1 of 16

Modified Jominy Test for Determining the Critical Cooling Rate for Intercritically
Annealed Dual-Phase Steels

Brendan Connolly

Advisors:
A.J. DeArdo
C.I. Garcia
 2 of 16

ABSTRACT
The Jominy test is a common method of examining the hardenability of steel grades.
This test varies the cooling rate along the length of a Jominy bar in order to examine the
ability of the steel to form martensite. In this work, the Jominy test has been modified to
examine dual phase sheet steels. The reasons for examining the dual phase steels are to
measure the critical cooling rates and then empirically determine equations that describe
the critical cooling rates accurately. The modified Jominy set-up shows useful results for
examining the transformation behavior of austenite in dual phase steels. Alloying
elements are the only parameters accounted for in current critical cooling rate equations.
The tests showed that the critical cooling rate for the dual phase steels examined will be
dependent on more than just composition.

INTRODUCTION

Standard Jominy Test

The Jominy test is a standard test used for measuring the hardenability of steels. Figure 1
shows the standard Jominy test sample. The sample is 1” diameter and 4” long. To
perform the standard Jominy end-
quench test, the sample is heated to
above the austenitizing temperature
and held for one hour (temperatures
for common steels are specified by
ASTM A-255). The sample is then
removed from the furnace and
quenched at one end with flowing
Figure 1: Standard jominy sample water. In a standard Jominy test, the
cooling rate decreases as you move
away from the quenched end of the sample. Depending on the composition of the alloy,
this decreasing cooling rate may not be fast enough to transform all of the austenite into
martensite, and the sample will decrease in hardness along the length of the bar. Once
the bar has been quenched, opposite sides are ground or machined to be planar (about ¼”
in depth), and hardness tests are taken every 1/16” from the quenched end. This gives
what is called a hardness curve or H-band. Some typical hardness curves for different
steel compositions are shown below in Figure 2.
 3 of 16

Figure 2: Typical hardness curves

Dual-Phase Steels
Dual-phase steels have generated interest in the automotive industry because of their high
strength, high ductility and high work hardening rates1,2,3. Common high strength steels
that are used today for automotive application experience poor formability, an area where
dual phase steels excel. The dual phase steels have a potential to provide strong but light
weight parts for use in transportation and other industries. The weight reduction
translates into better fuel economy and therefore more environmentally sound
transportation. The increase in strength also allows for excellent dent and crash
resistance1.
The dual-phase steel considered in this project consists of a ferrite-martensite
uniformly mixed microstructure. According to Furukawa2, the martensite is usually
preferred to be of the low-carbon type which requires the bulk carbon content to be low
(less than 0.10 wt%). In order to achieve the ferrite-martensite microstructure, the
material is intercritically annealed at temperatures in the α+γ region. The intercritical
anneal temperature determines the volume fraction of austenite that will be formed during
annealing. The austenite formed during the intercritical anneal will undergo one or more
phase changes upon cooling. The critical cooling rate is the slowest possible cooling rate
at which all of the austenite will transform into martensite, and no other phase change
will occur.
 4 of 16

Determining the critical

cooling rate allows for the
slowest possible cooling rate that
will still achieve full austenite to
martensite transformation. A fast
cooling rate in industry would
require slower line speed and
therefore slower production.
Figure 3 shows three cooling
rates, the intermediate being the
critical cooling rate.
The compositions of the dual-
phase steels to be examined in
this research are given in Table 1
below.

Figure 3: Different cooling rates after IC anneal.

Steel %C %Mn %Si %P %Al %Cr+Mo %Nb %N

BDP 590 0.06 1.5 0.4 0.01 0.06 0.48 0.02 0.006
BDP 780 0.06 1.48 0.4 0.01 0.05 0.48 0.04 0.006
Table 1: Steel compositions to be examined

Critical Cooling Rate

Several equations have been developed that allow for calculation of the critical
cooling rate based on steel composition. The equations normally use the composition of
the steel to determine the shift of the CCT curves. Furthermore, no equations could be
found that include the niobium content of the steel, which will affect the hardenability
and therefore the critical cooling rate. Many of the equations are based on the manganese
equivalent such as:

Log (CR) = 3.95 – 1.73[Mneq] (Eqn 1)5

Where Mneq is given by:

Mneq = A(%Mn) + B(%Si) + C(%Mo) +… (Eqn 2)5

such that A, B, and C are constants. These equations include different elements that were
often the main alloying elements used for the steel and the carbon content is normally
constant, with the AC3 carbon content neglected.
There are also several equations that give a critical cooling rate for formation of
the desired dual-phase structure at a given temperature and volume fraction of austenite
such as:
 5 of 16

Log (CR) = 4.93 – 1.70[Mn] -1.34[Si] – 5.68[C] (Eqn 3)6

In all cases the coefficients to the alloy content are determined by their effect on the
hardenability of the steel. In equation 1 the carbon constant is assumed to be constant
(0.05%) for the steels used, but in equation three it can be seen that the carbon content
has the most effect on the hardenability of the steel. For this reason the carbon content is
calculated for the experiments to be performed. There are also equations that relate the
cooling rate to the ultimate tensile strength and composition 4, but the ultimate tensile
strength can be affected by so many other parameters that these equations will not be
used for this research.
After the intercritical anneal the microstructure consists of ferrite (both
recrystallized and non-recrystallized) and austenite. The austenite, upon cooling at the
critical cooling rate will avoid transformation into other phases and will transform into
martensite. The volume fraction of austenite that is formed will be the volume fraction of
martensite after cooling. This means that the intercritical annealing temperature is the
parameter that will control both the final volume fraction and composition of the
austenite prior to transformation. A higher temperature will form more austenite with
lower carbon content, while low intercritical temperatures will form less austenite with
higher carbon content. Therefore, the intercritical anneal temperature will also change
the required critical cooling rate to form martensite by varying the carbon present in the
austenite. From this it can be seen that the critical cooling rate will be dependent on
composition as well as intercritical annealing temperature.

EXPERIMENT
Modified Jominy
Cold-rolled sheet steels (~2mm in thickness) can not be tested using the standard Jominy
test. The introduction of cold work gives a higher potential for ferrite recrystallization.
ASTM A-255 specifies that Jominy samples that have undergone cold work prior to
machining are to be normalized before the Jominy test is performed. In order to examine
the effect of different cooling rates (and thereby determine the critical cooling rate) on
dual-phase steel sheets, the sheet would ideally be in the cold-rolled condition during
testing. Modifications to the standard Jominy test were done to allow the examination of
dual-phase sheet steels under many different cooling rates all within one sample.

One type 420 martensitic stainless steel Jominy specimen was cut in half along its length.
Approximately 2 mm of material was removed during the cutting process. Six recessed
holes were drilled into one half of the Jominy sample, and six smaller holes were drilled
and tapped to accept type 632 screws on the other half. The schematic used by the
machine shop is shown in Figure 4.
 6 of 16

Figure 4: Schematics used for machining

This modified Jominy tests allows for examining many different cooling rates after an
intercritical anneal using only one sample. The modified Jominy test was first performed
on a piece of 4140 steel. This was used to compare literature hardness values to our
experimental hardness values. The 4140 material was machined to a planar 1”x4”x2mm
piece. Six holes were drilled in the sample to match those of the connecting screw holes.
The sample was heated to 1550°F (as specified by ASTM) and held for 1 hour. The
sample was then quenched and hardness values were taken along the length from the
quenched end.

A second experiment was performed to determine the cooling rates at different positions
within the sample. Three k-type thermocouples were connected to a Lab View data
acquisition program to monitor temperatures within the sample during quenching. The
thermocouples were 1.5 mm in diameter, inserted into holes drilled in the sample at
5/16”, 1 ½”, and 2 5/8” from the quenched end. The holes were drilled as shown in
Figure 5.
 7 of 16

Figure 5: Thermocouple positions in sample

Temperatures were taken every ¼ second from each thermocouple.

Dual-Phase Experiments
The tests were performed using three different heat-treatment temperatures for each of
the dual phase compositions. Two of the temperatures fall in the intercritical region
(745°C and 785°C) and one temperature that should give 100% austenite (860°C). These
temperatures were calculated with the aid of J-Mat Pro. The 745°C intercritical anneal
was predicted to give ~20% austenite with a carbon content of 0.27% carbon. The 785°C
intercritical anneal was predicted to give approximately 40% austenite at 0.14% carbon.

The supplied dual phase steel sheets each had several 1”x 4” sections cut from them.
Each section had holes drilled to match the arrangement of holes in the modified Jominy.
A high temperature lubricant was used on the connecting screws to ensure that they could
be easily removed at the end of each experiment.

Hardness tests were performed on each sample after quenching. Tests were performed
using a standard Rockwell B scale.

Dual-phase samples were cut to examine microstructures at cooling rates of 30°C/s,

10°C/s, and 5°C/s (cooling rates at 700°C). The quenched end microstructures were also
examined (cooling rate of greater than 200°C/s). The locations of these cooling rates
were determined using Figure 8. All samples were mounted, polished, and etched with
2% nital. The samples were examined on both a PSEM (Personal SEM) and a Philips
XL-30 field emission scanning electron microscope. Volume fraction measurements
were done using a 120 point grid.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The hardness values obtained from the 4140 modified Jominy experiment were compared
to ASTM upper and lower hardness limits for 4140 steel in a standard Jominy test. The
values of the experimental data, and upper and lower ASTM limits are given below in
Figure 6.
 8 of 16

Hardness curves - 4140

80.0

60.0 avg
high lim
HRC

40.0
low lim
20.0 Poly. (avg)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
distance from quenched end
(1/16")
Figure 6: Hardness curve for experimental 4140

Figure 6 shows that only one point is outside of the ASTM specification. This point is at
a distance where holes were drilled in the sample to accommodate the connecting screws.

The data obtained from the sample with embedded thermocouples is given in Figures 7
and 8. When compared to work done by Wongpiromsarn7 on standard Jominy cooling
rates, the cooling rates near the quenched end in the modified Jominy were much higher.
This was most likely caused by thermal contraction and expansion of the pieces of the
modified Jominy. When the modified Jominy is heated, the pieces expand, once they
begin to cool during quenching, the pieces contract at the quenched end and leave a small
gap between the sample and the modified Jominy. However, this should not affect the
validity of the data as long as the cooling rates are known and consistent.

The type of curve seen for the cooling rates vs. distance from quenched end (Figure 8) is
the same for this experimental work and the work done by Wongpiromsarn7. This further
validates that the data obtained from the thermocouples is accurate.
 9 of 16

Time vs. Temp

1000
800 J5 Thermocouple
Temp (C)

600 J24 Thermocouple

400
J42 Thermocouple

200
0
0 200 400 600
Time (s)
Figure 7: Temperature-Time curves for thermocouple in sample

Cooling rate vs distance from quenched end

80.0

70.0
Literature data
60.0
Cooling rate (C/s)

Experimental data
50.0
Power (Literature data)
40.0
Power (Experimental
30.0
data)
20.0

10.0

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from quenched end (1/16")

Figure 8: Cooling rates (at 700C) for sample calculated using thermocouple data.
 10 of 16

The hardness tests did not show large changes in hardness over the length of the
specimen. Only the samples heat treated at 860°C showed a significant decrease in
hardness from the quenched end to the slow-cooled end. The samples containing 0.04%
Nb (BDP 780) did show higher hardness values than the samples containing 0.02% Nb
(BDP-590). A table of hardness values is given in Table 2. The J-position values denote
the distance from the quenched end in 1/16”.

HRB BDP 780 - 0.04 Nb BDP 590 - 0.02 Nb

JPOS 860 785 745 860 785 745
1 104 93 90 101 87 84
2 97 93 90 95 87 83
3 96 94 90 94 87 84
4 92 93 89 93 88 84
5 91 93 89 92 90 84
6 90 93 89 92 90 84
7 89 93 89 91 91 84
8 89 93 90 90 91 84
9 89 93 89 89 90 83
10 89 93 89 88 90 84
11 88 93 89 88 89 83
12 88 93 88 88 89 84
13 88 93 88 88 90 84
14 88 93 90 88 90 84
15 88 93 89 88 89 85
16 88 93 89 88 89 84
18 87 92 89 88 88 84
20 88 92 88 86 88 85
22 88 92 88 86 89 84
24 88 92 89 86 89 84
26 87 91 89 85 88 84
28 87 92 89 85 88 83
30 85 86 86 78 83 76
32 85 86 86 78 83 80
34 85 90 89 83 88 83
36 85 91 90 85 87 83
38 NA 92 90 86 88 78
40 NA 91 90 85 88 79
Table 2: Hardness data from dual-phase modified jominy test

The micrographs showed the general trends that were expected:

• Decreasing amount of martensite further from quenched end

• More martensite present in samples with higher heat-treatment temperatures
• More uniform martensite island size in samples with higher niobium content

There was significantly less martensite formed in the experiments than predicted by J-
Mat Pro. The reasons for this are not clear, but J-Mat Pro is equilibrium thermodynamic
modeling software, and there may not have been enough time in the experiments to reach
the predicted equilibrium states. Figures 9 – 32 show the micrographs taken from the
SEM. Figures 23 and 24 were taken on the PSEM, an all others were taken using the
Philips XL-30 field emission scanning electron microscope.
 11 of 16

BDP 60 - 745°C intercritical anneal

Predicted austenite formation = 20% containing 0.26% carbon

Figure 9: BDP 790, J1 postion (>200°C/s), 10% α’ Figure 10: BDP 790, J8 postion (30°C/s), 11% α’

Figure 11: BDP 790, J14 postion (10°C/s), 2% α’ Figure 12: BDP 790, J22 postion (5°C/s), 1% α’
 12 of 16

BDP 60 - 785°C intercritical anneal

Predicted austenite formation = 40% containing 0.14% carbon

Figure 13: BDP 790, J1 postion (>200°C/s), 28% α’ Figure 14: BDP 790, J8 postion (30°C/s), 13% α’

Figure 11: BDP 790, J1 positi

Figure 11: BDP 790, J1 positi

Figure 15: BDP 790, J14 postion (10°C/s), 13% α’ Figure 16: BDP 790, J22 postion (5°C/s), 1% α’
 13 of 16

BDP 60 - 860°C intercritical anneal

Predicted austenite formation = 100% containing 0.06% carbon

Figure 17: BDP 790, J1 postion (>200°C/s), 37% α’ Figure 18: BDP 790, J8 postion (30°C/s), 16% α’

Figure 19: BDP 790, J14 postion (10°C/s), 15% α’ Figure 20: BDP 790, J22 postion (5°C/s), 12% α’
 14 of 16

BDP 61 - 745°C intercritical anneal

Predicted austenite formation = 20% containing 0.26% carbon

Figure 21: BDP 580, J1 postion (>200°C/s) Figure 22: BDP 580, J8 postion (30°C/s)

Figure 23: BDP 580, J14 postion (10°C/s), 2000x Figure 24: BDP 580, J22 postion (5°C/s), 2000x
 15 of 16

BDP 61 - 785°C intercritical anneal

Predicted austenite formation = 40% containing 0.14% carbon

Figure 25: BDP 580, J1 postion (>200°C/s), 23% α’ Figure 26: BDP 580, J8 postion (30°C/s), 16% α’

Figure 27: BDP 580, J14 postion (10°C/s), 17% α’ Figure 28: BDP 580, J22 postion (5°C/s), 13% α’
 16 of 16

BDP 61 - 860°C intercritical anneal

Predicted austenite formation = 100% containing 0.06% carbon

Figure 29: BDP 580, J1 postion (>200°C/s), 39% α’ Figure 30: BDP580, J8 postion (30°C/s), 11% α’

Figure 31: BDP 580, J14 postion (10°C/s), 4% α’ Figure 32: BDP 580, J22 postion (5°C/s), <1% α’
 17 of 16

Several of the micrographs show a rough, dark-colored surface in areas that were expected to be
martensite. This is most likely bainite, as observed in the works of Pichler et al1. In dual-phase
applications, the phases are normally separated into hard and soft categories, and bainite would be
grouped with martensite as a hard phase.

CONCLUSIONS
The data gathered suggests that the modified Jominy test is a viable method for determining the critical
cooling rate of dual-phase steels. This method also allows for examination of the effects of microalloying
(niobium) elements on the microstructure. The results of the dual-phase testing done in this work gave
useful information that will be used in the determination of critical cooling rate equations.

Due to the problems seen with the thermal expansion and contraction of the modified Jominy, design
adjustments will likely be made to reduce or eliminate the possibility of water entering the quenched end
of the sample. There are several re-design options being evaluated:

• Use of non-transformable austenitic stainless steel to eliminate the volume expansion

during austenitizing and the volume contraction during quenching that is experienced in the
martensitic stainless steels.
• Capped or solid quenched end to eliminate the possibility of water entering the sample
• Liquid-phase encasing of sample inside modified Jominy to give more uniform thermal
gradients
• Fully encapsulated sample

A re-designed modified Jominy may be able to give exactly the results that are needed for the equations
(in industry there is a limited range of cooling rates that can be achieved). The validity of this method for
being able to examine a range of cooling rates in a thin, cold-rolled steel sample (the goal of this work)
was proven.
 18 of 16

1. Pichler, A., Traint, S., Arnoldner, G., Werner, E., Pippan, R. and Stiaszny, P. “Phase
Transformation During Annealing of a Cold-Rolled Dual Phase Steel Grade” ISS 42nd
MWSP Conf. Proc., VOL. XXXVII, 2000, 573 – 592.
2. Furukawa, Takashi “Dual-Phase Sheet Steel for Automotive Applications” Metal Progress,
December 1979, 36 - 39
3. Garcia, C.I., Cho, K., Gong, Y., Chen, T.R. and DeArdo, A.J. “Development of High
Strength, Low-Carbon, Nb-Bearing Dual-Phase Steels for Production on Continuous
Galvanizing Lines” The Basic Metals Processing Research Institute, University of
Pittsburgh, 1-6.
4. Lawson, R.D., Matlock, D.K. and Kraus, G. “Effect of Microstructure on the Deformation
Behavior and Mechanical Properties of Dual Phase Steel” TMS – AIME, Golden, CO
5. Mintz, B. “Hot Dip Galvanizing of Transformation Induced Plastically and other
Intercritically Annealed Steels” International Materials Reviews, 2001, Vol. 46 No.4, 169 –
172.
6. Furukawa, T. and Tanino, M. “Structure Formation and Mechanical Properties of
Intercritically Annealed or As-Hot-Rolled Dual-Phase Steels” Fundamental Research
Laboratories, Nippon Steel Corporation, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 211, Japan.
7. Wongpiromsarn, Tichakorn “Heat Treating Steel: Hardenability and Cooling Rates”
California Institute of Technology, Spring 2003, 3 – 8.