quench.
qxd 6/28/04 8:07 AM Page 1
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 São Paulo
São Carlos, Brazil
George E. Totten*
G.E. Totten & Assoc., LLC
Seattle, Wash.
* ASM Fellow and member,
ASM Heat Treating Society
HEAT TREATING PROGRESS • JULY/AUGUST 2004
UNIFORM
AGITATION
6
raditionally, nearly every heat
treater learns that there are two
critical temperature ranges in heat
treating. One is the temperature
range for the pearlitic transforma-
tion, typically about 600 to 500°C,
and the other is the temperature
range where the martensitic start
temperature occurs, which is about 300
to 200°C for carbon steels. Typically, it
is recommended that the cooling rate
in the 600 to 500°C range be maximized
to ensure optimal hardness and the
cooling rate in the 300 to 200°C 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 in-
crease 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 trans-
formation region. In other words,
volume increases due to martensitic
formation do not lead to the develop-
ment of internal stresses. Rather, the
development of internal stresses is af-
fected more significantly by the non-
simultaneous volume increase within
the steel during quenching (because
of nonuniform cooling). This is a crit-
ically important point that is seldom
adequately addressed either in heat
800
Temperature, °C
Temperature, °C
600
Center
400
200 Surface
(a) aa’ b b’
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.
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 in-
creasing carbon content.2
Kavskii and Zhelokhovtseva have
shown that the degree of nonunifor-
mity occurring during quenching can
be estimated by considering a section
designated as ab in the steel.1 The de-
gree of deformation is determined by
the relative volume of the transformed
phase, which is dependent on the rate
of cooling in the martensitic transfor-
mation 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 deforma-
tion 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 in-
crease in cracking. Thus, the vS/vC
ratio can be taken as a quantitative
800
600
Center
400
Surface
200
(b) a a’ b b’
27
quench.qxd 6/28/04 8:07 AM Page 2
Table 1 — Dependence of steel cracking during quenching on
cooling rate in the martensite transformation region
Centerline cooling rate in Number of cracked
Quenchant1 300–200°C range, °C/s specimens out of 1002
Steel 453,4 (~ AISI 1045)
Water 150
Oil 10.4
Oil with USV, p = 5 atm 21
Oil with USV, p = 10 atm 61
Oil with USV, p = 15 atm 76
Oil with USV, p = 20 atm 90
Oil with USV, p = 25 atm 144
Steel U83,4 (~AISI 1080)
Water 65
Oil 6 2
Oil with USV, p = 5 atm 25
Oil with USV, p = 10 atm 29
Oil with USV, p = 15 atm 35
Oil with USV, p = 20 atm 44
Oil with USV, p = 25 atm 52
Steel U103,4 (~1% C carbon steel)
Water 66
Oil 6.3
Oil with USV, p = 5 atm 33
Oil with USV, p = 10 atm 45
Oil with USV, p = 15 atm 52
Oil with USV, p = 20 atm 64
Oil with USV, p = 25 atm 60
1. Agitation and effective heat transfer were supplied using a hydrodynamic radiator and ultrasonic agitation. 2. The test spec-
imen 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 840°C; those of Steel U8 and U10,
800°C. 4. The compositions of the three steels: Steel 45 (0.42–0.50 C, 0.17–0.37 Si, 0.5–0.8 Mn, <0.04 S, <0.04 P, <0.25 Cr, <0.25
Ni); Steel U8 (0.75–0.84 C, 0.15–0.30 Si, 0.15–0.30 Mn, 0.15 Cr); and Steel U10 (~1 C, 0.15–0.35 Si, 0.15–0.35 Mn, <0.20
Cr).
measure of uniformity where quench-
Amplifier ing uniformity is approached as vS/vC
S SS
approaches 1.1
Quench
One reason the problem of quench
uniformity is not (or inadequately) ad-
Oscillator
dressed in quench process design is
that flow directionality and turbulence
SSS SS S at the cooling metal interface provided
Transducer by current agitation methods (such as
propeller mixers with or without draft
tubes or water sprays) is typically un-
Fig. 2 — Typical ultrasonic quenching known and difficult to determine. In
system with 20 Hz transducers arranged at this article, a number of lesser-known
the periphery of the cylindrical quench tank. methods of supplying agitation that
The transducers are welded at a stress antinode. provide substantial improvements in
flow uniformity during quenching
will be discussed. These include: ul-
trasonic, 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 vi-
brations 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
28
vibrations are defined as those occur-
ring at greater than 16 kHz up to ap-
proximately 100 MHz (100 million cy-
cles per second).
The mechanism of ultrasound prop-
agation varies with the wave fre-
quency. Low frequencies propagate
25 in spherical patterns with equal in-
None tensity in every direction. Higher fre-
None
quencies (typically greater than 20
None
None kHz) tend to propagate directionally,
1 like a beam.
None Harvey studied the quench severity,
as measured by the Grossman H-
value, of different quench media and
75 agitation methods.3,4 Figure 2 illus-
trates the cylindrical, 20 kHz ultrasonic
2 quench system that was used. The cri-
3 terion is to provide an ultrasonic fre-
2
quency sufficient to produce cavita-
3
2 tion throughout the fluid medium.
The transducers, which may be mag-
netorestrictive or piezoelectric ceramic,
65 were mounted around the periphery
2 of the tank to focus the waves toward
3 the center. It was reported that lower
2 frequencies could be used, but the
1 sound level was objectionable. Table
2 2 provides a summary of the level of
2
quench severity possible with this ul-
trasonic agitation system that was sig-
nificantly greater than that achievable
with “violent” propeller agitation.3,4
Harvey3; Li, et al.5; and others2 have
reported that ultrasonic agitation pro-
duces substantial reduction in distor-
tion 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 ag-
itation will produce a substantially more uni-
form quench.
HEAT TREATING PROGRESS • JULY/AUGUST 2004
quench.qxd 6/28/04 8:08 AM Page 3

Clamping Intercontact Table 2 — Grossman H-values of different quenchants with

current-conducting connector
contact Part varying degrees of agitation
Quenchant Grossman H-Value
Oil
Still quench 0.25–0.30
Violent agitation 0.80–1.10
Ultrasonic agitation 1.65
Brine
Current-conducting busbar
Still quench 2.0
Fig. 4 — Schematic of a device to apply an Violent agitation 5.0
electric field to a part during quenching. Ultrasonic agitation 7.5
Hot salt at 205°C (400°F)
cooling hot-metal surface. This leads
to nonuniform thermal gradients that Still quench 0.30
cause increased distortion and Violent agitation 1.20
cracking, as schematically illustrated Ultrasonic agitation 1.80
in Fig. 2. The data in Table 2 show the
advantage of using ultrasonic agita- 1000
tion for the reduction of steel cracking
when faster cooling rates than those Oil without field
800
achievable with a conventional oil
quench are required to reach the de-
Temperature, °C

sired hardness. 600 Oil with field

Quenching in an electric field 400

Currently, the primary focus of
Water
cracking and distortion prevention is
200
the selection of quenching media that
produce cooling rates intermediate be-
tween those provided by water and oil 2 4 6 8
in the martensitic transformation range. Time, s
In some cases, this is achieved with the Fig. 5 — Variation of cooling speed by the application of an electric field.
use of aqueous polymer solutions.
However, this engineering approach vapor-blanket cooling and produces
10–4
is expensive compared with oil, and it a more uniform quench.
requires the inventory and use of var- The interdependence of an applied
ious quenchants in the heat treat shop. electric field and the fluid medium
One potential solution to these prob- was illustrated by Shimbov, et al. using 8

lems, with the added advantage of a X-ray diffraction measurements, as

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 elec-
tric field.7 Interestingly, uniform hard-
ness 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 ini-
tially and reduced later in the cooling
process — such as in the martensitic
transformation region. Note that the
application of the electric field reduces
HEAT TREATING PROGRESS • JULY/AUGUST 2004
shown in Fig. 6, for different quen-
chants without an applied electric field 6
and also with the application of a 21
kV/cm field.8 The results show that
the application of an electric field in- 4
creases the residual stress. Bershtein
demonstrated significantly more uni-
form hardness throughout the 2
quenched specimen when quenching
was performed in the presence of an
electric field.
A B C
Quenching in a magnetic field
Fluids containing magnetic media Fig. 6 — Variation in microstresses at the
such as a colloidal solution of mag- surface of a 1045 carbon steel test specimen for:
netite (with a particle size of about 10 A, non-heat treated specimen; B, water without
mm) in water may be used to quench an electric field; and C, water with a 21 kV/cm
electric field.
structural steels.9 Chigarev showed
that the application of an external
magnetic field improved surface wet-
ting of the magnetic media on the sur-
face, thus facilitating more uniform
nucleate boiling.10 Mirkin, et al.
showed that the vapor-blanket film
29
quench.qxd 6/28/04 8:08 AM Page 4
was destabilized in the presence of a
magnetic field. Together, these factors
illustrate that quenching in the pres-
ence of a magnetic field not only per-
mits the control of cooling rate, but
also leads to a more uniform quench.9
Mirkin’s 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 hard-
ness also increases with the concentra-
tion of the magnetic particles.
• More uniform hardness was ob-
tained when quenching in the mag-
netic media in the presence of a mag-
netic field.
Conclusions
Uniform agitation of the quenchant
is a critically important control pa-
30 Circle 20 or visit www.adinfo.cc
rameter in optimizing distortion con-
trol and reducing steel cracking. This
is difficult to achieve using more tra-
ditional means of controlling flow in
a quench tank, such as the use of
sprays and propeller pumps. The use
of ultrasonics and electric and mag-
netic fields may provide more uni-
form 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 tradi-
tional 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. 111–113.
2. “Elimination of Quenching Cracks by
Means of Optimization of Cooling Con-
ditions,” by R.K. Zhelokhovtseva: Steel
In The USSR, 1985, Vol. 15, p. 238–239.
3. “Other Quenching Processes,” by G.E.
Circle 21 or visit www.adinfo.cc
Totten, C.E. Bates, and N.A. Clinton:
Chapter 8 in Handbook of Quenchants and
Quenching Technology, 1993, ASM Inter-
national, Materials Park, Ohio, p.
291–338.
4. “Ultrasonic Quenching,” by R.F.
Harvey: Metal Treating, August/Sep-
tember 1966, p. 3–5.
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. 6–10.
6. “Regulating the Cooling Rate in the
Hardening of Steels,” by L.I. Bershtein,
A.S. Siper, and Yu.L. Bershtein: Met-
allovedenie I Termicheskaya Obrabotka Met-
allov, 1990, No. 6, p. 16–17.
7. “Quenching With an Electric Assist”:
The Iron Age, Nov. 4, 1965, p. 82–83.
8. “Quenching of Metals in an Electric
Field,” by A.A. Skimbov, I.A. Kozhuk-
har, and N.N. Morar: Sov. Surf. Eng.
Appl. Electrochem., 1989, No. 2, p.
136–138.
9. “Equipment and Method for
Quenching Steels in a Magnetic Field,”
by L.I. Mirkin, S.A. Shesterikov, and
A.Ya. Simonovskiy: Izv. Vuzov, Machi-
nostr., 1993, No. 6, p. 30–32.
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. 720–723.