ELIMINATE QUENCH CRACKING WITH

Uniform quenchant agitation is a critically important control parameter in optimizing distortion control and reducing steel cracking. Quenching with ultrasonic agitation or in the presence of electric and magnetic fields provides uniform agitation.
Lauralice de C.F. Canale
Universidade de So Paulo So Carlos, Brazil

George E. Totten*
G.E. Totten & Assoc., LLC Seattle, Wash.

raditionally, nearly every heat treater learns that there are two critical temperature ranges in heat treating. One is the temperature range for the pearlitic transformation, typically about 600 to 500C, and the other is the temperature range where the martensitic start temperature occurs, which is about 300 to 200C for carbon steels. Typically, it is recommended that the cooling rate in the 600 to 500C range be maximized to ensure optimal hardness and the cooling rate in the 300 to 200C range be minimized to prevent cracking. However, some studies have shown that reducing the cooling rate in this region may not reduce the probability of cracking but actually increase it.1,2 Instead, it was shown that the principle cause of steel cracking was the presence of nonuniform structural stresses not a high cooling rate in the martensitic transformation region. In other words, volume increases due to martensitic formation do not lead to the development of internal stresses. Rather, the development of internal stresses is affected more significantly by the nonsimultaneous volume increase within the steel during quenching (because of nonuniform cooling). This is a critically important point that is seldom adequately addressed either in heat
800

UNIFORM AGITATION
treating texts or in the heat treating shop. Table 1 shows that cracking is not directly related to the cooling rate alone for three carbon steels with increasing carbon content.2 Kavskii and Zhelokhovtseva have shown that the degree of nonuniformity occurring during quenching can be estimated by considering a section designated as ab in the steel.1 The degree of deformation is determined by the relative volume of the transformed phase, which is dependent on the rate of cooling in the martensitic transformation range. Cooling is considered to be uniform if the surface cooling rate, vS, in the martensitic temperature range, Mn-Mk, is approximately the same as the cooling rate at the center. If this occurs, the degree of deformation at the surface and the core will be approximately the same, preventing the development of high internal stresses. Consider, for example, Fig. 1, which compares the cooling process for water and oil. In this figure vS/vC = bb/aa. In this case, oil cools the object being quenched more uniformly in the Mn-Mk range than water. However, the data in Table 1 show that even for cooling rates in oil approaching those of water, there is no significant increase in cracking. Thus, the vS/vC ratio can be taken as a quantitative

800 Temperature, C

Temperature, C

600 Center 400

600

Center

400 Surface 200

200

Surface

(a)

aa

(b)

* ASM Fellow and member, ASM Heat Treating Society

Fig. 1 Cooling curves for surface and center of a 28 mm in diameter steel test piece: (a) cooling in water, vS/vC = vS/vC = bb/aa >> 1, and (b) cooling in oil, vS/vC = vS/vC = bb/aa 1. >

HEAT TREATING PROGRESS JULY/AUGUST 2004

27

Table 1 Dependence of steel cracking during quenching on cooling rate in the martensite transformation region
Quenchant1 Water Oil Oil with USV, p = 5 atm Oil with USV, p = 10 atm Oil with USV, p = 15 atm Oil with USV, p = 20 atm Oil with USV, p = 25 atm Water Oil Oil with USV, p = 5 atm Oil with USV, p = 10 atm Oil with USV, p = 15 atm Oil with USV, p = 20 atm Oil with USV, p = 25 atm Water Oil Oil with USV, p = 5 atm Oil with USV, p = 10 atm Oil with USV, p = 15 atm Oil with USV, p = 20 atm Oil with USV, p = 25 atm Centerline cooling rate in 300200C range, C/s Steel 453,4 (~ AISI 1045) 150 10.4 21 61 76 90 144 Steel U83,4 (~AISI 1080) 65 6 25 29 35 44 52 Steel U103,4 (~1% C carbon steel) 66 6.3 33 45 52 64 60 65 2 3 2 1 2 2 75 2 2 3 2 3 2 25 None None None None 1 None Number of cracked specimens out of 1002

1. Agitation and effective heat transfer were supplied using a hydrodynamic radiator and ultrasonic agitation. 2. The test specimen measured 10 N10 N 55 mm with a 2 mm in diameter hole through it at a distance of 5 mm from one of the ends. Cracks were identified by etching 10 days after the quench. 3. The initial temperature of Steel 45 was 840C; those of Steel U8 and U10, 800C. 4. The compositions of the three steels: Steel 45 (0.420.50 C, 0.170.37 Si, 0.50.8 Mn, <0.04 S, <0.04 P, <0.25 Cr, <0.25 Ni); Steel U8 (0.750.84 C, 0.150.30 Si, 0.150.30 Mn, 0.15 Cr); and Steel U10 (~1 C, 0.150.35 Si, 0.150.35 Mn, <0.20 Cr).

Quench Oscillator

S SS

Amplifier

SSS

SS S
Transducer

Fig. 2 Typical ultrasonic quenching system with 20 Hz transducers arranged at the periphery of the cylindrical quench tank. The transducers are welded at a stress antinode.

measure of uniformity where quenching uniformity is approached as vS/vC approaches 1.1 One reason the problem of quench uniformity is not (or inadequately) addressed in quench process design is that flow directionality and turbulence at the cooling metal interface provided by current agitation methods (such as propeller mixers with or without draft tubes or water sprays) is typically unknown and difficult to determine. In this article, a number of lesser-known methods of supplying agitation that provide substantial improvements in flow uniformity during quenching will be discussed. These include: ultrasonic, electric field, and magnetic field agitation. Ultrasonic quenching Ultrasonic vibrations are acoustical waves whose frequencies are greater than those detectable by the human ear. The magnitude of ultrasonic vibrations is measured in Hertz (Hz), where 1 Hz = 1 cycle (or wave) per second. The human ear can detect a sound range of 16 Hz up to 20 kHz (20,000 cycles per second). Ultrasonic

vibrations are defined as those occurring at greater than 16 kHz up to approximately 100 MHz (100 million cycles per second). The mechanism of ultrasound propagation varies with the wave frequency. Low frequencies propagate in spherical patterns with equal intensity in every direction. Higher frequencies (typically greater than 20 kHz) tend to propagate directionally, like a beam. Harvey studied the quench severity, as measured by the Grossman Hvalue, of different quench media and agitation methods.3,4 Figure 2 illustrates the cylindrical, 20 kHz ultrasonic quench system that was used. The criterion is to provide an ultrasonic frequency sufficient to produce cavitation throughout the fluid medium. The transducers, which may be magnetorestrictive or piezoelectric ceramic, were mounted around the periphery of the tank to focus the waves toward the center. It was reported that lower frequencies could be used, but the sound level was objectionable. Table 2 provides a summary of the level of quench severity possible with this ultrasonic agitation system that was significantly greater than that achievable with violent propeller agitation.3,4 Harvey3; Li, et al.5; and others2 have reported that ultrasonic agitation produces substantial reduction in distortion and cracking by rupturing the vapor blanket formed around the
UNVIBRATED

Vapor layer

ULTRASONIC VIBRATED

Vapor layer

Fig. 3 Comparison of nonuniform vapor blanket formed around a part in a vaporizable quenching medium with the uniform rupture of the vapor blanket that typically is formed in an ultrasonically agitated tank. Ultrasonic agitation will produce a substantially more uniform quench.

28

HEAT TREATING PROGRESS JULY/AUGUST 2004

Clamping current-conducting contact

Intercontact connector Part

Table 2 Grossman H-values of different quenchants with varying degrees of agitation

Quenchant Oil Still quench Violent agitation Ultrasonic agitation Brine 0.250.30 0.801.10 1.65 2.0 5.0 7.5 Hot salt at 205C (400F) Still quench Violent agitation Ultrasonic agitation
1000 Oil without field

Grossman H-Value

Current-conducting busbar

Fig. 4 Schematic of a device to apply an electric field to a part during quenching.

Still quench Violent agitation Ultrasonic agitation

Temperature, C

cooling hot-metal surface. This leads to nonuniform thermal gradients that cause increased distortion and cracking, as schematically illustrated in Fig. 2. The data in Table 2 show the advantage of using ultrasonic agitation for the reduction of steel cracking when faster cooling rates than those achievable with a conventional oil quench are required to reach the desired hardness. Quenching in an electric field Currently, the primary focus of cracking and distortion prevention is the selection of quenching media that produce cooling rates intermediate between those provided by water and oil in the martensitic transformation range. In some cases, this is achieved with the use of aqueous polymer solutions. However, this engineering approach is expensive compared with oil, and it requires the inventory and use of various quenchants in the heat treat shop. One potential solution to these problems, with the added advantage of a significantly more uniform quenching process, is to pass an electric current through the part during the quench, thus creating an electric field around the cooling surface. A schematic illustration of how the electric field is applied with a variable density through the part is provided in Fig. 4.6 Figure 5 shows that cooling rates intermediate between those of conventional oil and cold water are possible by varying the applied electric field.7 Interestingly, uniform hardness gradients can be introduced by varying the applied electric field at the desired location on the part during the quench. It is also possible to vary the applied field, as desired, at critical points throughout the quench. Thus, the cooling rate can be accelerated initially and reduced later in the cooling process such as in the martensitic transformation region. Note that the application of the electric field reduces

0.30 1.20 1.80

800

600

Oil with field

400 Water 200

4 Time, s

Fig. 5 Variation of cooling speed by the application of an electric field.

vapor-blanket cooling and produces a more uniform quench. The interdependence of an applied electric field and the fluid medium was illustrated by Shimbov, et al. using X-ray diffraction measurements, as shown in Fig. 6, for different quenchants without an applied electric field and also with the application of a 21 kV/cm field.8 The results show that the application of an electric field increases the residual stress. Bershtein demonstrated significantly more uniform hardness throughout the quenched specimen when quenching was performed in the presence of an electric field. Quenching in a magnetic field Fluids containing magnetic media such as a colloidal solution of magnetite (with a particle size of about 10 mm) in water may be used to quench structural steels.9 Chigarev showed that the application of an external magnetic field improved surface wetting of the magnetic media on the surface, thus facilitating more uniform nucleate boiling.10 Mirkin, et al. showed that the vapor-blanket film

104

Fig. 6 Variation in microstresses at the surface of a 1045 carbon steel test specimen for: A, non-heat treated specimen; B, water without an electric field; and C, water with a 21 kV/cm electric field.

HEAT TREATING PROGRESS JULY/AUGUST 2004

29

was destabilized in the presence of a magnetic field. Together, these factors illustrate that quenching in the presence of a magnetic field not only permits the control of cooling rate, but also leads to a more uniform quench.9 Mirkins experiments showed: Optimal results were achieved when the proportion of dispersed magnetic particles per unit volume (j) was within the range of: 0.0023 < j < 0.0374. When j > 0.0374, extended film boiling (vapor-blanket cooling) was observed. When j < 0.0023, the magnetic effect was lost. The magnetic field exhibits a strong effect on hardness (and cooling rate), with hardness increasing with the applied field up to a maximum value. The effect of the magnetic field on hardness also increases with the concentration of the magnetic particles. More uniform hardness was obtained when quenching in the magnetic media in the presence of a magnetic field. Conclusions Uniform agitation of the quenchant is a critically important control pa-

rameter in optimizing distortion control and reducing steel cracking. This is difficult to achieve using more traditional means of controlling flow in a quench tank, such as the use of sprays and propeller pumps. The use of ultrasonics and electric and magnetic fields may provide more uniform agitation, leading to improved uniformity of the stress fields within the metal. Their use may also provide the additional advantage of varying agitation throughout the cooling cycle to achieve a range of cooling profiles not readily achievable with quenchants and more traditional agitation systems.

References 1. Optimum Cooling During the Quenching of Steel, by N.N. Kavskii and R.K. Zhelokhovtseva: Izv. V.U.Z. Chernaya Metall., 1982, Vol. 3, p. 111113. 2. Elimination of Quenching Cracks by Means of Optimization of Cooling Conditions, by R.K. Zhelokhovtseva: Steel In The USSR, 1985, Vol. 15, p. 238239. 3. Other Quenching Processes, by G.E.

Totten, C.E. Bates, and N.A. Clinton: Chapter 8 in Handbook of Quenchants and Quenching Technology, 1993, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, p. 291338. 4. Ultrasonic Quenching, by R.F. Harvey: Metal Treating, August/September 1966, p. 35. 5. Investigation on the Characteristics of Ultrasonic Field Quenching, by Y. Liu, G. Yu, C. Cheng, and Y. Niu: Junshu Rechuli, 1991, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 610. 6. Regulating the Cooling Rate in the Hardening of Steels, by L.I. Bershtein, A.S. Siper, and Yu.L. Bershtein: Metallovedenie I Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov, 1990, No. 6, p. 1617. 7. Quenching With an Electric Assist: The Iron Age, Nov. 4, 1965, p. 8283. 8. Quenching of Metals in an Electric Field, by A.A. Skimbov, I.A. Kozhukhar, and N.N. Morar: Sov. Surf. Eng. Appl. Electrochem., 1989, No. 2, p. 136138. 9. Equipment and Method for Quenching Steels in a Magnetic Field, by L.I. Mirkin, S.A. Shesterikov, and A.Ya. Simonovskiy: Izv. Vuzov, Machinostr., 1993, No. 6, p. 3032. 10. Influence of a Magnetic Field on the Contact Angle in Bubble Boiling, by N.B. Chigarev: Inzhenerno-Fizicheskii Zhurnal, 1984, Vol. 46, No. 5, p. 720723.

30

Circle 20 or visit www.adinfo.cc

Circle 21 or visit www.adinfo.cc