Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
Volume 2016, Article ID 1927504, 6 pages
Research Article

Study of the Dynamic Strain-Induced Transformation Process of a Low-Carbon Steel: Experiment and Finite Element Simulation

1Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Advanced Metallic Materials, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 211189, China
2Institute of Research of Iron & Steel, Shasteel, Zhangjiagang, Jiangsu 215625, China
3AO Smith Corporate Technology Center, Milwaukee, WI 53224, USA

Received 12 August 2016; Revised 9 November 2016; Accepted 15 November 2016

Academic Editor: Qiang Wang

Copyright © 2016 Lei He et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The microstructures and mechanical properties of a low-carbon steel, hot-rolled by a six-pass dynamic strain-induced transformation (DSIT) process, with different start rolling temperatures, are studied by combining experiments and finite element simulations. The start rolling temperatures of the last three passes are about 10°C higher and 20°C lower than the temperature, for Processes 1 and 2, respectively. The results show that as the rolling process proceeds, rolling forces increase, while slab temperatures decrease. Before starting Pass 4, the temperature of the slab center is higher than that of the slab surface. During Pass 4 to Pass 6, however, the temperatures of the slab center and surface are nearly identical but fluctuate remarkably due to the large reduction rate. The simulated maximum rolling force and start rolling temperature of each pass agree reasonably with the experimental measurements. It is found that the simulated start temperatures of the slab center in the last three passes are about 5~25°C higher than the temperature for Process 1, and the DSIT condition is better satisfied for Process 2. As a result, Process 2 produces finer grain sizes and higher yield strengths than Process 1.