A Critical Review on Cryogenic Treatment of Engineering Steels: Mechanisms, Tribological Performance, and the Imperative for Statistical Design of Experiments

Abstract

Cryogenic treatment (CT) has emerged as a pivotal supplementary process to conventional heat treatment, promising significant enhancements in the wear resistance and longevity of engineering components. This paper presents a systematic and critical review of the extant literature on the application of deep cryogenic treatment (DCT) to alloy steels, with a focus on prevalent grades such as AISI D2, M2, 52100, and EN series steels. The review consolidates the established metallurgical mechanisms—primarily the transformation of retained austenite and the precipitation of nano-scale eta-carbides—that underpin property improvements. A thematic analysis of reported data on hardness, wear resistance, toughness, and fatigue strength is conducted, revealing a strong material-dependent response where high-carbon, high-alloy steels derive maximum benefit. Crucially, this review identifies a significant methodological gap in the prevailing research paradigm: a near-universal reliance on one-variable-at-a-time (OVAT) experimental approaches and a lack of standardized tribological testing protocols. This limits the ability to optimize treatment parameters and generalize findings. We argue for the integration of robust statistical frameworks, specifically the Taguchi method and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), with standardized wear tests (e.g., ASTM G99) to transform CT from an empirical art into a optimized science. The paper concludes by delineating clear research gaps, notably the lack of systematic studies on common Indian standard (EN) steels, and proposes a structured future research direction that bridges materials science with quality engineering principles for predictable and application-specific component enhancement.

Introduction

The wear and degradation of mechanical components remain critical challenges in industries such as automotive, aerospace, and manufacturing, leading to significant economic losses. Alloy steels are commonly used due to their strength, toughness, and machinability, with Conventional Heat Treatment (CHT) producing hard martensitic structures. However, retained austenite (RA) from CHT can compromise dimensional stability and initiate wear.

Deep Cryogenic Treatment (DCT)—immersion of quenched steels in liquid nitrogen (~-196°C)—has emerged as an effective post-quenching process to enhance mechanical and tribological properties. DCT involves three stages: slow cooling, prolonged soaking, and controlled warming, often followed by low-temperature tempering. Optimal results depend on treatment depth, soak time, and controlled thermal cycling.

Metallurgical Mechanisms

1. Retained Austenite Transformation – DCT reduces RA content, yielding a more homogeneous martensitic structure, improving hardness and stability.

2. Precipitation of Fine Eta-Carbides – Formation of uniform nanoscale carbides (20–50 nm) strengthens the matrix and provides a wear-resistant surface scaffold.

3. Residual Stress Relief – Thermal cycling redistributes stresses, improving dimensional stability and potentially enhancing fatigue resistance.

Mechanical and Tribological Improvements

• Hardness – Modest increase (1–4 HRC), material-dependent.

• Wear Resistance – Dramatic improvement (50–300%), exceeding hardness gains due to nano-carbides. Wear mechanisms shift to milder oxidative/fatigue-dominated modes.

• Toughness and Fatigue Strength – Mixed effects; slight toughness improvements in some steels, fatigue generally enhanced via compressive stresses and microstructural refinement.

Observations Across Steel Grades

• Tool steels (e.g., D2, M2, AISI 52100) show the most significant improvements.

• Common engineering steels (EN8, EN24, EN31) are under-researched, with no systematic comparative studies.

• DCT’s benefits are particularly pronounced in steels with higher initial RA content.

Methodological Critique

1. OVAT Dominance – Most studies vary a single factor, ignoring interactions and limiting generalizability.

2. Non-Standardized Wear Testing – Disparate test setups hinder reproducibility and cross-study comparison.

3. Lack of Statistical Optimization – Formal Design of Experiments (DoE) and ANOVA techniques are rarely applied, representing a major gap for process optimization.

Conclusion

This review confirms DCT as a highly effective technology for enhancing the wear resistance of alloy steels, primarily through nano-carbide precipitation. Benefits are most significant for high-carbon, high-alloy grades. However, the field is hampered by non-standardized methodologies and the absence of statistical optimization frameworks.

References

In the relentless pursuit of efficiency and durability, the degradation of mechanical components through wear remains a principal challenge across automotive, aerospace, tooling, and manufacturing industries [1]. The economic impact, encompassing replacement costs, downtime, and energy loss, is substantial. Alloy steels, due to their exemplary synergy of strength, toughness, and manufacturability, constitute the material backbone for such demanding applications [2]. Conventional heat treatment (CHT) via quenching and tempering is the cornerstone for developing these properties, producing a hard martensitic microstructure. However, this process is inherently incomplete; a fraction of the softer, metastable austenite phase is often retained within the matrix, particularly in steels with high alloy content [3]. This retained austenite (RA) can deleteriously transform under service stresses, leading to dimensional instability and serving as a preferential site for wear initiation [4]. To mitigate this limitation, cryogenic treatment, specifically Deep Cryogenic Treatment (DCT) involving prolonged exposure to temperatures at or near that of liquid nitrogen (-196°C), has been developed as a post-quenching supplementary process [5]. Initially regarded with skepticism as merely an extension of cold treatment, DCT is now recognized to induce profound and beneficial microstructural alterations that transcend simple austenite conversion [6]. The reported enhancements in wear resistance frequently exceed expectations based on hardness increases alone, suggesting mechanisms more complex than phase transformation [7]. While the corpus of literature on DCT has grown over the past three decades, it remains fragmented, often focused on specific high-performance tool steels, and characterized by non-standardized methodologies. This lack of cohesion hinders the formulation of universal design rules for industrial adoption. Therefore, the objectives of this review are threefold: (1) to synthesize the current understanding of the metallurgical mechanisms activated by DCT, (2) to critically analyze the reported improvements in mechanical and tribological properties across different steel classes, and (3) to perform a methodological critique of existing research, identifying the over-reliance on OVAT approaches and the absence of statistical optimization frameworks as a critical barrier to advancement. This review ultimately posits that the next frontier in CT research lies in the rigorous integration of Design of Experiments (DoE) with standardized materials testing. II. THE CRYOGENIC TREATMENT PROCESS: FUNDAMENTALS AND PARAMETERS DCT is not a standalone heat treatment but an interventional process that follows conventional hardening. A standard DCT cycle comprises three controlled stages [8]: 1) Slow Cooling: Components are cooled from ambient temperature to the cryogenic temperature (typically -196°C) at a controlled rate (e.g., 1-3°C/min) to minimize thermal shock. 2) Soaking: The material is held at the target temperature for an extended duration, commonly ranging from 12 to 48 hours. This soak time is critical for achieving thermal equilibrium throughout the component and allowing sufficient time for microstructural transformations. 3) Controlled Warming: The components are gradually warmed back to room temperature, often at a rate slower than cooling to prevent condensation and manage residual stresses. A subsequent low-temperature temper (often at 150-200°C) is frequently applied to relieve stresses from the completed martensitic transformation and stabilize the newly formed microstructure [9]. The efficacy of DCT is sensitive to these parameters. Research indicates that \"deep\" cryogenic treatment (below -150°C) yields superior results compared to \"shallow\" treatment (around -80°C), and extended soaking times (? 24 hours) often lead to better property enhancement, though an optimum likely exists [10]. III. METALLURGICAL MECHANISMS OF PROPERTY ENHANCEMENT The performance benefits of DCT are rooted in discrete yet synergistic microstructural changes. A. Transformation of Retained Austenite (RA) During CHT, the martensite finish (Mf) temperature for many alloy steels lies below room temperature, leaving behind retained austenite. DCT provides the additional thermodynamic driving force to drive this transformation closer to completion. X-ray Diffraction (XRD) studies have consistently confirmed a drastic reduction in RA content post-DCT. For instance, Das et al. [11] reported a decrease from approximately 12% to less than 2% in AISI 52100 steel. This yields a more homogeneous, fully martensitic structure, directly contributing to increased macroscopic hardness and dimensional stability. B. Precipitation of Fine Eta-Carbides This is widely considered the most significant mechanism, particularly for wear resistance. The extreme cold and associated lattice strain are theorized to promote the nucleation of ultra-fine carbide precursors [12]. During the subsequent warming and tempering cycle, these develop into a uniform dispersion of nano-scale (20-50 nm) secondary carbides, often identified as eta-carbides (?-Fe?C) [13]. As illustrated in Figure 1, these carbides are far finer and more numerous than the carbides formed during conventional tempering. They act as potent obstacles to dislocation movement (strengthening the matrix) and, critically, provide a hard, wear-resistant scaffold at the surface that effectively resists penetration and micro-ploughing during tribological contact [14]. C. Relief and Homogenization of Residual Stresses The controlled thermal cycling during DCT can help redistribute and homogenize the residual stresses introduced during the violent quenching stage of CHT. This can lead to improved dimensional stability and may positively influence fatigue performance by reducing stress concentrators [15]. IV. ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL AND TRIBOLOGICAL PROPERTY ENHANCEMENTS A. Hardness The literature consistently reports a modest increase in bulk hardness, typically between 1 and 4 points on the Rockwell C (HRC) scale [16]. This increment is directly attributable to the removal of soft RA. The magnitude is material-dependent; high-alloy tool steels (e.g., D2, M2) show more pronounced gains than low-alloy or plain carbon steels, aligning with their higher initial RA content [17]. B. Wear Resistance DCT exhibits its most compelling advantage in dramatically improving wear resistance. Documented improvements in sliding, abrasive, and erosive wear range from 50% to over 300% in many studies [18, 19]. Molinari et al. [20] famously reported a 100% increase in the flank wear life of M2 high-speed steel drills. The enhancement is disproportionately greater than the hardness increase, underscoring the dominant role of nano-carbide precipitation. The wear mechanism often shifts from severe adhesive/abrasive wear with material transfer in CHT samples to milder oxidative or fatigue-dominated wear in DCT samples, as the fine carbides inhibit plastic deformation and material adhesion [21]. C. Toughness and Fatigue Strength Findings here are more ambiguous. Some studies report a marginal improvement in impact toughness, potentially due to stress relief and microstructural homogenization [22]. Others note a decrease, correlating with increased hardness and the elimination of the ductile RA phase which can blunt propagating cracks [23]. The effect on fatigue strength is generally positive, attributed to the introduction of compressive surface stresses and the refined microstructure impeding crack initiation [24]. This variability highlights the process’s sensitivity to the base material’s composition and prior processing history. D. Focus on Widely Used Engineering Steels While tool steels are extensively studied, research on common engineering steels like the EN series (e.g., EN8, EN24, EN31) is sparse and non-comparative. EN31 (akin to AISI 52100) shows promise, with studies indicating significant wear and fatigue improvement [25]. However, systematic data comparing the response of EN8 (medium carbon), EN24 (Ni-Cr-Mo), and EN31 (high carbon chromium) under identical DCT cycles and testing conditions is conspicuously absent from the literature, creating a significant knowledge gap for designers and manufacturers. Table 1: Summary of Key Studies on Cryogenic Treatment of Steels Steel Grade Study (Author, Year) Key Finding Noted Methodology AISI D2 Dhokey & Nirbhavne (2009) [19] ~2 HRC increase; >100% improvement in wear life. OVAT approach; non-standard wear testing. AISI M2 Molinari et al. (2001) [20] ~100% increase in drill tool life after DCT. Primarily performance-based evaluation. AISI 52100 Das et al. (2016) [11] Retained austenite reduced from ~12% to <2%; improved wear resistance. Included XRD microstructural analysis. EN 353 Bensely et al. (2005) [26] DCT showed superior wear resistance compared to shallow cryogenic treatment. Comparative study on case-hardened steel. EN Series (General) Research Gap Identified No systematic comparative studies available. Indicates scope for further structured investigation. V. A METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE AND IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH GAPS A critical analysis of experimental approaches in published DCT research reveals systemic limitations. A. Prevalence of the One-Variable-at-a-Time (OVAT) Approach The vast majority of studies employ an OVAT methodology, e.g., varying only soak time while keeping material and load constant [27]. This method is inefficient, requires a large number of experiments to study multiple factors, and is fundamentally incapable of detecting interactions between parameters (e.g., whether the optimal soak time differs for EN24 vs. EN31). This severely limits the development of optimized, generalized process guidelines. B. Lack of Standardized Tribological Testing Wear data is often generated using disparate apparatuses, contact geometries, loads, speeds, and environments without adherence to international standards like ASTM G99 (Pin-on-Disk) [28]. This lack of reproducibility makes meta-analysis and cross-study comparison fraught with uncertainty, obscuring the true material response. C. The Absence of Statistical Design and Optimization Frameworks There is a stark paucity of application of formal Design of Experiments (DoE) techniques. Statistical methods like the Taguchi Method, which uses Orthogonal Arrays to efficiently study multiple factors, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for identifying significant parameters, are standard in process optimization fields but rarely applied in DCT research [29]. The integration of Taguchi DoE with ASTM-standard wear testing represents a powerful, yet unexploited, methodology to objectively optimize CT parameters for desired performance characteristics. VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES This review confirms DCT as a highly effective technology for enhancing the wear resistance of alloy steels, primarily through nano-carbide precipitation. Benefits are most significant for high-carbon, high-alloy grades. However, the field is hampered by non-standardized methodologies and the absence of statistical optimization frameworks. A. Primary Research Gaps Identified 1) Lack of Comparative Data: No systematic study compares the DCT response of common EN-series engineering steels (EN08, EN24, EN31). 2) Methodological Deficiency: Over-reliance on inefficient OVAT approaches instead of robust DoE. 3) Need for Standardization: Inconsistent wear testing protocols hinder reliable data synthesis. B. Proposed Future Research Direction Future work must bridge materials science and statistical engineering. We propose a research framework that: 1) Employs a Taguchi Orthogonal Array (e.g., L18) to efficiently study factors: Material (EN08/24/31), Treatment (CHT/DCT), and Applied Load. 2) Utilizes ASTM G99 standard Pin-on-Disk testing for reproducible wear data. 3) Applies Signal-to-Noise (S/N) ratio analysis and ANOVA to objectively identify optimal parameter settings and factor significance. 4) Validates findings with confirmation experiments. Adopting this integrated approach will transform cryogenic treatment from a largely empirical process into a predictable, optimized engineering solution, enabling its more confident and effective application in industry for manufacturing longer-lasting, higher-performance components. REFERENCES [1] Rabinowicz, E. (1995). Friction and Wear of Materials (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [2] Bhadeshia, H. K. D. H., & Honeycombe, R. W. K. (2017). Steels: Microstructure and Properties (4th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. [3] Krauss, G. (2015). Steels: Processing, Structure, and Performance (2nd ed.). ASM International. [4] Baldissera, P., & Delprete, C. (2008). Deep cryogenic treatment: A bibliographic review. Open Mechanical Engineering Journal, 2, 1-11. [5] Gill, S. S., Singh, H., Singh, R., & Singh, J. (2010). Cryoprocessing of cutting tool materials—A review. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 48(1-4), 175–192. [6] Mohan Lal, D., Renganarayanan, S., & Kalanidhi, A. (2001). Cryogenic treatment to augment wear resistance of tool and die steels. Cryogenics, 41(3), 149-155. [7] Meng, F., Tagashira, K., Azuma, R., & Sohma, H. (1994). Role of eta-carbide precipitations in the wear resistance improvements of Fe-12Cr-Mo-V-1.4C tool steel by cryogenic treatment. ISIJ International, 34(2), 205-210. [8] Pellizzari, M., Molinari, A., & Straffelini, G. (2005). Deep cryogenic treatment of AISI M2 high-speed steel. International Heat Treatment and Surface Engineering, 1(2), 75-80. [9] Stratton, P. F. (2007). Optimising nano-carbide precipitation in tool steels. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 449, 809-812. [10] Zhirafar, S., Rezaeian, A., & Pugh, M. (2007). Effect of cryogenic treatment on the mechanical properties of 4340 steel. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 186(1-3), 298–303. [11] Das, D., Dutta, A. K., & Ray, K. K. (2009). Influence of varied cryotreatment on the wear behavior of AISI D2 steel. Wear, 266(1-2), 297–309. [12] Das, D., Dutta, A. K., & Ray, K. K. (2016). On the enhancement of wear resistance of AISI 52100 steel by deep cryogenic treatment. Philosophical Magazine, 96(29), 2990–3010. [13] Huang, J. Y., Zhu, Y. T., Liao, X. Z., & Beyerlein, I. J. (2003). Microstructure of cryogenic treated M2 tool steel. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 339(1-2), 241-244. [14] Jovi?evi?-Klug, P., & Podgornik, B. (2020). Effect of deep cryogenic treatment on surface chemistry and microstructure of selected high-speed steels. Applied Surface Science, 527, 146726. [15] Li, S., Deng, L., Wu, X., Wang, H., & Zhang, W. (2020). Effect of deep cryogenic treatment on microstructure and wear resistance of carburized 20CrNi2Mo steel. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 9(3), 3218-3227. [16] Podgornik, B., & Leskovšek, V. (2015). Microstructure and wear resistance of deep cryogenic treated high-speed steel. Materials and Technology, 49(2), 279-284. [17] Vimal, J., Bensely, A., Lal, D. M., & Srinivasan, K. (2008). Deep cryogenic treatment improves wear resistance of En 31 steel. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 23(4), 369-376. [18] Yun, D., Xia, L., & Zhang, W. (2018). The effect of cryogenic treatment on the microstructure and mechanical properties of AISI D2 steel. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 715, 278–285. [19] Akincio?lu, S., Gökkaya, H., & Uygur, I. (2015). The effects of cryogenic treatment on the wear resistance of valve steels. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 77(5-8), 897-906. [20] Bensely, A., Prabhakaran, A., Lal, D. M., & Nagarajan, G. (2005). Enhancing the wear resistance of case carburized steel (En 353) by cryogenic treatment. Cryogenics, 45(12), 747–754. [21] Bensely, A., Senthilkumar, D., Lal, D. M., Nagarajan, G., & Rajadurai, A. (2007). Effect of cryogenic treatment on tensile behavior of case carburized steel-815M17. Materials Characterization, 58(5), 485-491. [22] Dhokey, N. B., & Nirbhavne, S. (2009). Dry sliding wear of cryotreated AISI D2, D3, and H13 tool steels. Wear, 267(9-10), 1521–1529. [23] Firouzdor, V., Nejati, E., & Khomamizadeh, F. (2008). Effect of deep cryogenic treatment on wear resistance and tool life of M2 HSS drill. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 206(1-3), 467–472. [24] Molinari, A., Pellizzari, M., Gialanella, S., Straffelini, G., & Stiasny, K. H. (2001). Effect of deep cryogenic treatment on the mechanical properties of tool steels. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 118(1-3), 350–355. [25] Senthilkumar, D., & Rajendran, I. (2012). Influence of shallow and deep cryogenic treatment on the residual state of stress of 4140 steel. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 212(4), 886-892. [26] Singla, A., Singh, J., & Sharma, V. S. (2018). Effect of cryogenic treatment on the wear characteristics of En 31 steel. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(2), 5818-5825. [27] Tyshchenko, A. I., Theisen, W., Oppenkowski, A., Siebert, S., Razumov, O. N., Skoblik, A. P., ... & Gavriljuk, V. G. (2010). Low-temperature martensitic transformation and deep cryogenic treatment of a tool steel. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 527(26), 7027-7039. [28] Akhbarizadeh, A., Shafyei, A., & Golozar, M. A. (2009). Effects of cryogenic treatment on wear behavior of D6 tool steel. Materials & Design, 30(8), 3259-3264. [29] Barron, R. F. (1982). Cryogenic treatment of metals to improve wear resistance. Cryogenics, 22(8), 409-413. [30] Da Silva, F. J., Franco, S. D., Machado, Á. R., Ezugwu, E. O., & Souza Jr, A. M. (2006). Performance of cryogenically treated HSS tools. Wear, 261(5-6), 674-685. [31] Gill, S. S., Singh, R., Singh, H., & Singh, J. (2011). Wear behaviour of cryogenically treated tungsten carbide inserts under dry and wet turning conditions. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 51(1), 25–33. [32] Leskovšek, V., & Kalin, M. (2010). Influence of deep cryogenic treatment on hardness, fracture toughness and wear resistance of vacuum heat-treated HSS. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 527(16-17), 4756-4764. [33] Li, H., Tong, W., Cui, J., Zhang, H., & Chen, L. (2016). The influence of deep cryogenic treatment on the properties of high-vanadium alloy steel. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 662, 356-362. [34] Podgornik, B., Paulin, I., Zajec, B., Jacobson, S., & Leskovšek, V. (2016). Deep cryogenic treatment of tool steels. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 229, 398-406. [35] Antony, J. (2014). Design of Experiments for Engineers and Scientists (2nd ed.). Elsevier. [36] Kumar, S., Singh, R., & Singh, T. P. (2014). Application of Taguchi method for optimizing material removal rate in turning of EN24 steel. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 6(5), 2181-2187. [37] Montgomery, D. C. (2017). Design and Analysis of Experiments (9th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [38] Nian, C. Y., Yang, W. H., & Tarng, Y. S. (1999). Optimization of turning operations with multiple performance characteristics. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 95(1-3), 90-96. [39] Ross, P. J. (1996). Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [40] Roy, R. K. (2010). A Primer on the Taguchi Method (2nd ed.). Society of Manufacturing Engineers. [41] Sahoo, A. K., & Sahoo, B. (2013). Performance studies of multilayer hard surface coatings (TiN/TiCN/Al2O3/TiN) of indexable carbide inserts in hard machining: Part-II (RSM, grey relational and techno economical approach). Measurement, 46(8), 2868-2884. [42] Singh, H., & Kumar, P. (2005). Optimizing multi-machining characteristics through Taguchi’s approach and utility concept. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(7), 722-728. [43] ASTM International. (2017). Standard Test Method for Wear Testing with a Pin-on-Disk Apparatus (ASTM G99-17). West Conshohocken, PA. [44] Bhushan, B. (2013). Principles and Applications of Tribology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [45] Czichos, H., Becker, S., & Lexow, J. (1987). Multilaboratory tribotesting: Results from the Versailles Advanced Materials and Standards programme on wear test methods. Wear, 114(1), 109-130. [46] Stachowiak, G. W., & Batchelor, A. W. (2013). Engineering Tribology (4th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. [47] Williams, J. A. (2005). Engineering Tribology. Cambridge University Press. [48] Davis, J. R. (Ed.). (2002). Surface Hardening of Steels: Understanding the Basics. ASM International. [49] Declaration of Competing Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. [50] Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the support and facilities provided by the Department of Mechanical Engineering, International Center of Excellence in Engineering & Management, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Mr. Sagar Shivaji Sonawane, Dr. C. S. Padmavat, Dr. Abhay Pawar, Prof. S. B. Janjal, Prof. A. B. Humbe. 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.