Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Strain-rate effects on the mechanical behavior of the AISI 300 series of

austenitic stainless steel under cryogenic environments
Woong Sup Park, Seong Won Yoo, Myung Hyun Kim, Jae Myung Lee *
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University, 30 Jangjeon-Dong, Geumjeong-Gu, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: A series of uni-axial tensile tests were carried out under various low temperatures and strain-rate ranges
Received 8 December 2009 for AISI 300 austenitic stainless steel. The strain-rate dependencies of the materials under investigation
Accepted 22 February 2010 were evaluated at temperatures ranging from ambient to cryogenic. Non-linear mechanical behavior
Available online 1 March 2010
such as phase transformation, discontinuous yielding and micro-damage of four kinds of commercial
stainless steel-based material were quantitatively investigated by measuring transformation induced
Keywords: plasticity (TRIP) and threshold strain for 2nd hardening. In this study, the main properties of each mate-
A. Austenitic stainless steel
rial were analyzed and compared based on the conditions of strain-rates and temperature. Test results
G. Cryogenic tensile test
H. Dependency of strain-rate
showed that all the test materials were strongly dependent on temperature and strain rate. It is expected
that the findings in this study could be used for the cryogenic design and further research of structure
materials under cryogenic environments.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction material strength. To overcome this problem in this study, tests

It is well known that 300 series austenitic stainless steel pro-
vides high resistance to corrosion, oxidation, retains high strength
and excellent ductility over a wide temperature range [1,2]. These
properties make the 300 series highly desirable for applications in
liquid natural gas (LNG) storage and nuclear facilities, specifically,
LNG cargo barriers and valves as shown in Fig. 1.
Since LNG is stored under cryogenic temperatures of 110 K, its
transportation and storage system must be protected from low
temperature embrittlement and high pressure. While AISI 304
and 316 are widely used in industry because of their distinct
toughness and ductility under cryogenic temperatures, recent re-
ports of corrosion in seawater is now a major concern.
In this study, four types of austenitic stainless steel (AISI 304L,
316L, 321 and 347) were selected to test their cryogenic perfor-
mances. Factors such as low temperature brittleness (cold short-
ness) were also considered. In addition, TRIP steel samples were
included in the tests due to their superior strength and ductility
at low temperatures [3].
AISI 304L and 316L are modified versions of the extensively
used AISI 304 and 316, by reducing the chemical composition of
carbon below 0.03%. This induces stability in its structural organi-
zation, which prevents sensitization and improves corrosion resis-
tance. The compromise of these advantages, however, is a loss its
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 51 510 2342; fax: +82 51 512 8836.
E-mail address: jaemlee@pusan.ac.kr (J.M. Lee).
were performed with cold worked AISI 304L and 316L, which were
processed under their recrystallization temperatures to increase
the strength.
AISI 321 and 347 are also modified versions AISI 304, where Ti
and Nb are included as additions, respectively.
It has been well established that both temperature and strain-
rate play a crucial role in the mechanical behavior of deformed
materials. However, numerical or experimental results of environ-
ment dependent material characteristics under various tempera-
tures and strain-rates are often noted but have rarely been
studied. Although the flow stress increases with increasing
strain-rate in engineering materials, the actual effect of the
strain-rate is highly dependent on the nature of the tested material
[4].
In this study, four kinds of AISI 300 series stainless steels, 17%
cold-worked 304L, 316L and annealed 321, 347 stainless steels
were tested over temperatures ranging between 110 K and 293 K
and over strain-rates between 1.6E4 s1 and 1.0E2 s1. These
data were used to establish a baseline for design activities, with
further analysis to elucidate plastic instability behavior. The tem-
perature and strain-rate dependence of engineering stress–strain
behavior of AISI 304L, 316L, 321 and 347 under cryogenic environ-
ments were investigated. Differences and similarities among these
test materials were elucidated and used to establish a foundation
database, which can be applied to finite element analysis and
development of austenitic stainless steel products for use in cryo-
genic environments.

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2010.02.041
 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640 3631

unloading [5]. According to Byun’s paper, temperatures above

room temperature were disregarded due to the monotonic temper-
ature dependent range of plastic instability stress (PIS) [6].
The strain-rate dependency of austenitic steel, AISI 316LN, 304L,
310 and Fe–25Cr–14Ni–0.37N under cryogenic conditions was re-
ported by Reed [7]. Three types of quasi-static strain-rates at each
temperature were used to evaluate the strain-rate dependency of
austenitic stainless steel under cryogenic environments. As recom-
mended by the cryogenic tensile test method, a standard static
strain-rate of 1.0E3 s1 was used [7,8]. And the tested strain-rates
Fig. 1. LNG applications of austenitic stainless steel, photograph of LNGC. of 1.6E4 s1, 1.0E3 s1 and 1.0E2 s1 were converted to
0.5 mm/min, 3 mm/min and 30 mm/min, respectively.
As shown in Table 2, a set of test conditions was repeated, on
2. Test method average, 4 times to ensure repeatability which resulted in 240 tests
in total. The deviations between results of repeated tests were
2.1. Test conditions small, with a maximum difference of 5%.

Fig. 2 shows the distribution diagram of the tested 300 series
stainless steel. The chemical composition of AISI 304L, 316L, 321
and 347 is given in Table 1.
The test was designed to analyze the strain-rate dependency
based on the change in strain-rate at each temperature. Table 2
summarizes a set of test conditions for each material.
Taking LNG temperature into consideration, five test tempera-
tures (including room temperature) were chosen. It was assumed
that the lowest temperature 110 K was representative of the con-
ditions related to LNG equipments. Other temperatures were cho-
sen to simulate the operational conditions related to LNG loading/
2.2. Test equipment
In order to investigate the material behavior of austenitic stain-
less steel under cryogenic temperatures, a custom built mechanical
test system was used. A Universal Testing Machine (UH 1000KNI,
SHIMADZU) equipped with a cryogenic chamber (minimum tem-
perature up to 73 K) was used for uni-axial tensile tests at various
temperatures. The cryogenic environment was generated by link-
ing three thermocouples to a digital control system, which was
mounted on the cryogenic chamber. Nitrogen gas was used as
the refrigerant the flow was controlled digitally in order to main-
tain the temperature of the experimental condition.
For the precise acquisition of data, the cryogenic extensometer
(3542-050M-100-LT, Epsilon tech), equipped with a specially pro-
duced knife edge for cylindrical specimens, was embedded near
the specimen in the cryogenic chamber. Fig. 3 shows a schematic
of the experimental apparatus. And industrially manufactured
austenitic stainless steel test specimens were fabricated according
to the Korean Industrial Standards (KS B0801 10). Fig. 4 shows the
detail of the specimen shape and dimensions.

Table 2
Conditions of the cryogenic tensile test.

No. Test temperature (K) Strain-rate (s1)

1 293 1.6E4
2 1.0E3
3 1.0E2
4 223 1.6E4
5 1.0E3
6 1.0E2
7 153 1.6E4
8 1.0E3
9 1.0E2
10 133 1.6E4
11 1.0E3
12 1.0E2
13 110 1.6E4
14 1.0E3
Fig. 2. Distribution diagram of 300 series stainless steel. 15 1.0E2

Table 1
Chemical composition of materials.

AISI type Chemical composition (%)

C Cr Si Cu P Mn Ni S Mo Others
304L 0.016 18.2 0.376 0.5 0.028 1.451 8.63 0.0251 0.254 –
316L 0.023 16.55 0.37 0.415 0.0311 1.44 10.05 0.0067 2.13 –
321 0.022 17.251 0.325 0.402 0.0315 1.279 9.100 0.0012 0.271 Ti 0.2856
347 0.044 17.474 0.409 0.423 0.0303 1.308 9.116 0.0010 0.262 Nb 0.6610
3632 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640
Fig. 3. Schematic of experimental apparatus.
The tensile tests were performed on test specimens at thermal
equilibrium with the chamber. This was achieved by first allowing
the chamber to dry, followed by 30 min pre-cooling period at the
test temperature.
To reduce stresses resulting from thermal contraction, each test
specimen was secured using only one jig on the upper crosshead
during pre-cooling. The specimen was then fixed to the lower
crosshead after the cooling process was complete, prior to the ini-
tiation of the test.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. General characteristics of the austenitic stainless in tensile test
The microstructure of the austenitic stainless steels is com-
posed of a metastable austenite phase, and generally possesses
low stacking fault energy (SFE). Deformation of the metastable
austenite c phase involves the formation of strain-induced e and
a0 -martensite phases. The transformation sequence has been found
to be c ? e ? a0 [9]. The formation of strain-induced a0 -martensite
significantly affects the mechanical behavior of austenitic stainless
steels by enhancing work hardening. Substantial strengthening can
be obtained in metastable austenitic stainless steels by plastic
deformation below MD temperature to produce e and a0 -martensite
[10].
As shown in Fig. 5, at below 223 K temperatures, the austenitic
stainless steel shows two-stage sigmoidal deformation which is
non-linear hardening behavior that is dependent on tempera-
Fig. 4. Test specimen shape (KS B0801 10) and dimension.
Fig. 5. Schematic of test results.
ture.In general, the steels possess metallic properties at room tem-
perature, but as strain-rates increased, the ultimate tensile
strength and yield strength also increased. By contrast, under low
temperature, as strain-rate increased, yield strength increased
(ry1 ? ry2 ), but the ultimate tensile strength decreased (rt1 ? rt2 ).
According to the Olson–Cohen analysis, internal thermal lift,
which is caused by adiabatic heating, lowered the chemical driving
force of the c ? a0 transformation, therefore increasing the SFE,
work-hardening rate, ultimate tensile strength and decreasing
the ductility of materials [11]. These characteristic and plastic
(Transformation Induced Plasticity (TRIP)) phenomena were ob-
served in this study.
Figs. 6a–d and 7a–d show the engineering stress–strain curves
of test specimens deformed at temperatures ranging from 110 K
to 293 K and strain-rates ranging from 1.6E4 s1 to 1.0E2 s1,
respectively. And all the test results which is main properties of
the tested materials were summarized in Tables 3a–d.
As shown in the Figs. 6 and 7, the 2nd hardening phenomenon,
one of the main characteristics of austenite steels at low tempera-
tures, was observed and a strong temperature dependency was ob-
served in all cases. As expected, the yield strength and ultimate
tensile strength increased as the test temperature decreased. How-
ever, in contrast to tests performed at room temperature, as the
strain-rate increased, the yield strength increased slightly, but
the ultimate tensile strength decreased rapidly.
Dieter has reported that yield strength is slightly influenced by
strain-rate and temperature, but ultimate tensile strength is af-
fected significantly during cryogenic tensile tests [12]. Dobson
has also reported similar results in experiments with austenitic
stainless steel plates [13]. In these past studies as well as the pres-
ent paper, the effect of the strain-rate is an important factor that
governs the non-linear behavior of stainless steel under cryogenic
 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640 3633

Fig. 6a. Stress–strain curves of AISI 304L in 110 K. Fig. 6d. Stress–strain curves of AISI 347 at 110 K.

Fig. 7a. Stress–strain curves of AISI 304L at 1.6E4 s1.

Fig. 6b. Stress–strain curves of AISI 316L at 110 K.

Fig. 6c. Stress–strain curves of AISI 321 at 110 K. Fig. 7b. Stress–strain curves of AISI 316L at 1.6E4 s1.
3634 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640

Table 3b
Experimental results of AISI 316L (cold worked).

Temperature (K) e_ (s1) ryield (MPa) rtensile (MPa) efracture

293 1.6E4 532.6 659.5 0.55

1.0E3 546.4 652.5 0.51
1.0E2 558.8 651.6 0.43
223 1.6E4 590.4 884.0 0.64
1.0E3 609.0 853.7 0.56
1.0E2 625.3 804.6 0.51
153 1.6E4 631.0 1160.4 0.54
1.0E3 646.2 1083.5 0.50
1.0E2 661.1 986.7 0.44
133 1.6E4 637.6 1238.3 0.53
1.0E3 655.1 1166.7 0.46
1.0E2 671.8 1031.2 0.44
110 1.6E4 661.6 1344.1 0.48
1.0E3 665.9 1253.7 0.45
1.0E2 680.5 1093.1 0.42

Fig. 7c. Stress–strain curves of AISI 321 at 1.6E4 s1.

Table 3c
Experimental results of AISI 321 (annealed).

Temperature (K) e_ (s1) ryield (MPa) rtensile (MPa) efracture

293 1.6E4 344.67 684.9 0.34

1.0E3 350.0 646.0 0.61
1.0E2 353.3 601.5 0.55
223 1.6E4 338.1 965.5 0.53
1.0E3 406.4 969.2 0.45
1.0E2 431.6 894.5 0.43
153 1.6E4 393.4 1280.1 0.42
1.0E3 402.2 1210.1 0.38
1.0E2 425.4 1094.2 0.36
133 1.6E4 364.6 1299.5 0.43
1.0E3 370.2 1216.5 0.41
1.0E2 391.0 1087.0 0.39
110 1.6E4 397.4 1382.3 0.41
1.0E3 388.1 1296.8 0.37
1.0E2 403.6 1138.9 0.35

Table 3d
Experimental results of AISI 347 (annealed).

Fig. 7d. Stress–strain curves of AISI 347 at 1.6E4 s1. Temperature (K) e_ (s1) ryield (MPa) rtensile (MPa) efracture

293 1.6E4 446.3 657.5 0.54

1.0E3 450.2 679.9 0.50
1.0E2 466.9 670.0 0.46
Table 3a 223 1.6E4 468.1 989.5 0.51
Experimental results of AISI 304L (cold worked). 1.0E3 478.1 940.3 0.45
1.0E2 508.9 875.6 0.43
Temperature (K) e_ (s1) ryield (MPa) rtensile (MPa) efracture
153 1.6E4 489.8 1286.8 0.41
293 1.6E4 684.7 782.8 0.53
1.0E3 503.6 1216.2 0.38
1.0E3 690.6 764.6 0.44
1.0E2 514.3 1090.9 0.37
1.0E2 708.2 761.3 0.38
133 1.6E4 479.6 1369.2 0.40
223 1.6E4 721.2 1014.3 0.55
1.0E3 488.2 1263.2 0.38
1.0E3 740.1 969.3 0.51
1.0E2 520.2 1154.2 0.36
1.0E2 758.4 897.1 0.46
110 1.6E4 493.1 1455.4 0.39
153 1.6E4 750.2 1278.5 0.46
1.0E3 501.6 1337.3 0.37
1.0E3 768.8 1193.0 0.39
1.0E2 514.0 1204.7 0.35
1.0E2 793.4 1073.6 0.38
133 1.6E4 751.1 1339.6 0.44
1.0E3 768.5 1250.2 0.41
1.0E2 796.5 1118.7 0.39
conditions. Past studies have been performed using a qualitative
110 1.6E4 766.6 1432.0 0.43 approach based on general tendencies or metallurgical analyses;
1.0E3 783.9 1350.4 0.40
it is therefore difficult to obtain sufficient quantitative data for
1.0E2 812.8 1190.1 0.37
practical applications.
 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640 3635

3.2. Strain-rate effect

Figs. 6a–d shows the tensile test results of each material as a

function of strain-rate. From the analysis of strain-rate effects dur-
ing the tensile tests, the ultimate tensile strength decreased with
increasing strain-rate in all tested materials (see Fig. 8 and Table
4). The decrements of ultimate tensile stress at strain-rates be-
tween 1.6E4 s1 and 1.0E2 s1 are over 20% in all of the tested
materials.
Generally, as the strain-rate increased, the ultimate tensile
strength significantly decreased. Figs. 9a–d shows how yield and
ultimate tensile stress are affected by strain-rate and temperature.
From these Fig. 9a–d, as temperature decreased, the differences in
ultimate tensile strength were clearly distinguishable, however,
this was not the case for the differences in yield stress. Since ulti-
mate tensile stress responds more readily to changes in strain-rate
and temperature than yield stress, when comparing ultimate ten-
sile stress slopes with yield stress slopes, their differences are more
apparent. In addition, it was observed that cold worked AISI 304L
and 316L have superior yield strengths than AISI 321 and 347.
As test materials exhibited non-linear elastic behavior, the elas- Fig. 9a. Yield and ultimate tensile stress of AISI 304L.

tic modulus was determined from the stress–strain curve, based on

the secant modulus of the initial elastic linear curve. As specified in
the AISI standard, 0.2% proof stress was used to determine the yield
strength of steel.
From Talonen’s study, the phenomenon of decreasing ultimate
tensile strength with increasing strain-rate was reported to be
caused by intensive flow plastic stress generation accompanied
with internal thermal lift from adiabatic heating after reaching
the yield point of deformation. Results were interpreted in terms
of macroscopic heat balances and localized generation of heat from
moving dislocation or a free energy change when metastable aus-
tenite was transformed to the more stable a0 -martensite phase

Fig. 9b. Yield and ultimate tensile stress of AISI 316L.

Fig. 8. Ultimate tensile stress comparison at 110 K.

Table 4
Rates of increase of ultimate tensile stress at 110 K (unit: MPa).

AISI 1.6E4 s1 1.0E2 s1 Increment (%)

304L 1432 1190 20.3
316L 1344.1 1093.1 23.0
321 1382.3 1138.9 21.4
347 1455.4 1204.7 20.8
Fig. 9c. Yield and ultimate tensile stress of AISI 321.
3636 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640

to obtain a larger ultimate tensile stress value. Conversely, as the

strain-rate increased, more thermal lift is generated because the
unit time per work applied to the test specimen is large. Accord-
ingly, this phenomenon affects martensitic transformations signif-
icantly and can therefore expect the test specimen to obtain a
smaller ultimate tensile stress value [8].
For example, AISI 316L and 321 showed that the ultimate ten-
sile stress difference, depending on the strain-rate range of be-
tween 1.6E4 s1 and 1.0E2 s1 at 110 K, was 23.0% and 21.4%,
respectively.
As shown in Fig. 10a–d, elongation at constant test tempera-
tures showed a gradual decreasing trend with increasing strain-
rate. On the other hand, in the low strain-rate tensile test, it was
assumed that the internal specimen temperature is relatively close
to the pre-determined test temperature, primarily due to large
heat loss from the test specimen to the surrounding air.
Fig. 11a–d shows the tendencies of 2nd hardening ratio based
on temperature and strain-rate. The 2nd hardening ratio is defined

Fig. 9d. Yield and ultimate tensile stress of AISI 347.

[14,15]. In a similar study, the internal thermal lift of the test spec-
imen was rarely observed under yield stress but significantly ob-
served under ultimate tensile stress at a temperature of approx.
120 K [16]. According to their studies, strain-rate dependency does
not appear under yield stress due to there being virtually zero
internal thermal lift during the tensile tests.
It can be concluded that adiabatic heating in the region of strain
concentration zone of test specimen at ultimate tensile strength
section of the stress–strain curve would decrease with ultimate
tensile strength in proportion to the thermal loss.
In addition, the specific heat and thermal conductivity of stain-
less steel under cryogenic environments are 1/200 and 1/20 of
those at room temperature, respectively [8]. Thus, although the
infinitesimal plastic deformation of the test specimen under cryo-
genic temperature was measured, significant local thermal lift phe-
nomena can be observed.
As strain-rate decreased, relatively little thermal lift was gener-
ated because the unit time per work applied to the test specimen
was small. Therefore, since this phenomenon is relatively ineffec- Fig. 10b. Elongation of AISI 316L.
tive in martensitic transformations, the test specimen is expected

Fig. 10a. Elongation of AISI 304L. Fig. 10c. Elongation of AISI 321.
 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640 3637

Fig. 10d. Elongation of AISI 347. Fig. 11b. Second hardening ratio of AISI 316L.

as Rh = rtensile/ryield and is the evaluation criterion for comparing

the absolute of 2nd hardening quantity with different conditions.
While the highest 2nd hardening ratio was observed at a strain-
rate of 1.6E4 s1, the lowest 2nd hardening ratio was observed
at 1.0E2 s1 at the same temperature. From the tensile tests,
low thermal lift was considered to be the most beneficial condition
for martensitic transformation, in addition, a clear temperature
dependency was observed from all materials.
From Fig. 11a–d, it is apparent that both AISI 321 and 347 exhi-
bit a significantly higher growth of 2nd hardening ratio than 304L
and 316L.
In Fig. 12a–d, the threshold strain (or critical strain), which is
the inflection position between the 1st and 2nd hardening curve
and is defined as the onset of 2nd plastic hardening, was observed
at temperatures of below 223 K in all materials. The threshold
strain is an important parameter to analyze the non-linear behav-
ior of austenitic steel numerically under cryogenic conditions.
Threshold strain is affected by adiabatic heating generated from
specimens. It is considered that threshold strain exhibits a higher
dependency at lower strain-rates. In comparison, all the tested
Fig. 11c. Second hardening ratio of AISI 321.

Fig. 11a. Second hardening ratio of AISI 304L. Fig. 11d. Second hardening ratio of AISI 347.
3638 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640

Fig. 12a. Threshold strain of AISI 304L. Fig. 12d. Threshold strain of AISI 347.

materials, except AISI 304L, showed similarly large decrements in

the threshold strain.
After the experiment, as shown in Figs. 13 and 14, all test spec-
imens have shown local necking and the cup and cone form of duc-
tility fracture. At the fracture section, fibrous zones and shear lips,
which are typical forms of ductility fracture, were found.

3.3. Temperature effects

Fig. 7a–d shows the tensile test results of each material as a

function of temperature. In a similar manner to a previous study
[5], a strong temperature dependency was investigated in all tested
materials. As shown in Fig. 15, the temperature dependency of the
ultimate tensile stress in all samples can be explained well using
linear functions. In Table 5, the ultimate tensile stress increment
of each material, depending on changing temperature, is 100% on
average when comparing between temperatures of 293 K(room
temperature) and 110 K (the lowest test temperature). Within
the tested materials, AISI 347 showed the strongest temperature
dependency.
Fig. 12b. Threshold strain of AISI 316L.

Fig. 13. Photograph of local necking (left) and fracture form of test specimen
Fig. 12c. Threshold strain of AISI 321. (center and right).
 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640 3639

Both AISI 321 and 347 exhibited 2nd hardening ratio increases of
75% and 81% at strain-rates of 1.6E4 s1, 72%, 75.5% at 1.0E3 s1
and each 65%, 63.3% at 1.0E2 s1, respectively. Generally, as the
strain-rate increased, the increments corresponding to the slopes
of the plots in Fig. 11a–d were observed to decrease.
As shown in Fig. 12a–d, the threshold strain decreased with
decreasing temperature at a constant strain-rate. This was attrib-
uted to a reduction in ductility.

4. Conclusions

In this study, AISI 300 series austenite stainless steel tensile

tests under cryogenic conditions were performed to determine
the strain-rate-dependent non-linear behavior characteristics.
As aforementioned Reed, Talonen and Ogata’s research [14–16],
internal thermal lift from adiabatic heating after reaching the yield
point of deformation accompanying phase transformation to e and
a0 -martensite phases, could explain the below summarized
conclusions.
Fig. 14. Fracture area section of AISI 316L (110 K, 1.0E3 s1).
 As the test temperature decreased, the yield stress and ultimate
tensile stress showed tendencies to increase.
 As the strain-rate increased, the yield stress increased while the
ultimate tensile stress decreased.
 As temperature decreased, the fracture strain decreased. And as
the strain-rate increased, the fracture strain decrement
decreased.
 The 2nd hardening ratio increased with decreasing temperature,
and decreased with increasing strain-rate.
 As temperature decreased, the threshold strain showed decreas-
ing tendencies. As the strain rate increased, the decrements dis-
played decreasing tendencies.
 Significant fibrous zones and shear lips were found in the form
of Cup-and-Cone fractures at the ductile fracture location of
the tested materials.
 From the tests, comprehensive test data was concluded synthet-
ically like above. The results of this study could be used ideally
for structures in cryogenic environment and safety reviews for
the purpose of developing cryogenic products related to AISI
300 series of austenitic stainless steel. Furthermore, findings
from this study will be potentially very important experimental
evidences for further research efforts.
Fig. 15. Ultimate tensile stress comparison at 1.6E4 s1.

Acknowledgments
Table 5
Rates of increase of ultimate tensile stress at 1.6E4 s1 (unit: MPa). This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
AISI 293 K 110 K Increment (%)
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Grant No:
304L 782.8 1432 83 20090068500) and Advanced Ship Engineering Research Center
316L 659.5 1344.1 104
(ASERC) research program. Authors are thankful for the support
321 684.9 1382.3 102
347 657.5 1455.4 121 of NRF and ASERC.

References
As shown in Fig. 10a–d, elongation decreases with decreasing
temperature at a constant strain-rate. AISI 321 has the greatest
ductility at room temperature but suffers from the largest decrease
with decreasing temperature. The ductility decrement of AISI 321
at strain-rates of 1.6E4 s1, 1.0E3 s1 and 1.0E2 s1 are
67.2%, 64.7% and 56.7%, respectively. Tensile tests performed on
AISI 316L under the same conditions yielded a 23.45%, 13.82%
and 1.78% decrease in ductility, respectively. In addition, AISI
304L exhibited the lowest ductility decrements.
The 2nd hardening ratio increased with decreasing temperature
but with increasing ultimate tensile stress at a constant strain-rate.
[1] Source book on stainless steels. Ohio: Am Soc Met; 1976.
[2] Lula RA. Stainless steel. Ohio: Am Soc Met; 1966.
[3] Tomita Y, Iwamoto T. Constitutive modeling of trip steel and its application to
the improvement of mechanical properties. Int J Mech Sci 1995;37:1295–305.
[4] Lee WS, Lin CF. Comparative study of the impact response and microstructure
of 304L stainless steel with and without prestrain. Metall Mater Trans
2002;33:2801–10.
[5] Lee KJ, Chun MS, Kim MH, Lee JM. A new constitutive model of austenitic
stainless steel for cryogenic applications. Comput Mater Sci 2009;46:1152–62.
[6] Byun TS, Hashimoto N, Farrell K. Temperature dependence of strain hardening
and plastic instability behaviors in austenitic stainless steels. Acta Mater
2004;52:3889–99.
[7] Reed RP, Simon NJ. Discontinuous yielding during tensile tests at low
temperatures. Adv Cryogenic Eng 1990;36B:1077–86.
3640 W.S. Park et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 3630–3640
[8] Bang KW. Mechanical properties of structural materials at low temperature.
Korea Res Inst Stand Sci 1989:84–123.
[9] DE Amar K, John G, Matlock David K, Murdock David C, Mataya Martin C,
Comstock Jr Rovert J. Deformation-induced phase transformation and strain
hardening in type 304 austenitic stainless steel. Metall Trans A
2006;37A:1875–86.
[10] Singh J. Influence of deformation on the transformation of austenitic stainless
steels. J Mater Sci 1985;20:3157–66.
[11] Olson GB, Cohen M. Kinetics of strain-induced martensitic nucleation. Metall
Trans A 1975;6A:791–5.
[12] Dieter GE. Mechanical metallurgy. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1976.
[13] Dobson WG, Johnson DL. Effect of strain rate on measured mechanical
properties of stainless steel at 4 K. Adv Cryogenic Eng Mater 1984;30:185–92.
[14] Reed RP, Walsh RP, Tobler RL. Strain rate effect on tensile properties at 4 K of a
VAMAS round-robin austenitic steel. Adv Cryogenic Eng 1990;36:1061–8.
[15] Talonen J, Nenonen P, Pape G, HÄNNINEN H. Effect of strain rate on the strain-
induced c ? a0 martensite transformation and mechanical properties of
austenitic stainless steels. Metall Trans A 2005;36:421–32.
[16] Ogata T, Ishkawa K, Umezawa O, Yuri T. Discontinuous deformation during
load- and displacement-controlled tensile tests and optical observation in
liquid helium. Cryogenics 1988;28:511–5.