitioning time (sec)
(A) (B)

Fig. 9 Retained austenite fractions measured via magnetic saturation as a function of partitioning temperature and time in (A) CMnSi
and CMnAlSi and (B) CMnSi and MoCMnSi alloys.
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016

Source: From De Moor et al.[66]

although this behavior has been shown to be dependent on
reheating conditions[88] and silicon oxides may be reduced
at the surface if higher annealing temperatures are utilized
in the reheating section such as for full austenitization prior
to Q&P treatment.
Mechanical Properties
shows tensile properties generated in CMnSi and
MoCMnAl steels on a total elongation versus tensile
strength plot. The lowest combinations of strength and
ductility are obtained in the Al-alloyed steel. Limited
strain hardening was observed in this alloy as illustrated
in Fig. 10B[66] for fixed partitioning conditions. In con-
trast, a molybdenum addition to a CMnSi composition
resulted in improved properties and significant strain hard-

Significantly, reduced retained austenite fractions were
measured in Al-alloyed compositions as illustrated in
Fig. 9A[66] and is perhaps related to the strong ferrite
stabilizing nature of Al. The reduced austenite fractions
also impact mechanical properties as reduced strain hard-
ening is observed in Al-containing alloys. Fig. 10A[66]
Quench—Quenching
ening at high-strength levels. The Mo addition also greatly
affects austenite retention as higher austenite levels were
obtained as shown in Fig. 9B[66] and a reduced sensitivity
to prolonged holding at the partitioning temperature seems
apparent. It can be noted that the employed molybdenum
level of 0.25 wt.% added in the Al-alloyed steel did not
appear to have prevented austenite decomposition.

1400
30
28 1300 MoCMnSi, 15%γret
350ºC
26 400ºC
1200 MoCMnAl, 3%γret
24 450ºC
Engineering stress (MPa)

22
CMnSi 1100
Total elongation (%)

20
18 MoCMnSi
1000
16
14 900 CMnSi, 7%γret
12
10 800
8
700
6
4 600
2 MoCMnAl
0 500
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Tensile strength (MPa) Engineering strain (%)

Fig. 10 Tensile properties obtained in CMnSi, MoCMnSi, and MoCMnAl alloys: (A) Total elongation versus tensile strength and (B)
engineering stress–strain curves developed in the alloys for partitioning at 450
C for 300 sec.
Source: From De Moor et al.[66]
 2786 Quenching and Partitioning Steel

22
1800 21
1700 400ºC/10sec 20
1600 400ºC/30sec 19 0.3C–3Mn–1.6Si
Engineering stress (MPa)

18

Total elongation (%)

1500
17
1400 0.2C–3Mn–1.6Si
16
1300 400ºC/100sec 15
450ºC/10sec
1200 14
1100 13
1000 12
11
900
10
800 9
700 8
600 7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 800 900 100011001200130014001500160017001800
Engineering strain (%) Tensile strength (MPa)
(A) (B)

Fig. 11 (A) Engineering stress–strain curves obtained for a 0.3C–3Mn–1.6Si alloy for varying partitioning conditions and (B) summary
of tensile properties developed in 0.2C–3Mn–1.6Si and 0.3C–3Mn–1.6Si alloys on a total elongation versus tensile strength diagram.
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016

Source: From De Moor et al.[68]

Alloy development work has been the focus of more
recent research and is ongoing. One study investigated the
effect of austenite stabilizing elements carbon and manga-
nese in 0.2C–3Mn–1.6Si and 0.3C–3Mn–1.6Si alloys
and the tensile results are summarized in Fig. 11.[68] The
properties obtained for the 0.3C–3Mn–1.6Si alloy
closely approach a tensile strength level of 1500 MPa in
Quench—Quenching
The Q&P process is already at an advanced stage of
industrial implementation, with industrial trials having
been conducted to produce advanced high-strength auto-
motive sheet material on specialized processing facilities
by 2009,[91] with the first full-scale production applications
reported in 2012–2013.[92] Fig. 13 shows an example of a
Q&P microstructure observed in an industrially produced
Q&P coil.[93] The microstructure exhibits equiaxed ferrite

combination with 20% total elongation. The latter prop-

erties target has been identified by industry as of signifi- formed during intercritical annealing after cold rolling,
cant importance to contribute to significant vehicle
weight reduction while guaranteeing passenger safety 60
and not requiring elevated temperature forming opera- TRIP (ULSAB)A
Note A: 80 mm gauge length
Note B: 25.4 mm gauge length TRIP (GM)A
tions such as hot stamping. Note C: Gauge length unspecified Conventional TRIPB
1-Step Q&PB
2-Step Q&PB
POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS M (ULSAB)A
M (GM)A
40
M (Ispat-Inland)C
Total elongation (%)

Automotive Sheet Steel DP (ULSAB)A

TRIP- Austemper
DP (GM)A
The most significant initial industrial interest in Q&P DP (Ispat-Inland)C

involved automotive sheet steel applications, where higher 750°C, 180 s + WQB
820°C, 180 s + WQB
strength steels with better formability should enable
20 900°C, 180 s + WQB
manufacturing of vehicles with improved fuel economy
Q&P
and crashworthiness. As illustrated in Fig. 12, Q&P offers
DP
the potential to increase the available strength/formability
balance in comparison to dual-phase (DP) or marten- MART.
sitic steels[41,42,89] and, as mentioned already, essentially
extends the property range of austempered TRIP steels 0
400 800 1200 1600
through higher strength levels as a consequence of the
Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)
exchange of martensite for bainite. The early work
recorded in Fig. 12 demonstrated the higher strength
Fig. 12 Tensile ductility plotted as a function of tensile
potential of Q&P steels, since verified more recently by strength for a 0.19C, 1.59Mn, 1.63 Si steel processed by
tensile strengths near or above 2 GPa reported in some low austempering or Q&P, and compared to literature data for DP
alloy steels with impressive tensile ductility levels exceed- and martensitic steels.
ing 10%.[68,69,90] Sources: From Streicher et al.,[41] Clarke,[42] and Speer et al.[89]
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel
6 μm
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
Fig. 13 Scanning electron micrograph of etched Q&P cold-
rolled sheet steel, processed using industrial facilities.
Source: From Feng.[93] courtesy of Baosteel Corporation, PR
China. See also.[4,5]
mixed with martensite and thick austenite films. This is
similar to the microstructures published in many labora-
tory studies of experimental Q&P steels. Some early
examples of trial automotive components produced suc-
cessfully using industrial Q&P steel are shown in Fig. 14.
In consequence, the potential and future production and
application of Q&P steels is being assessed further by both
steelmakers and automotive manufacturers.[94,95] Strength
levels are likely to increase in later implementation efforts.
Important factors in manufacturing using ultrahigh-
strength sheet steels, especially for automotive application,
are hole-expansion formability, shear fracture resistance,
and springback. Research has indicated that, when compared
to other microstructures, Q&P may offer some improve-
ments in these areas.[96,97] Greater hole-expansion ratios
(HER) for Q&P vs. DP steels with similar tensile strengths
have been shown in early data for laboratory-produced
steels. Fig. 15 shows HER values measured for two industri-
ally produced coils of Q&P 1180 and Q&P 980 compared to
DP 980, where the grades are designated according to min-
imum tensile strength levels. For either punched or
machined edges, Q&P 1180 exhibits higher HER values
than Q&P 980 and DP 980 whilst Q&P 980 appears similar
(A)
Fig. 14 Photographs of automotive components produced from Q&P sheet steel, including (A) a 1.8-mm thick floor beam, and (B) a
2.0-mm thick B-pillar reinforcement.
Source: From Feng.[93] courtesy of Baosteel Corporation, PR China. See also.[4,5]
2787
100
Punched
Machined
80
Hole expansion ratio (%)
60
40
20
0
Q&P1180 Q&P980 DP980
Fig. 15 Hole-expansion ratio of Q&P steels compared to DP
980 for punched or machined holes.
Source: From Wang and Speer.[97]
to DP 980. The high HER values for Q&P steels may result
from the uniform microstructures and relatively high YS/TS
ratios. Reduced HER values observed for samples with
punched holes in comparison to samples with machined
holes reflects edge damage due to the shearing process.
Springback is inherently larger at increasing strength
levels making springback concerns much greater for
AHSS than for traditional HSS. In Fig. 16,[97] the
springback angle for 1.2-mm-thick Q&P 980 is compared
Quench—Quenching
to 1.2-mm thick DP 980 using the “bending under tension”
test. A strong linear relationship between springback angle
and normalized back force (back force/tensile strength) is
found. With increasing back force, the springback angle
decreases. Almost no difference is observed between Q&P
980 and DP 980 using a 5 mm radius die, but Q&P 980
exhibits noticeably reduced springback angles compared
to DP 980 when a 12.7 mm radius die is used, suggesting
that Q&P 980 should have better springback performance
than DP 980 in some circumstances.
Gear and Bearing Steel
For long-products, one attribute for which retained aus-
tenite is considered to be beneficial involves improved
damage tolerance in rolling contact fatigue, such as in
bearing or perhaps gear applications. Initial studies on a
(B)
 2788 Quenching and Partitioning Steel

70 Linepipe Steel
Q&P980
60 DP980 Given that retained austenite may offer improved fracture
Springback angle (°)

50 toughness in structural applications an investigation related

to API linepipe has produced encouraging results.[101]
40 Fig. 17 shows comparative Charpy V-notch absorbed
impact energy values at 20
C plotted against yield strength
30
for a modified X100 type linepipe steel processed via Q&P,
20 in comparison to conventional quenched and tempered
martensite, austempered bainite, or a DP mixture of ferrite
10 and martensite. The steel plate was laboratory melted and
Open: Die radius = 12.7 mm
0 Solid: Die radius = 5.0 mm
rolled to a thickness of 12.5 mm before heat treating by a
variety of time/temperature profiles to generate a range of
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 properties from each microstructural condition. The Q&P
Back force / Tensile strength
condition appears to offer an enhanced combination of
strength and toughness when compared to the other heat
Fig. 16 Comparison of the springback angle between Q&P 980
treatments. Related work has been reported for seamless
and DP 980 tested using the bending under tension test.
tube heat treatment,[102] and encouraging properties related
Source: From Wang and Speer.[97]
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016

to plate steel applications have also been reported using

medium-carbon high-silicon (nominally 0.6C, 2%Si) bar
steel grade 9260 subjected to Q&P treatment[39,40] led to
work which showed that Q&P offered improved rolling
contact fatigue performance when compared to a conven-
tional quench and tempered microstructure at the same
hardness level.[98–100] Fine transition carbides are preva-
lent in the microstructure at (low) partitioning tempera-
tures where appropriately high levels of hardness are
maintained.[98,100]
Quench—Quenching
direct quenching as part of Q&P processing.[103] However,
thermal gradients are likely to play a more important role in
plate or bulk applications, as compared to sheet steel, and
needs further exploration.
Hot Working Operations
The Q&P concept might also be extended to applications
such as hot-rolling, forging, etc.[104] For example, the first

austenitizing step could be incorporated into a sheet hot-

rolling process for some applications, with quenching and
Q&P (full austenitizing) partitioning occurring on the run-out table (R.O.T.) or
Q&P (intercriticalannealing)
Aust (full austenitizing)
after coil winding. Such a processing concept is shown
Aust (intercritical annealing) schematically in Fig. 18 for the case of hot-strip mill sheet
DP (as-water quenched) rolling, where the interrupted quench step is intended to
Q&P (350°C, 10 hr)

X60 X100
140 Hot-rolling
Q&P
120
Absorbed energy @ 20°C

R.O.T.
100 cooling
Temperature

80
Aust
60

40 Ms
DP Q&T
20 CT = QT = PTi
Coil
0 Mf
cooling
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Yield strength (MPa)
Time
Fig. 17 Comparison of yield strength and Charpy impact
toughness of different microstructures, produced by varied Fig. 18 Schematic thermomechanical processing sequence
processing using a 0.1 C modified X100 steel composition. X60 suggesting application of the quenching and partitioning concept
and X100 line pipe yield strength levels are shown for reference. to hot-rolled sheet steel production.
Source: From Hong et al.[101] Source: From Thomas et al.[105]
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel 2789

occur during the faster cooling rate achievable on the run- Quench temperature (°C)
out table, and the partitioning step during the very much 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
0.4
slower rate of cooling in the coil. The Q&P treatment is
close to a one-step procedure but where the partitioning
step is accomplished under non-isothermal conditions
in this instance, i.e., where the coiling temperature (CT)
represents both the quenching temperature (QT) and an 0.3

Retained γ phase fraction

initial partitioning temperature (PTi). In consequence, the
quenching and partitioning steps are less than ideal in this
application, as carbon partitioning occurs over a range of
temperatures, and further martensite transformation may 0.2
not be definitely precluded after coiling. The extent of
martensite formation and the extent of carbon partitioning
are both controlled by the coiling temperature, which cre- Magnetic saturation, 3 min 723 K
ates an additional constraint. However, calculations have 0.1 Magnetic saturation, 2 hr 573 K
XRD, 3 min 723 K
confirmed that such a hot strip mill rolling process appli-
XRD, 2 hr 573 K
cation may be workable.[105,106] The thermomechanical Dilatometry, 3 min 723 K
processing path portrayed in Fig. 18 is similar to those
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016

employed in the production of hot-rolled martensite- 0.0

325 350 375 400 425 450 475
containing DP or bainite-containing TRIP sheet steels,
Quench temperature (K)
and is somewhat intermediate between them. In prelimi-
nary experimental simulations, a transition in micro-
Fig. 19 Retained austenite fractions in 420 stainless steel as a
structure with coiling temperature was reported. Lower
function of quench temperature for Q&P processed specimens
simulated coiling temperatures in a Si-containing steel partition treated at 723 and 573 K (450
C and 300
C). The
lead to carbide-free bainitic TRIP constituents, then par- legend indicates austenite measurements using magnetic satura-
tially transformed martensite/austenite (Q&P), and tion, x-ray diffraction (XRD), and in-situ dilatometry. Courtesy
finally, martensite in combination with the primary fer- of B.C. De Cooman.[107] See also.[5]
rite. Coiling temperature regimes for the different trans-

formation mechanisms involved were found to overlap
and the Q&P mechanisms appeared to operate over a
continuum that includes conventional bainitic and mar-
tensite microstructures at higher and lower coiling tem-
peratures, respectively.[106]
Quench—Quenching
partitioned to austenite can be considered to protect the
steel against the formation of Cr23C6 and consequential
associated loss of corrosion resistance due to loss of Cr
from the matrix.

High-Alloy Steels
800

Q&P processing has also been explored very recently in Q&P 430 Conventional 316
700
stainless steels, such as AISI grades 420 and 430. Grade
Engineering Stress (MPa)

420 is martensitic, whilst grade 430 contains higher Cr and 600

lower C, and consequently is typically ferritic. Q&P stud-
500
ies on grade 420 show that interrupted quenching followed
by appropriate partitioning treatments stabilizes substan- 400 Conventional 430
tial amounts of retained austenite, as shown in Fig. 19. The
general behavior of the quench temperature dependence 300
matches the general expectations from theory (compare
200
the shape of the curve in Fig. 19 with the behavior in
Fig. 2), and attractive strength/ductility combinations have 100
been obtained.[107] In the ferritic grade 430, austenite for-
mation during annealing in combination with Q&P 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
processing is found to provide an entirely new range of Engineering strain (%)
properties for this common stainless steel, as illustrated in
Fig. 20.[108] The partitioning procedure provides a poten- Fig. 20 Mechanical behavior of 430 stainless steel, processed by
tial extra form of austenite stabilization. In addition, for Q&P after intercritical annealing, or by conventional subcritical
conventionally processed ferritic stainless steel grades car- annealing. Properties of an austenitic 316 stainless steel are shown for
bon is in the form of Cr23C6 but in this instance, carbon comparison. Courtesy of B.C. De Cooman.[108] See also.[5]
 2790
CONCLUSIONS
Perspectives on the quite recent novel concept of quen-
ching and partitioning of steels and the subsequent rapid
development of its understanding in terms of fundamental
behavior have been presented, along with a number of
potential product specific investigations. At the present
time, quenching and partitioning remains an intensively
active research field within the ferrous metallurgy com-
munity with many associated industrial implementation
efforts ongoing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The sponsors of the Advanced Steel Processing and Prod-
ucts Research Center at the Colorado School of Mines are
gratefully acknowledged for their support of authors E. De
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
Moor, D. K. Matlock, and J. G. Speer. The authors are
grateful to Professor Bruno De Cooman (Graduate Insti-
tute of Ferrous Technology, Pohang University of Science
and Technology, South Korea) for use of figures illustrat-
ing quenching and partitioning applied to higher alloy
stainless steels.
REFERENCES
Quench—Quenching
1. Speer, J.G.; Edmonds, D.V.; Rizzo, F.C.; Matlock, D.K.
Partitioning of carbon from supersaturated plates of ferrite,
with application to steel processing and bainite transforma-
tion fundamentals. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci.
2004, 8, 219–237.
2. Edmonds, D.V.; Speer, J.G. Martensitic steels with car-
bide-free microstructures containing retained austenite.
(R.W.K. Honeycombe Special Memorial Edition.). Mater.
Sci. Technol. 2010, 26, 386–391.
3. Speer, J.G.; De Moor, E.; Findley, K.O.; Matlock, D.K.; De
Cooman, B.C.; Edmonds, D.V. Analysis of microstructure
evolution in Q&P automotive sheet steel. Metall. Mater.
Trans. 2011, 42, 3591–3601.
4. Speer, J.G. Phase transformations in quench and
partitioned steels, Chapter 8. In Phase Transformations in
Steels; Pereloma, E., Edmonds, D.V., Eds.; Woodhead
Publishing: Cambridge, U.K., 2012; Vol. 2, 247–270.
5. Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; Wang, L.; Edmonds, D.V.
Quenched and partitioned steels. In Comprehensive Materials
Processing; Elsevier Ltd.: Oxford, U.K., 2014; Vol. 1; 217.
6. Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; De Cooman, B.C.; Schroth,
J.G. Carbon partitioning into austenite after martensite
transformation. Acta Mater. 2003, 51, 2611–2622.
7. Speer, J.G.; Streicher, A.M.; Matlock, D.K.; Rizzo, F.;
Krauss, G. Quenching and partitioning: A fundamentally
new process to create high strength TRIP sheet microstruc-
tures. In Austenite Formation and Decomposition, TMS/
ISS: Warrendale, PA, 2003; 505–522.
8. Gallagher, M.F; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; Fonstein, N.M.
Microstructure development in TRIP-sheet steels
Quenching and Partitioning Steel
containing Si, Al and P. In Proceedings of 44th Mechanical
Working and Steel Processing Conference; AIST:
Warrendale, PA, 2002; 153–172.
9. Hehemann, R.F. The bainite transformation. In Phase
Transformations; Aaronson, H.I., Zackay, V.F., Eds.;
ASM: Metals Park, OH, 1970; 397–432.
10. Hehemann, R.F.; Kinsman, K.R.; Aaronson, H.I. A debate
on the bainite reaction. Metall. Trans. 1972, 3, 1077–1094.
11. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H.; Edmonds, D.V. The bainite transfor-
mation in a silicon steel. Metall. Trans. 1979, A10,
895–907.
12. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H.; Edmonds, D.V. The mechanism of
bainite formation in steels. Acta Metall. 1980, 28,
1265–1273.
13. Christian, J.W.; Edmonds, D.V. The bainite transforma-
tion. In Phase Transformations in Ferrous Alloys; Marder,
A.R., Goldstein, J.I., Eds.; TMS-AIME: Warrendale, PA,
1984; 293–325.
14. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H. Bainite in Steels; 2nd Ed; Institute of
Materials: London, U.K., 2001.
15. Singh, S.B.; Pereloma, E.; Edmonds, D.V. Mechanisms of
bainite transformations in steels, Chapter 10. In Phase
Transformations in Steels; Woodhead Publishing:
Cambridge, U.K., 2012; 1385–416.
16. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H.; Edmonds, D.V. Bainite in silicon
steels: A new composition-property approach, Part I. Met.
Sci. J. 1983, 17, 411–419.
17. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H.; Edmonds, D.V. Bainite in silicon
steels: A new composition-property approach, Part II. Met.
Sci. J. 1983, 17, 420–425.
18. Miihkinen, V.T.T.; Edmonds, D.V. Microstructural exami-
nation of two experimental high-strength bainitic low-alloy
steels containing silicon. Mater. Sci. Technol. 1987, 3,
422–431.
19. Miihkinen, V.T.T.; Edmonds, D.V. Tensile deformation
of two experimental high-strength bainitic low-alloy
steels containing silicon. Mater. Sci. Technol. 1987, 3,
432–440.
20. Miihkinen, V.T.T.; Edmonds, D.V. The fracture toughness
of two experimental high-strength bainitic low-alloy steels
containing silicon. Mater. Sci. Technol. 1987, 3, 441–449.
21. Caballero, F.G.; Pereloma, E.; Edmonds, D.V. Carbide-
free bainite in steels, Chapter 12. In Phase Transformations
in Steels; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, U.K., 2012;
1436–467.
22. Caballero, F.G.; Garcia-Mateo, C.; Pereloma, C.;
Edmonds, D.V. Phase transformations in advanced bainitic
steels, Chapter 9. In Phase Transformations in Steels.
Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, U.K., 2012; 2271–294.
23. Jacques, P.J. Phase transformations in transformation
induced plasticity (TRIP) – assisted steels, Chapter 7. In
Phase Transformations in Steels; Pereloma, E., Edmonds,
D.V., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, U.K., 2012;
2213–246.
24. Sarikaya, M.; Thomas, G.; Steeds, J.W.; Barnard, S.J.;
Smith, G.D.W. Solute element partitioning and austenite
stabilization in steels. In Solid to Solid Phase Transforma-
tions; Proceedings of International Conference, TMS:
Warrendale, PA, 1982; 1421–1425.
25. Krauss, G. Steels: Processing, Structure and Performance;
ASM International: Materials Park, OH, 2005.
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel
26. Krauss, G.; Pereloma, E.; Edmonds, D.V. Tempering of
martensite in carbon steels, Chapter 5. In Phase Transfor-
mations in Steels; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, U.K.,
2012; 2126–150.
27. Edmonds, D.V. Advanced bainitic and martensitic steels
with carbide-free microstructures containing retained aus-
tenite. In Processing and Manufacturing of Advanced
Materials; Proceedings of THERMEC 2009, Aug 25–29,
2009, Berlin, Germany, Chandra, T., Wanderka, N.,
Reimers, W., Ionescu, M., Eds.; Mater. Sci. Forum. 2010,
638–642, 110–117.
28. Bernstein, I.M.; Thompson, A.W. Effect of metallurgical
variables on environmental fracture of steels. Int. Met. Rev.
1976, 21, 269–287.
29. Yalci, H.K. The Effect of Retained Austenite on Hydrogen
Embrittlement in High Strength Steels, D Phil Thesis. Uni-
versity of Oxford: Oxford, U.K., 1992.
30. Yalci, H.K.; Edmonds, D.V. Application of the hydrogen
microprint and the microautoradiography techniques to a
duplex stainless steel. Mater. Charact. 1995, 34, 97–104.
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
31. Bigg, T.D.; Edmonds, D.V. Microstructural evolution dur-
ing the novel quenching and partitioning (Q&P) heat treat-
ment of steel. Advanced Materials and Processing,
Proceedings of 7th Pacific Rim International Conference;
Cairns, Australia, Aug 1–5, 2010. Mater. Sci. Forum 2010,
654–656, 33–36.
32. Bigg, T.D.; Matlock, D.K.; Speer, D.K.; Edmonds, D.V.
Dynamics of the quenching and partitioning (Q&P) pro-
cess. In Solid-Solid Phase Transformations in Inorganic
Materials, Proceedings of International Conference; Avi-
gnon, France, June 6–11, 2010. Diffus. Defect Data Part B:
Solid State Phenom. 2011, 172–174, 827–832.
33. Bigg, T.D.; Edmonds, D.V.; Eardley, E.S. Real-time struc-
tural analysis of quenching and partitioning (Q&P) in an
experimental martensitic steel. In Martensitic Transforma-
tions, Proceedings of International Conference; Osaka,
Japan, Sept 4–9, 2011. J. Alloys Compd. 2013, 577, 695–
698.
34. Mujahid, S.A.; Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H. Coupled diffusional/
displacive transformations: Effect of carbon concentration.
Acta Mater. 1993, 41, 967–973.
35. Hillert, M.; Hoglund, L.; Ågren, J. Escape of carbon from
ferrite plates in austenite. Acta Mater. 1993, 41,
1951–1957.
36. Hillert, M.; Ågren, J. On the definitions of paraequilibrium
and orthoequilibrium. Scr. Mater. 2004, 50, 697–699.
37. Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; De Cooman, B.C.; Schroth,
J.G. Comments on ‘On the definitions of paraequilibrium
and orthoequilibrium’. Scr. Mater. 2005, 52, 83–85.
38. Koistinen, D.P.; Marburger, R.E. A general equation pre-
scribing the extent of the austenite-martensite transforma-
tion in pure iron-carbon alloys and plain carbon steels. Acta
Metall. 1959, 7, 59–60.
39. Gerdemann, F.L.H.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K. Micro-
structure and hardness of steel grade 9260 heat-treated by
the quenching and partitioning (Q&P) process. Materials
Science and Technology, In Proceedings of International
Conference; Materials Science and Technology, Proceed-
ings of International Conference, TMS/AIST: Warrendale,
PA, 2004; 439–449.
40. Gerdemann, F.L.H. Microstructure and Hardness of 9260
Steel Heat-Treated by the Quenching and Partitioning
2791
Process. Diploma Thesis Aachen University of Technol-
ogy (RWTH): Aachen, Germany, 2004.
41. Streicher, A.M; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; De Cooman,
B.C. Quenching and partitioning response of a Si-added
TRIP sheet steel. In Advanced High-Strength Sheet Steels
for Automotive Applications, Proceedings of International
Conference; AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2004; 51–62.
42. Clarke, A.J. Carbon Partitioning into Austenite from Mar-
tensite in a Silicon-Containing High Strength Sheet Steel;
PhD Thesis. Colorado School of Mines: Golden, CO, 2006.
43. Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H. The lower bainite transformation and
the significance of carbide precipitation. Acta Metall. 1980,
28, 1103–1114.
44. Borgenstam, A.; Engstrom, A.; Hoglund, L.; Agren, J.
DICTRA, a tool for simulation of diffusional transforma-
tions in alloys. J. Phase Equil. 2000, 21, 269–280.
45. Rizzo, F.C.; Edmonds, D.V.; He, K.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock,
D.K.; Clarke, A. Carbon enrichment of austenite and car-
bide precipitation during the quenching and partitioning
(Q&P) process. In Solid-Solid Phase Transformations in
Inorganic Materials, Proceedings of International Confer-
ence, Diffusional Transformations, TMS: Warrendale, PA,
2005; Vol. 1, 535–544.
46. Edmonds, D.V.; He, K.; Rizzo, F.C.; Clarke, A.; Matlock,
D.K.; Speer, J.G. Microstructural features of a new mar-
tensitic steel heat treatment: Quenching and partitioning. In
Super-High Strength Steels, Proceedings of International
Conference; Rome, Italy, Nov 2-4, 2005. Associazione
Italiana di Metallurgia (AIM) and Centro Sviluppo
Materiali (CSM): CD-ROM - ISBN 88-85298-56-7.
47. Clarke, A.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; Rizzo, F.C.;
Quench—Quenching
Edmonds, D.V.; He, K. Microstructure and carbon
partitioning in a 0.19%C-1.59%Mn-1.63%Si trip sheet
steel subjected to quenching and partitioning (Q&P). In
Solid-Solid Phase Transformations in Inorganic Materials,
Proceedings of International Conference; Displacive
Transformations, Howe, J.M., Laughlin, J.M., Lee, J.K.,
Dahmen, U., Soffa, W.A. Eds.; TMS: Warrendale, PA,
2005; Vol. 2, 99–108.
48. Gouné, M.; Danoix, F.; Allain, S.; Bouaziz, O. Unambigu-
ous carbon partitioning from martensite to austenite in
Fe-C-Ni alloys during quenching and partitioning. Scr.
Mater. 2013, 68, 1004–1007.
49. De Moor, E. Assessment of Quenching and Partitioning as
a Fundamentally New Way of Producing Advanced High
Strength Martensitic Steel Grades with Improved Ductility;
PhD Thesis. Universiteit Gent: Gent, Belgium, 2009.
50. Kim, S.J.; Kim, H.J.; De Cooman, B.C. Dilatometric study
of the quench and partitioning (Q&P) process. In Materials
Science and Technology (Steel Properties and Applica-
tions), Proceedings of International Conference; Detroit,
Michigan, TMS/AIS: Warrendale, PA, 2007; 73.
51. Kim, D.H.; Speer, J.G.; Kim, H.S.; De Cooman, B.C. Iso-
thermal transformation of CMnSi and CMnSiAl steels in
the Ms-Mf temperature range. In Materials Science and
Technology (Steel Properties and Applications), Proceed-
ings of International Conference; TMS/AIST: Warrendale,
PA, 2009; 849–860.
52. Kim, D.H.; Speer, J.G.; Kim, H.S.; De Cooman, B.C.
Observation of an isothermal transformation during
Quenching and Partitioning processing. Metall. Mater.
Trans. 2009, A 40, 2048–2060.
 2792
53. Edmonds, D.V.; He, K.; Rizzo, F.C.; De Cooman, B.C.;
Matlock, D.K.; Speer, J.G. Quenching and partitioning
martensite—A novel steel heat treatment. Mater. Sci. Eng.
2006, A438–440, 25–34.
54. He, K.; Edmonds, D.V.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; Rizzo,
F.C. Microstructural characterisation of steel heat-treated
by the novel quenching and partitioning process. In 14th
European Microscopy Congress, Aachen, Germany, Sept
2008; Richter, S., Schwedt, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin,
Germany, 2008; Vol. 2, 429–430.
55. Edmonds, D.V.; He, K.; Rizzo, F.C.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock,
D.K.; Perez, T. Microstructure development in steels
subjected to a quenching and partitioning (Q&P) heat treat-
ment. In New Developments on Metallurgy and Applica-
tions of High Strength Steels, Proceedings of International
Conference; Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 2008, TMS:
Warrendale, PA, 2009; 829.
56. Edmonds, D.; Matlock, D.; Speer, J. Developments in high
strength steels with duplex microstructures of bainite or
martensite with retained austenite: Progress with
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
quenching and partitioning (Q&P) heat treatment. In
Advanced Steels, Proceedings 1st International Confer-
ence; Nov 9–11, 2010, Guilin, China, Metallurgical Indus-
try Press: Beijing, China, 2010; 229–241.
57. Bigg, T.D. Quenching and Partitioning: A New Steel Heat
Treatment Concept; PhD Thesis. University of Leeds:
Leeds, U.K., 2011.
58. Almalki, U.M. The Novel Quenching and Partitioning
Heat Treatment of Steel; PhD Thesis. University of Leeds:
Leeds, U.K., 2013.
59. Almalki, U.M.; Edmonds, D.V. Carbon saturation of aus-
Quench—Quenching
tenite during the novel quenching and partitioning (Q&P)
heat-treatment of steel. European Electron Microscopy
Congress, Manchester, U.K., 2012.
60. Owen, W.S. The effect of silicon on the kinetics of temper-
ing. Trans. ASM. 1954, 46, 812–829.
61. Gordine, J.; Codd, I.J. The influence of silicon up to
1.5 wt.% on the tempering characteristics of a spring steel.
Iron Steel Inst. 1969, 207, 461–467.
62. Leslie, W.C.; Rauch, G.C. Precipitation of carbides in low-
carbon Fe-Al-C alloys. Metall. Trans. 1978, 9A, 343–349.
63. Barnard, S.J.; Smith, G.D.W.; Garratt-Reed, A.J.; Vander
Sande, J. Influence of silicon on the tempering of steel. In
Advances in the Physical Metallurgy and Applications of
Steels; Metals Society: London, U.K., 1981; 33–38.
64. Zhu, C.; Xiong, X.Y.; Cerezo, A.; Hardwicke, R.; Krauss,
G.; Smith, G.D.W. Three-dimensional atom probe charac-
terization of alloy element partitioning in cementite during
tempering of alloy steel. Ultramicroscopy 2007, 107,
808–812.
65. Santofimia, M.J.; Nguyen-Minh, T.; Zhao, L.; Hanlon, D.N.;
Kop, T.A.; Sietsma, J. Experimental investigation of
quenching and partitioning on two low-carbon steels with
different silicon contents. In New Developments in Advanced
High-Strength Sheet Steels, Proceedings of International
Conference; AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2008; 191–198.
66. De Moor, E.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; Föjer, C.;
Penning, J. Effect of Si, Al and Mo alloying on tensile
properties obtained by quenching and partitioning. In
Materials Science and Technology (Steel Properties and
Applications), Proceedings of International Conference;
Pittsburgh; 2009; 1554–1563.
Quenching and Partitioning Steel
67. De Moor, E.; Penning, J.; Föjer, C.; Clarke, A.J.; Speer, J.
G. Alloy design for enhanced austenite stabilization via
quenching and partitioning. In New Developments in
Advanced High-Strength Sheet Steels, Proceedings of
International Conference; AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2008;
199–207.
68. De Moor, E.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; Kwak, J.H.; Lee,
S.B. Effect of carbon and manganese on the quenching and
partitioning response of CMnSi steels. ISIJ Int. 2011, 51,
137–144.
69. Li, H.Y.; Lu, X.W.; Li, W.J.; Jin, X.J. Microstructure and
mechanical properties of an ultrahigh strength
40SiMnNiCr steel during the one-step quenching and
partitioning process. Metall. Mater. Trans. 2010, 41,
1284–1300.
70. Jirková, H.; Kučerová, L.; Aišman, D.; Mašek, B. Optimi-
sation of the Q-P process parameters for low alloyed steels
with 0.2% C. Arch. Metall. Mater. 2014, 59, 1205–1210.
71. Jirková, H.; Mašek, B.; Wagner, M.; Langmajerová, D.;
Kučerová, L.; Treml, R.; Kiener, D. Influence of metasta-
ble retained austenite on macro and micromechanical prop-
erties of steel processed by the Q&P process. J. Alloys
Compd. 2014, 615, S163–S168.
72. Thomas, G.A.; De Moor, E.; Speer, J.G. Tensile properties
obtained by Q&P processing of Mn-Ni steels with room
temperature quench temperatures. In Proceedings of Interna-
tional Symposium on New Developments in Advanced High-
Strength Sheet Steels; De Moor, E., Jun, H.J., Speer, J.G.,
Merwin, M. Eds.; AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2013; 153–165.
73. Martins, A.R.; Rizzo, F.; Coelho, D.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock,
D.K.; He, K.; Edmonds, D.V. Microstructure and mechan-
ical properties of Ni-added high strength steels subjected to
quenching and partitioning (Q&P) treatment. In Materials
Science and Technology: Steel Properties and Applica-
tions, Proceedings of International Conference; Oct 25–
29, 2009, Pittsburgh, PA, AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2009;
825–835.
74. Zhong, N.; Wang, X.; Rong, Y.; Wang, L. Interface migra-
tion between martensite and austenite during quenching
and partitioning (Q&P) process. J. Mater. Sci. Technol.
2006, 22, 751–754.
75. Zhong, N.; Wang, X.D.; Wang, L.; Rong, Y.H. Enhance-
ment of the mechanical properties of a Nb-microalloyed
advanced high-strength steel treated by quenching-
partitioning-tempering process. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2009,
506A, 111–116.
76. Santofimia, M.J.; Zhao, L. Sietsma, Model for the interac-
tion between interface migration and carbon diffusion dur-
ing annealing of martensite-austenite microstructures in
steels. J. Scr. Mater. 2008, 59, 159–162.
77. Santofimia, M.J.; Zhao, L.; Petrov, R.; Sietsma, J. Charac-
terization of the microstructure obtained by the quenching
and partitioning process in a low-carbon steel. Mater.
Charact. 2008, 59, 1758–1764.
78. Santofimia, M.J.; Speer, J.G.; Clarke, A.J.; Zhao, L.;
Sietsma, J. Influence of interface mobility on the evolution
of austenite-martensite grain assemblies during annealing.
Acta Mater. 2009, 57, 4548–4557.
79. Santofimia, M.J.; Nguyen-Minh, T.; Zhao, L.; Petrov, R.;
Sabirov, I.; Sietsma, J. New low carbon Q&P steels
containing film-like intercritical ferrite. Mater. Sci. Eng.
2010, A527, 6429–6439.
 Quenching and Partitioning Steel
80. Santofimia, M.J.; Zhao, L.; Petrov, R.; Kwakernaak, C.;
Sloof, W.G.; Sietsma, J. Microstructural development
during the quenching and partitioning process in a
newly designed low-carbon steel. Acta Mater. 2011, 59,
6059–6068.
81. Mesplont, C.; Van Raemdonck, W. Quenched and
partitioned high-carbon steel wire. Patent Publication
Number WO2013041541 A1.
82. Wang, X.; Guo, Z.; Rong, Y. Characterization of micro-
structure and mechanical properties of a Nb-microalloyed
steel after quenching-partitioning-tempering process.
Mater. Sci. Forum 2010, 654–656, 90–93.
83. Wang, Y.; Zhou, S.; Guo, Z. Rong. Y. Study of a novel
ultra-high strength steel with adequate ductility and tough-
ness by quenching-partitioning-tempering process. Mater.
Sci. Forum 2010, 654–656, 37–40.
84. Hsu, T.Y.; Xu, Z.; Jin, X. Ultra-high strength steel treated
by using quenching–partitioning–tempering process. In
Advanced Steels; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2011;
67–73.
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 03:37 29 August 2016
85. Hsu, T.Y.; Zuyao, X.; Jin, X.J.; Rong, Y.H. Strengthening
and toughening mechanisms of quenching–partitioning–
tempering (Q–P–T) steels. J. Alloys Compd. 2013, 577,
S568–S571.
86. Hongyan, L.; Xuejun, J. Microstructure and mechanical
properties of 50SiMnNiNb steel by a novel quenching-
partitioning-austempering heat treatment. Chin. J. Mech.
Eng. 2009, 22, 645–650.
87. Mahieu, J.; Maki, J.; De Cooman, B.C.; Claessens, S.
Phase transformation and mechanical properties of Si-free
CMnAl transformation-induced plasticity-aided steel.
Metall. Trans. 2002, 33A, 2573–2580.
88. Van De Putte, T.; Loison, D.; Penning, J.; Claessens, S.
Selective oxidation of a CMnSi steel during heating to
1000 degrees C: reversible SiO2 oxidation. Metall. Trans.
2008, 39A, 2875–2884.
89. Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K. Progress in the global develop-
ment of the quenching and partitioning process. J. Jpn. Soc.
Heat Treat. (Special Issue: Proceedings of the 17th
IFHTSE Congress) 2009, 49, 415–422.
90. Rizzo, F.; Martins, A.R.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.;
Streicher, A.; De Cooman, B. Quenching and partitioning
process in Ni-added high strength steels. Mater. Sci. Forum
2007, 539–543, 4476–4481.
91. Wang, L.; Feng, W. Development and application of Q&P
sheet steels. In Advanced Steels; Springer-Verlag: Berlin,
Germany, 2011; 255–258.
92. Wang, L.; Zhing, Y.; Feng, W.; Jin, X.; Speer, J.G. Indus-
trial application of Q&P sheet steels. In New Developments
in Advanced High Strength Sheet Steel, Proceedings of
International Conference; AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2013;
141–151.
93. Feng, W. Unpublished research, Baosteel Corporation:
Shanghai, China, 2011.
94. Foger, C.; Mahieu, J.; Bernier, N. Industrial production of
quenching and partitioning steel. In New Developments in
Advanced High Strength Sheet Steel, Proceedings of Inter-
national Conference; AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2013.
167–174.
95. Coryell, J.; Campbell, J.; Savic, V.; Bradley, J.; Mishra, S.;
Tiwari, S.; Hector, L. Tensile deformation of quenched and
2793
partitioned steel—A third generation high strength steel.
In Materials Properties, Characterization, and Modeling,
Proceedings of International Conference; TMS:
Warrendale, PA, 2012; Vol. 2, 555–562.
96. De Moor, E.; Föjer, C.; Penning, J.; Speer, J.G. Hole
expansion properties of quench and partition steels. In
Material Property Data for More Effective Numerical
Analysis, Proceedings of International Deep Drawing
Research Group 2009 Conference; IDDRG: Zurich,
Switzerland, 2009; 413–424.
97. Wang, L.; Speer, J.G. Quenching and partitioning (Q&P)
steel heat treatment. In ASM Handbook, Vol. 4A: Steel
Heat Treating Fundamentals and Processes; Dossett, J.,
Totten, G.E., Dossett, J., Totten, G.E., Eds.; ASM Inter-
national: Materials Park, OH, 2013; 307–326.
98. Shutts, A.J.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K.; Edmonds, D.V.;
Rizzo, F.; Damm, E.B. Q&P of high carbon bar steel. In
New Developments in Long and Forged Products: Metal-
lurgy and Applications, Proceedings of International
Conference; AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2006; 191–202.
99. Shutts, A. Rolling Contact Fatigue Testing of 9260 Steel
Processed by Quenching and Partitioning; MS Thesis.
Colorado School of Mines: Golden, CO, 2006.
100. Kim, K.H.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, D.L. Improvement of rolling
contact fatigue life of bearing steel by quenching and
partitioning process. In Processing and Manufacturing of
Advanced Materials, Proceedings of THERMEC 2011;
Quebec City, Canada, 2011; Chandra, T., Ionescu M.,
Mantovani, D., Eds.; Mater. Sci. Forum 2012, 706–709,
2152–2157.
101. Hong, S.C.; Ahn, J.C.; Nam, S.Y.; Kim, S.J.; Yang, H.C.;
Quench—Quenching
Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K. Mechanical properties of high-
Si plate steel produced by the quenching and partitioning
process. Met. Mater. Int. 2007, 13, 439–445.
102. Groβe-Heilmann, N.; Zylia, I.; Kozeschnik, E.; Peters, A.
One-step Q&P of seamless tubes made from 42SiCrB. In
Steel Properties and Applications, Proceedings of Interna-
tional Conference; AIST: Warrendale, PA, 2012; 133–141.
103. Mahesh, C.; Somani, L.; Karjalainen, L.P.; Porter, D.A.;
Misra, D.K. Evaluation of the behavior and properties of a
high-Si steel processed using direct quenching and
partitioning. Mater. Sci. Forum 2012, 539-5706-709,
2824–2829.
104. Zhou, S.; Zhang, K.; Chen, N.; Gu, J.; Rong, Y. Investi-
gation on high strength hot-rolled plates by quenching-
partitioning-tempering process suitable for engineering.
ISIJ Int. 2011, 51, 1688–1695.
105. Thomas, G.A.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K. Considerations
in the application of the ‘Quenching and Partitioning’
concept to hot-rolled AHSS production. AIST Trans.
2008, 5, 209–217.
106. Thomas, G.A.; Speer, J.G.; Matlock, D.K. Quenched and
partitioned microstructures produced via Gleeble simula-
tions of hot-strip mill cooling practices. Metall. Mater.
Trans. 2011, 42, 3652–3659.
107. Mola, J.; De Cooman, B.C. Quenching and partitioning
processing (Q&P) of martensitic stainless steels. Metall.
Mater. Trans. 2013, A44, 946–967.
108. Mola, J.; De Cooman, B.C. Quenching and partitioning
processing of transformable ferritic stainless steels. Scr.
Mater. 2011, 65, 834–837.