5.3 DETERMINATION OF HARDENABILITY 5.3.

1 GROSSMANNS HARDENABILITY CONCEPT

Grossmanns method of testing hardenability [3] uses a number of cylindrical steel bars of different diameters hardened in a given quenching medium. After sectioning each bar at midlength and examining it metallographically, the bar that has 50% martensite at its center is selected, and the diameter of this bar is designated as the critical diameter (Dcrit). The hardness value corresponding to 50% martensite will be determined exactly at the center of the bar of Dcrit. Other bars with diameters smaller than Dcrit have more than 50% martensite in the center of the cross section and correspondingly higher hardness, while bars having diameters larger than Dcrit attain 50% martensite only up to a certain depth as shown in Figure 5.5. The critical diameter Dcrit is valid for the quenching medium in which the bars have been quenched. If one varies the quenching medium, a different critical diameter will be obtained for the same steel. To identify a quenching medium and its condition, Grossmann introduced the quenching intensity (severity) factor H. The H values for oil, water, and brine under various rates of agitation are given in Table 5.1[4]. From this table, the large influence of the agitation rate on the quenching intensity is evident. To determine the hardenability of a steel independently of the quenching medium, Grossmann introduced the ideal critical diameter DI, which is defined as the diameter of a given steel that would produce 50% martensite at the center when quenched in a bath of quenching intensity H 1. Here, H 1 indicates a hypothetical quenching intensity that reduces the surface temperature of the heated steel to the bath temperature in zero time. Grossmann and his coworkers also constructed a chart, shown in Figure 5.6, that allows the conversion of any value of critical diameter Dcrit for a given H value to the corresponding value for the ideal critical diameter (DI) of the steel in question [2]. For example, after quenching in still water (H 1.0), a round bar constructed of steel A has a critical diameter (Dcrit) of 28 mm according to Figure 5.6. This corresponds to an ideal critical diameter (DI) of 48 mm. Another round bar, constructed of steel B, after quenching in oil (H 0.4), has a critical diameter (Dcrit) of 20 mm. Converting this value, using Figure 5.6, provides an ideal critical diameter (DI) of 52 mm. Thus, steel B has a higher hardenability than steel A. This indicates that DI is a measure of steel hardenability that is independent of the quenching medium.

60 Hardness, HRC

40 HRCcrit 50% M 20 D crit

0 f80 f60 f50 f40

FIGURE 5.5 Determination of the critical diameter Dcrit according to Grossmann. (From G. Spur (Ed.), rmebehandeln, Carl Hanser, Munich, 1987, p. 1012.) Handbuch der Fertigungstechnik, Band 4=2, Wa

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

TABLE 5.1 Grossmann Quenching Intensity Factor H

H Value (in.21) Method of Quenching No agitation Mild agitation Moderate agitation Good agitation Strong agitation Violent agitation Oil 0.250.30 0.300.35 0.350.40 0.400.50 0.500.80 0.801.10 Water 1.0 1.01.1 1.21.3 1.41.5 1.62.0 4.0 Brine 2.0 2.02.2

5.0

Source: Metals Handbook, 8th ed., Vol. 2, American Society for Metals, Cleveland, OH, 1964, p. 18.

5. 0 2. 1.0 0 0. 60 0. 40

240 Critical diameter Dcrit, mm 200 160 120 80 40 0 0 40

0.

20

0.10

0.01

80 120 160 200 240 280 Ideal critical diameter D I, mm

10 5. .0 0 0

320

360

48 Critical diameter Dcrit, mm 40

1. 0. 0 80

2.

0.40

32 24 16 8 0

Steel A
0.20

Steel B
0.10

0.01

16 24 32 40 48 56 Ideal critical diameter D I, mm

64

72

FIGURE 5.6 The chart for converting the values of the critical diameter Dcrit into the ideal critical diameter DI, or vice versa, for any given quenching intensity H, according to Grossmann and coworkers. (From K.E. Thelning, Steel and Its Heat Treatment, 2nd ed., Butterworths, London, 1984, p. 145.)

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Quenching intensity H

Quenching intensity H

0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.30 DI , in. 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 5 6 7 8 4 Grain size ASTM

10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Carbon content, % DI , mm

FIGURE 5.7 The ideal critical diameter (DI) as a function of the carbon content and austenite grain size for plain carbon steels, according to Grossmann. (From K.E. Thelning, Steel and its Heat Treatment, 2nd ed., Butterworths, London, 1984, p. 145.)

If DI is known for a particular steel, Figure 5.6 will provide the critical diameter of that steel for various quenching media. For low- and medium-alloy steels, hardenability as determined by DI may be calculated from the chemical composition after accounting for austenite grain size. First, the basic hardenability of the steel as a function of carbon content and austenite grain size is calculated from Figure 5.7 according to the weight percent of each element present. For example: if a steel has an austenite grain size of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 7 and the chemical composition C 0.25%, Si 0.3%, Mn 0.7%, Cr 1.1%, Mo 0.2%, then the basic value of hardenability from Figure 5.7 (in inches) is DI 0.17. The total hardenability of this steel is DI 0:17 1:2 3:3 3:4 1:6 3:7 in: (5:1)

For these calculations, it is presumed that the total amount of each element is in solution at the austenitizing temperature. Therefore the diagram in Figure 5.8 is applicable for carbon contents above 0.8% C only if all of the carbides are in solution during austenitizing. This is not the case, because conventional hardening temperatures for these steels are below the temperatures necessary for complete dissolution of the carbides. Therefore, decreases in the basic hardenability are to be expected for steels containing more than 0.8% C, compared to values in the diagram. Later investigations by other authors produced similar diagrams that account for this decrease in the basic hardenability that is to be expected for steels with more than 0.8% C, compared to the values shown in Figure 5.8 [6]. Although values of DI calculated as above are only approximate, they are useful for comparing the hardenability of two different grades of steel. The most serious objection to Grossmanns hardenability concept is the belief that the actual quenching intensity during the entire quenching process can be described by a single H value. It is well known that the heat transfer coefficient at the interface between the metal

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Multiplying factor 3.8

Multiplying factor 8.4

3.4 3.0 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.0 0

Mn Cr Ni 7.6 6.8 6.0 Si Mn (continued)

0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

Mo

5.2 4.4 3.6

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4.0

Alloy content, %

FIGURE 5.8 Multiplying factors for different alloying elements when calculating hardenability as DI value, according to AISI. (From K.E. Thelning, Steel and Its Heat Treatment, 2nd ed., Butterworths, London, 1984, p. 145.)

surface and the surrounding quenchant changes dramatically during different stages of the quenching process for a vaporizable fluid. Another difficulty is the determination of the H value for a cross-sectional size other than the one experimentally measured. In fact, H values depend on cross-sectional size [7]. Figure 5.9 shows the influence of steel temperature and diameter on H values for an 18Cr8Ni round bar quenched in water from 8458C [7]. It is evident that the H value determined in this way passed through a maximum with respect to terminal temperatures. It is also evident that H values at the centers of round bars decreased with increasing diameter. Values of the quenching intensity factor H do not account for specific quenchant and quenching characteristics such as composition, oil viscosity, or the temperature of the quenching bath. Table of H values do not specify the agitation rate of the quenchant either uniformly or precisely; that is, the uniformity throughout the quench tank with respect to mass flow or fluid turbulence is unknown. Therefore, it may be assumed that the tabulated H values available in the literature are determined under the same quenching conditions. This assumption, unfortunately, is rarely justified. In view of these objections, Siebert et al. [8] state: It is evident that there cannot be a single H-value for a given quenching bath, and the size of the part should be taken into account when assigning an H-value to any given quenching bath. 5.3.1.1 Hardenability in High-Carbon Steels

The hardenability effect of carbon and alloying elements in high-carbon steels and the case regions of carburized steels differ from those in low- and medium-carbon steels and are influenced significantly by the austenitizing temperature and prior microstructure (normalized or spheroidize-annealed). Using Grossmanns method for characterizing hardenability in terms of the ideal critical diameter DI, multiplying factors for the hardenability effects of Mn, Si, Cr, Ni, Mo, and Al were successfully derived [9] for carbon levels ranging from 0.75 to 1.10% C in single-alloy and multiple-alloy steels quenched at different austenitizing temperatures from 800 to 9308C. These austenitizing temperatures encompass the hardening temperatures of hypereutectoid tool steels, 1.10% C bearing steels, and the case regions of

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

100

Temperature, C 700 300 500

3.2 2.8 H value, in.1 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.2

A 1/2-in. (13-mm) round B 1-in. (25-mm) round C 1-1/2-in. (38-mm) round D 2-1/4-in. (57-mm) round E 3-in. (76-mm) round Water temperature 60F (16C) Center couples A

0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 H value, mm1

B C D

0.8
E

0.4 0.0 200 400

600 800

1000 1200

1400 1600

Temperature, F

FIGURE 5.9 Change of the H value with temperature and size of the round bar. Calculated from cooling curves measured at the center of bars made of 18Cr8Ni steel quenched in water from 8458C, according to Carney and Janulionis. (From D.J. Carney and A.D. Janulionis, Trans. ASM 43:480496, 1951.)

carburized steels. All of these steels, when quenched, normally contain an excess of undissolved carbides, which means that the quantity of carbon and alloying elements in solution could vary with the prior microstructure and the austenitizing conditions. The hardenability of these steels is influenced by the carbide size, shape, and distribution in the prior microstructure and by austenitizing temperature and time. Grain size exhibits a lesser effect because hardenability does not vary greatly from ASTM 6 to 9 when excess carbides are present. As a rule, homogenous high-carbon alloy steels are usually spheroidize-annealed for machining prior to hardening. Carburizing steel grades are either normalized, i.e., air-cooled, or quenched in oil directly from the carburizing temperature before reheating for hardening. So different case microstructures (from martensite to lamellar pearlite) may be present, all of which transform to austenite rather easily during reheating for hardening. During quenching, however, the undissolved carbides will nucleate pearlite prematurely and act to reduce hardenability. In spheroidize-annealed steel, the carbides are present as large spheroids, which are much more difficult to dissolve when the steel is heated for hardening. Therefore the amount of alloy and carbon dissolved is less when one starts with a spheroidized rather than a normalized or quenched microstructure. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that a spheroidized prior microstructure actually yields higher hardenability than a prior normalized microstructure, at least for austenitizing temperatures up to approximately 8558C. This effect occurs because larger carbides are not as efficient nuclei for early pearlite formation upon cooling as fine and lamellar carbides and the nuclei are present in lower numbers. With either prior microstructure, if strict control is maintained over austenitizing temperature and time, the solution of carbon and alloy can be reproduced with sufficient consistency to permit the

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

7 Indicated hardenability D I 6 50% Martensite 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 99.9% Martensite 3 4 5 6 Hardenability D I, 50% martensite 7 95% Martensite

FIGURE 5.10 Average relationships among hardenability values (expressed as DI) in terms of 50, 95, and 99.9% martensite microstructures. (From Metals Handbook, ASM International, Cleveland, OH, 1948, p. 499.)

derivation of multiplying factors. For all calculations, it was important to establish whether pearlite or bainite would limit hardenability because the effects of some elements on these reactions and on hardenability differ widely. The multiplying factors were calculated according to a structure criterion of DI to 90% martensite plus retained austenite (or 10% of nonmartensitic transformation) and with reference to a base composition containing 1.0% C and 0.25% of each of the elements Mn, Si, Cr, and Ni, with 0% Mo to ensure that the first transformation product would not be bainite. The 50% martensite hardenability criterion (usually used when calculating DI) was selected by Grossmann because this structure in medium-carbon steels corresponds to an inflection in the hardness distribution curve. The 50% martensite structure also results in marked contrast in etching between the hardened and unhardened areas and in the fracture appearance of these areas in a simple fracture test. For many applications, however, it may be necessary to through-harden to a higher level of martensite to obtain optimum properties of tempered martensite in the core. In these instances, D1 values based on 90, 95, or 99.9% martensite must be used in determining the hardenability requirements. These D1 values can be either experimentally determined or estimated from the calculated 50% martensite values using the relationships shown in Figure 5.10, which were developed for medium-carbon low-alloy steels [10]. A curve for converting the D1 value for the normalized structure to the DI value of the spheroidizeannealed structure as shown in Figure 5.11 is also available. New multiplying factors for D1 values were obtained from the measured Jominy curves using the conversion curve modified by Carney shown in Figure 5.12. The measured DI values were plotted against the percent content of various elements in the steel. These curves were then used to adjust the DI value of the steels whose residual content did not conform to the base composition. Once the DI value of each analysis was adjusted for residuals, the final step was to derive the multiplying factors for each element from the quotient of the steels D I and that of the base as follows: fMn where DI is the initial reference value. D I at x % Mn DI (5:2)

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

D I, Normalized prior structure, in.

3 4 5 D I, Annealed prior structure, in.

FIGURE 5.11 Correlation between hardenability based on normalized and spheroidize-annealed prior structures in alloyed 1.0% C steels. (From C.F. Jatczak, Metall. Trans. 4:22672277, 1973.)

Excellent agreement was obtained between the case hardenability results of carburized steels assessed at 1.0% carbon level and the basic hardenability of the 1.0% C steels when quenched from the normalized prior structure. It was thus confirmed that all multiplying factors obtained with prior normalized 1.0% C steels could be used to calculate the hardenability of all carburizing grades that are reheated for hardening following carburizing. Jatczak and Girardi [11] determined the difference in multiplying factors for prior normalized and prior spheroidize-annealed structures as shown in Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.14. The influence of austenitizing temperature on the specific hardenability effect is evident. The multiplying factors shown in Figure 5.15 through Figure 5.18 were principally determined in compositions where only single-alloy additions were made and that were generally pearlitic in initial transformation behavior. Consequently, these multiplying factors may be applied to

70 60 50 DI 40 30 20 10
80

70 60 32 2.0

40

48 56 Sixteenths 3.0 in.

64 4.0

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 2.0

Distance from end-quenched endsixteenths .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Distance from end-quenched endin.

FIGURE 5.12 Relationship between Jominy distance and DI. (From C.F. Jatczak, Metall. Trans. 4:22672277, 1973.)

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

6 5 Multiplying factor 4 3 2

Normalized prior structure Base : DI 1.42 Mo

1.00

0.90 Carbon factor 0.80

0.70 Si-Multi-alloy steels

0.75

1.25 1.50 Mn Cr-Carburizing steels Cr Si-Single-alloy steels Ni %C

1.00

1
Mn, Cr, Si

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 Percent element

FIGURE 5.13 Multiplying factors for calculation hardenability of high-carbon steels of prior normalized structure. (From C.F. Jatczak and D.J. Girardi, Multiplying Factors for the Calculation of Hardenability of Hypereutectoid Steels Hardened from 17008F, Climax Molybdenum Company, Ann Arbor, MI, 1958.)

the calculation of hardenability of all single-alloy high-carbon compositions and to those multialloyed compositions that remain pearlitic when quenched from these austenitizing conditions. This involves all analyses containing less than 0.15% Mo and less than 2% total of Ni plus Mn and also less than 2% Mn, Cr, or Ni when they are present individually. Of course, all of the factors given in Figure 5.15 through Figure 5.18 also apply to the calculation of case hardenability of similar carburizing steels that are rehardened from these temperatures following air cooling or integral quenching.

6 5 Multiplying factor 4 3 2 1 0

Annealed prior structure Base : DI 1.42

1.00

0.90 Carbon factor 0.80 Mo 0.70 Si-Multi-alloy steels Mn Ni Mn, Cr, Si

0.75

1.00

1.25 %C

1.50

Si-Single-alloy steels Cr Ni

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00 1.25 1.50 Percent element

1.75

2.00

2.25

FIGURE 5.14 Multiplying factors for calculation of hardenability of high-carbon steels of prior spheroidize-annealed structure. (From C.F. Jatczak and D.J. Girardi, Multiplying Factors for the Calculation of Hardenability of Hypereutectoid Steels Hardened from 17008F, Climax Molybdenum Company, Ann Arbor, MI, 1958.)

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

1.00 0.90 0.80 Multiplying factor 0.70 0.60

1475

4 5 6 7 8 1525 1575 1700

0.50 0.40

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60 0.70 0.80 Percent carbon

0.90

1.00

1.10

FIGURE 5.15 Multiplying factors for carbon at each austenitizing condition. Data plotted on the lefthand side are data from Kramer for medium-carbon steels with grain size variation from ASTM 4 to ASTM 8. (From C.F. Jatczak, Metall. Trans. 4:22672277, 1973.)

3.5
Kramer

Manganese 3.0
1700 1575 1525

2.5

Multiplying factor

2.0
1475

1.5

1.0 Chromium
Kramer 1700 1700

2.5

2.0
15251575

1.5
1475

1.0

0.25

0.50

0.75 1.00 1.25 Percent element

1.50

1.75

2.00

FIGURE 5.16 Effect of austenitizing temperature on multiplying factors for Mn and Cr at high-carbon levels (Kramer data for medium-carbon steels). (From C.F. Jatczak, Metall. Trans. 4:22672277, 1973.)

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

1700

5.0 Multiplying factor

Molybdenum

4.0
Kramer

3.0

1575

1475 1525

2.0

1.0 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Percent molybdenum 1.25 1.50

FIGURE 5.17 Effect of austenitizing temperature on multiplying factors for Mo at high carbon levels. (From C.F. Jatczak, Metall. Trans. 4:22672277, 1973.)

Aluminum 2.0
14751700

1.5

Kramer

1.0 Silicon Multiplying factor 2.5

1700 1700 Multialloy

2.0
1475 1525 Multialloy 1575

Kramer

1.5

14751575

1.0 Nickel 2.0

Kramer 1700

1.5
14751575

1.0

0.25

0.50

0.75 1.00 1.25 Percent element

1.50

1.75

2.00

FIGURE 5.18 Effect of austenitizing temperature on multiplying factors for Si, Ni, and Al at high-carbon levels. (Arrow on Al curve denotes maximum percentage studies by Kramer.) (From C.F. Jatczak, Metall. Trans. 4:22672277, 1973.)

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

For steels containing more Mo, Ni, Mn, or Cr than the above percentages, the measured hardenability will always be higher than calculated with the single-alloy multiplying factors because these steels are bainitic rather than pearlitic and also because synergistic hardenability effects have been found to occur between certain elements when present together. The latter effect was specifically noted between Ni and Mn, especially in steels made bainitic by the addition of 0.15% or more Mo and that also contained more than 1.0% Ni. The presence of synergistic effects precluded the use of individual multiplying factors for Mn and Ni, as the independence of alloying element effects is implicit in the Grossmann multiplying factor approach. This difficulty, however, was successfully surmounted by computing combined Ni and Mn factors as shown in Figure 5.19. The factors from Figure 5.15 through Figure 5.18 can also be used for high-carbon steels that are spheroidize-annealed prior to hardening. However, the calculated DI value must be converted to the annealed DI value at the abscissa on Figure 5.11. The accuracy of hardenability prediction using the new factors has been found to be within +10% at DI values as high as 660 mm (26.0 in.).

50
80

.80
60 40 % Nickel 30 40

40 30 20

30 Mn

.70 .60 .50 .0 .30 Mn .80

20 20

Combinded Ni x Mn multiplying factor

10 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10

14758F (8008C) 80 60 40 20 20 % Nickel 30 40 30 Mn

.70 .60 .50 .40 .30 Mn

15258F (8308C) 80 60 40 20 20 % Nickel 30 40 30 Mn

.80

.70 .60 .50 .40 .30 Mn

15758F (8558C)

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Percent nickel

FIGURE 5.19 Combined multiplying factor for Ni and Mn in bainitic high-carbon steels quenched from 800 to 8558C, to be used in place of individual factors when composition contains more than 1.0% Ni and 0.15% Mo. (From C.F. Jatczak, Metall. Trans. 4:22672277, 1973.)

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.