See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272505492

Quench factor characterization of steel hardening: a review

Article · September 2014

CITATION READS

1 2,507

4 authors:

Rosa L. Simencio Otero Walker Roberto Otero

University of São Paulo Tecumseh
28 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

George Totten Lauralice C.F. Canale

Portland State University University of São Paulo
200 PUBLICATIONS   2,328 CITATIONS    162 PUBLICATIONS   835 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modification of thermoplasticized starch by reactive extrusion (REX) using vegetable oils View project

Influence of Agitation Rate on Residual Stresses and Distortion on Quenched AISI 5160 Steel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rosa L. Simencio Otero on 02 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Mech. Eng. Autom. International Journal of
Volume 1, Number 3, 2014, pp. 119-128 Mechanical Engineering
Received: June 2, 2014; Published: September 25, 2014 and Automation

Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A

Review

Rosa Lucia Simencio Otero1, Walker Roberto Otero2, George Edward Totten3 and Lauralice C.F. Canale1
1. Department of Materials Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, São Carlos/SP 13563-120, Brazil
2. Manufacturing Area, Tecumseh do Brasil Ltda., São Carlos/SP 13565-900, Brazil
3. Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Texas A & M University, Seattle, Washington 98103, USA

Abstract: A quench factor, Q, has been derived that quantifies the overall severity of the steel hardening process—quench severity
by interrelating steel hardenability with quenching variables including: the specific quenchant being used, agitation, bath temperature,
etc. In this analysis, quench severity is quantified by a so-called “quench factor” (Q) that is a single numerical value that effectively
indicates the extent to which a given steel can be hardened. This article provides a description of the concept and an overall review of
applications where it has been successfully applied.

Key words: Quench factor, hardening, hardenability, H-value, Q-value, quenchant.

1. Introduction trial and error.

Heat treatment of steel involves heating to an
elevated temperature to facilitate transformation to
austenite which is subsequently followed by a
controlled cooling process (quenching) to obtain the
desired microstructure and properties. The
microstructures obtained are cooling-rate dependent.
Heat treatment is necessary in order to achieve the
desired hardness, strength, toughness, and other
important properties. Most finished parts constructed
from carbon, low-alloy and high-alloy steel are heat
treat treated before using.
Successful hardening depends on the hardenability
of the steel composition, geometry of the part, quenching
system and on the heat treating process used.
Improved quenching practices permit the use of less
hardenable, less expensive steel to achieve the desired
properties. The selection and development of these
practices, however, is often arbitrary and dependent on
Corresponding author: Rosa Lucia Simencio Otero, Ph.D.,
research fields: steel quenching, lubrication and analytical
chemistry. E-mail: rosa_simencio@yahoo.com.br.
Traditionally, one of the most common numerical
expressions for quench severity is the Grossmann
H-value. Grossmann and co-workers following
Russell’s earlier published work demonstrated a
correlation of as-quenched hardness of round bars
with calculated cooling times [1-3]. In this work, the
preference was to use bar diameters instead of radii
and therefore, they defined the term H as
ℎ
=
2
where
 The units of H are usually given as m-1;
 h is the interfacial heat transfer coefficient
between the hot metal surface and the quenchant with
units of (W/m2K);
 λ is the thermal conductivity of the steel with
units of (W/mK). In this relationship, it is assumed
that the change in thermal conductivity with
temperature is sufficiently small that it is treated as a
temperature independent constant;
 Since Grossmann preferred the use of bar diameters
instead of radii, the value of “2” was introduced in the
120 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review
denominator.
This equation reflects the ability of a quenchant to
remove heat from the surface of the steel being
quenched. The H-value of unagitated water at 18 °C
(64 °F) is assigned the H-value of 1.0. However, it is
important to understand that for vaporizable
quenchants such as water, petroleum oil, and aqueous
polymer solutions that this equation for H-value
assumes a linear cooling pathway or Newtonian
cooling. However, the heat transfer coefficient varies
substantially over the entire cooling range due to three
predominating cooling mechanisms. For unagitated
water at room temperature, the resulting characteristic
heat transfer coefficients for each cooling phase have
been reported as: film boiling 100-250 W/m2K;
nucleate boiling 10-20 kW/m2K; and convective
cooling—approximately 700 W/m2K [4]. Variation of
the H-value throughout the different stages of the
cooling process was reported earlier by Carney and
Janulionis [5]. Clearly, when the heat transfer
coefficient can vary so greatly throughout the
quenching process when using vaporizable quenchants,
a linear, Newtonian cooling treatment of this process
is inadequate and therefore this is a primary limitation
of the use of Grossmann H-values to predict
as-quenched steel hardness.
Additional limitations to the use of Grossmann
H-values to compare the ability of various different
quenching media to harden steel include [6]:
 Grossmann H-values only refer to quench
severity over a very narrow temperature region
1,300 °F (704 °C) of the steel transformation process.
Although H-values are intended to indicate the ability
of a quenchant to harden steel, they do not account for
the cooling time required to achieve this process. To
properly account for cooling time, a correlation
between the quenching time-temperature cooling
curve and the steel transformation curve must be
performed. Note: Although the cooling rate at 704 °C,
typically referred to as the Jominy Equivalent Cooling
Rate, is traditionally used, the cooling rate over the
temperature interval of 500-700 °C is often more
preferred [7];
 Grossmann H-values only reflect the relative
ability of a quenchant to harden steel. They do not
reflect the propensity of the quenchant to cause
cracking or increased distortion.
To estimate the propensity for cracking or even
through-hardening, the total cooling process must be
considered. H-values reveal nothing about thermal and
transformational stress generation from the quenching
process.
Cooling curve analysis is considered to be one of
the best methods to assess quench severity [8]. One
method of interrelating a cooling time-temperature
curve with as-quenched steel hardness is to utilize
QFA (quench factor analysis) [9]. QFA has been used
to successfully predict as-quenched hardness for
carbon steel and a limited number of low-alloy steels
including: AISI 4130 [10], and 4140 [10, 11], 1045
[10, 12] and 5140 [13]. QFA was also used to predict
Jominy hardness as a function of position for AISI
4130 [14].
The use of QFA to predict the as-quenched
hardness of carbon and low-alloy steel will be
discussed here. The use of quench factors as a
single-value parameter alternative to Grossmann
H-values to characterize the relative ability of a
quenching medium and quenching process to harden
steel will also be discussed here.
2. Experimental
To experimentally determine quench factors, a
Type 304 austenitic stainless steel probe of the desired
section sizes, such as bar probes of the desired
cross-sectional diameter where the length is at least 4
times the diameter to approximate an infinite cylinder
are used. An advantage of QFA is that the material
used for probe construction is an austenitic stainless
steel probes constructed from such as Type 304
austenitic stainless steel can be reused and the cooling
time-temperature curve database can be used for any
 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review
steel alloy where the desired transformation-property
temperature-time property data is available. The
probes are instrumented with a Type K spring-loaded
thermocouple inserted to the geometric center to
assure contact between the thermocouple and steel
throughout the entire quenching cycle. A ¾ inch
stainless steel tube is TIG welded to one end of the bar
to protect the thermocouple from the quenchant and to
serve as a handle for transferring the probe.
The probes are heated to the desired austenitizing
temperature in an electrically-heated muffle furnace.
The quench tank will contain a sufficient volume,
often approximately 20 gal. (75 L), to minimize the
temperature increase upon probe immersion into the
quenchant. The quenchant bath temperature is
controlled, usually by the use of in-line heating
elements and water-cooled copper coils. The
quenchant velocity is controlled by a variable speed
pump. The analog signal from the thermocouple is
converted to a digital value using an A/D converter
card and a personal computer. The cooling curve
digital time-temperature data is saved for subsequent
computational work.
3. Discussion
3.1 Quench Factor Correlations
The quench factor is based on the Avrami or
“Additivity” rule. Scheil first proposed the additivity
rule to describe incubation or nucleation during phase
transformation [15]. Avrami continued this analysis
and showed that, when the nucleation rate is
proportional to the growth rate, the additivity rule is
applicable [16, 17]. Avrami developed different
expressions to describe the rate of transformation
during phase changes depending upon whether there
are few or many nuclei present and upon the type of
phase growth that occurs. Transformation-rate laws
were derived for transformations that nucleate on
grain boundary surfaces, grain edges, and grain
corners.
121
Cahn showed that transformations that nucleate
heterogeneously often obey the Avrami rule according
to rate laws that could be calculated from isothermal
transformation data [18, 19]. Holloman and Jaffe
acknowledged the potential applicability of the
Avrami principle but concluded that the agreement
between calculation and experiment was imprecise for
a plain-carbon steel and a
chromium-nickel-molybdenum steel [20]. Kirkaldy
used the Avrami principle and compared the predicted
start of the transformation curve with that observed
experimentally for nine different steels. Good
agreement between the two was found despite
uncertainties in the experimental curves and the
assumptions made to calculate theoretical curves [21].
Umemoto et al. studied effects of section size and
austenite grain size on transformation rate in steel and
found the additivity rule to be approximately correct
during step-quenching [22]. Umemoto also applied the
additivity rule to the transformation of eutectoid steel
and was able to obtain equations describing the
hardenability H-values that gave similar, but slightly
lower, than those of Grossmann [23].
Evancho and Staley used the Avrami principle to
develop an expression describing precipitation
kinetics in aluminum alloys. An expression was
derived that could be used to predict strength from the
shape of a continuous cooling curve and the
precipitation kinetics of the alloy being hardened
[24-26]. The general technology for heat treating
aluminum alloys using the quench factor concept was
further described by Archambault et al. [27].
Generally, long times are required for carbon
diffusion in steels at high temperature because solute
supersaturation is low and, consequently, the
thermodynamic driving force for diffusion is low. At
intermediate temperatures, however, the undercooling
and thermodynamic driving force are high, and the
time required to achieve a particular amount of
transformation is low, typically a few seconds for
carbon and low-alloy steels. Pearlite nucleation
122 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review

usually occurs first along grain boundaries because of the quench factor decreases. The critical value is
less lattice strain is necessary, and diffusion rates are the maximum value of the quench factor, Q, that will
higher than within grains. At still lower temperatures, result in the desired hardness or strength and this
diffusion rates decrease and bainite or martensite value can be defined in terms of the maximum
formation begins. Martensite is often the most allowable amount of transformation during cooling.
commonly desired transformation product in many Table 1 provides an illustration of the reciprocal
quenched steels. Quenching must produce sufficiently relationship between as-quenched hardness and the
high cooling rates at elevated temperatures to avoid value of Q for AISI 5140 for seven different
ferrite and pearlite formation and retain carbon in the quenching conditions [13].
austenite until martensitic transformation begins. Quench factors are calculated from digital
A noteworthy advantage of QFA, relative to the time-temperature (cooling curve) data and a CT function
classic Grossmann H-value approach, is that a single
number is obtained that interrelates the cooling rate
produced by a quenchant and the transformation rate
of the alloy as described by the TTP
(time-temperature-property) curve as illustrated in Fig.
1. The TTP curve is the mathematical representation
of the start of a transformation curve that influences a
property such as hardness or strength. In practice, the
quenching conditions for the steel of interest must be
adjusted to achieve the minimum hardness or strength
required by specification.
There is a reciprocal relationship between the
Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the method for calculating
quench factor (Q) that is obtained (see subsequent a quench factor which interrelates the cooling
discussion) with both hardness and strength. Typically time-temperature exhibited by the quenchant being
hardness and strength increases as the numerical value analyzed to TTP curve for the steel alloy of interest.

Table 1 Cooling rate, quench factor and as-quenched hardness interrelationship for AISI 5140 with different quenching
conditions1.
Quenchant Probe Quench bath Agitation Cooling rate at Q-factor Predicted Actual hardness
diameter temperature rate (m/s) 700 °C 200 °C hardness HRC
(mm) (ºC) (°C/s) (°C/s) HRC
Water 12.7 48 0.25 162 151 9.2 53.5 53.1
Water 25.4 26 0.25 111 41 29.2 48.4 46.0
Water 38.1 32 0.51 57 20 63.1 40.9 40.5
20% UCON 38.1 48 0.51 33 8 107.4 32.7 33.0
Quenchant E
Conventional oil 38.1 65 0.51 32 7 139.6 27.8 29.5
Accelerated oil 38.1 65 0.51 43 10 88.6 36.0 34.0
Martempering oil 38.1 148 0.51 38 4 125.3 29.9 31.0
1
Austenitization temperature = 843 °C, Quench probe was Type 304 stainless steel with a thermocouple at the geometric center and
the length was at least 4 times the diameter.
 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review 123

describing the TTP curve which has been derived for indeed be fitted, their physical meaning may be
the alloy of interest [13]. The transformation questionable. Instead, they recommended, when
time-temperature behavior of a TTP curve is usually possible, that the number of K-values being fitted
described with a CT function of the form: should be reduced by using independently reported

C = − K ∗ K ∗ exp 3
 K ∗K 2 
 ( )
4 
∗ exp
 K5 
 
data when known.
T 1 2
(
 RT K − T 
 4
2 )



 RT 

An incremental quench factor, q, for each time step
in the cooling curve, is calculated from
where Δt
q=
CT = the critical time required to form a constant C
T
amount of a new phase or reduce the hardness by a where Δt is usually the time step used for computer
specified amount (The locus of the critical time values data acquisition of the experimental cooling curves.
as a function of temperature formed the TTP curve); The incremental quench factor, q, represents the
K1 = constant which equals the natural logarithm of ratio of time an alloy is at the average temperature for
the fraction untransformed during quenching, i.e., the that time step divided by the time required for
fraction defined by the TTP curve which is typically transformation to begin at that temperature (calculated
taken as ln0.995 for these calculations; from the CT function at that same average
K2 = constant related to the reciprocal of the number temperature). The incremental quench factor values
of nucleation sites; are summed over the entire transformation range to
K3 = constant related to the energy required to form produce the cumulative quench factor, Q, according to
T = Ac 3
Δt
a nucleus; Q =q = 
K4 = constant related to the solvus temperature; T =M s CT

K5= constant related to the activation energy of
diffusion;
R = 8.3143 J K-1 mol-1;
T = temperature (K).
The constants K1, K2, K3, K4, and K5 define the
shape of the TTP curve. Fundamental values of K2-K5
are not generally known. In practice, these values are
calculated from TTP curves by multiple regression
analyses [9]. A selection of reported K-constants for
AISI 1045, 4130, and 4140 are provided in Table 2.
However, Shuey et al. [28] and Tiryakioglu [29] have
studied this approach and found that although
C-shaped time-temperature transformation curves can
When calculating the quench factor for a particular
steel, the q-values are summed between the Ar3 and Ms
temperatures for the steel of interest.
The cumulative quench factor, Q, reflects the heat
removal characteristics of the quenchant as indicated
by the cooling time-temperature curve for the Type
304 stainless steel probe for the cross-section size,
quenchant and quenching conditions being analyzed.
It also includes section thickness effects because of
these influences on the cooling curve are used for
quench factor calculation. Transformation kinetics are
reflected because the calculation involves the ratio of
the time the metal was at a particular temperature

Table 2 Summary of published quench factor CT function K-constants for different steels.
Alloy K-Value for CT Function Summation Reference
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 range (°C)
1045 (Mid-range) -0.00501 0.046500 330 1140 35,000 782-314 [5]
4130 (Low-spec) -0.005 -0.04 500 1200 40,000 801-377 [7]
4130 (High-spec) -0.005 -0.0159 250 1160 58,000 801-377 [7]
4140 (Mid-range) -0.00501 1.48429 350 1140 31,517 791-338 [4]
124 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review

divided by the amount of time for transformation to
begin at this temperature, i.e., the position of the TTP
curve in time. The calculation process is illustrated in
Fig. 1.
The calculated cumulative quench factor, Q, can be
used to predict the as-quenched hardness in steel using
the following equation:
Pp = Pmin + ( Pmax − Pmin ) exp ( K1Q )
where PP = predicted property, Pmin = minimum
property for the alloy, Pmax = maximum property for
the alloy, exp = base of the natural logarithm, K1 =
ln0.995 = -0.00501, Q = quench factor.
The solid line in Fig. 2 illustrates the predicted
hardness variation with cumulative quench factor (Q)
for cast 4130 steel. The data points shown in Fig. 2
represent measured hardness values at locations in a
quenched part where cooling curves are available.
These data show an excellent correlation between
agreement, typically within the ±2 HRC unit
measuring error [30]. Similar excellent agreement has
been shown using QFA to predict the as-quenched
hardness for a comparatively low-hardenability carbon
steel, AISI 1045 and a low-alloy AISI 4140 steel
which is also shown in Table 4 [10-12].
Thus far, examples of the use of QFA for prediction
of as-quenched hardness have been shown for higher
hardenability steels. The application of QFA for
low-hardenability steels such as AISI 1045 was also
evaluated and the results are shown in Table 5 [30].
The predicted and hardness values agree until the
martensite content falls below 50% which is
approximately 32 HRC. The inability of QFA to predict
Table 3 Measured and predicted hardnesses at 17
different positions in a water-quenched AISI 4130 steel
casting1 [30].
Position in Cooling rate Quench Predicted Measured

hardnesses predicted by quench factor analysis and casting at 1,300 °F factor hardness hardness

measured values. Similar plots of measured hardness (°F/s) (HRC) (HRC)

vs. quench factor values for other steel alloys. 1 205.4 7.2 51.8 52

Quench factors calculated for different alloys may 2 121.7 12.4 50.9 51
be quite different, even if similar section sizes are 3 72.1 18.5 49.9 50
cooled in the same quenchant, because they reflect 4 52.9 25.6 48.8 50
individual transformation kinetics indicated by the CT 5 38.8 33.1 47.7 49
equation that describes the TTP curve for the alloy. 6 31.3 41.5 46.4 47
Comparison of the predicted and actual measured 7 23.8 50.1 45.2 45
hardness obtained for AISI 4130 shown in Table 3 8 19.9 58.7 44.1 42
using quench factor analysis yielded excellent 9 17.0 67.3 43.0 42
10 12.7 86.8 40.7 39
11 9.8 103.1 38.9 38
12 8.1 119.1 37.3 36
13 6.8 134.8 35.8 35
14 5.9 150.1 34.5 34
15 4.8 175.3 32.5 33
16 3.9 197.6 31.0 31
17 3.2 215.6 29.9 30
1
The reported chemistry for the AISI 4130 steel used for this
Fig. 2 Graphical presentation illustrating the correlation study (%): carbon 0.315; Manganese 0.576; Silicon 0.379;
between predicted and measured hardness of cast 4130 steel Chromium 1.140; Nickel 0.103; Molybdenum 0.244; Copper
as a function of quench factor. 0.125; Vanadium 0.014; Ideal diameter—4.18 in.
 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review 125

Table 4 Comparison of predicted and measured Table 5 Comparison of predicted and measured hardness
hardnesses for two cast AISI 4140 steel alloys1, 2, 3 [10]. values for two castings of AISI 10451, 2, 3.
Steel A hardness Steel B hardness Steel C hardness Steel D hardness
1, 3 2, 3 1,3
HRC HRC HRC HRC2,3
Predicted Measured Predicted Measured Predicted Measured Predicted Measured
57.3 56 56.5 57 59.8 59 58.0 60
57.1 56 56.3 57 59.0 58 56.9 53
56.7 55 56.0 56 58.4 59 56.2 59
56.3 54 55.6 56 55.7 57 52.7 56
56.2 52 55.6 54 53.4 56 30.2 28
55.2 53 54.8 54 45.7 54 49.8 52
51.6 53 51.6 53 48.0 55 40.4 46
53.8 50 53.6 54 35.4 23 43.8 43
49.7 49 50.0 54 38.2 26 29.0 24
48.6 49 49.0 46 35.8 34 31.0 26
44.6 42 45.5 38 26.3 27 29.3 23
25.6 31 27.5 34 19.1 22 19.7 24
1
The reported chemistry for the AISI 4140 Steel A used for this 16.9 18 14.6 16
study (%): carbon 0.439; Manganese 0.860; Silicon 0.259; 20.0 19 13.1 18
Chromium 0.878; Nickel 0.076; Molybdenum 0.170; Copper
12.3 18 15.2 18
0.087; Vanadium 0.000.
1
2
The reported chemistry for the AISI 4140 Steel B used for this The reported chemistry for the AISI 1045 Steel C used for this
study (%): carbon 0.394; Manganese 0.810; Silicon 0.268; study (%): Carbon 0.480; Manganese 0.834; Silicon 0.281;
Chromium 0.922; Nickel 0.138; Molybdenum 0.196; Copper Chromium 0.052; Nickel 0.035; Molybdenum 0.011; Copper
0.128; Vanadium 0.000. 0.091.
2
3
Ideal diameter for steel A = 4.70 in., and for steel B = 4.87 in. The reported chemistry for the AISI 1045 Steel D used for this
study (%): Carbon 0.470; Manganese 0.749; Silicon 0.240;
hardnesses over the entire range of experimental Chromium 0.054; Nickel 0.031; Molybdenum 0.016; Copper
hardnesses shown for AISI 1045 is very difficult to 0.015.
3
Ideal diameter for steel C = 1.26 in.; and for steel D = 1.12 in.
successfully model by any computational method,
including QFA, because of the extremely rapid Application of quench factors for quenchant
transitions from softer ferritic-pearlitic structures to characterization: Typical examples of the utilization of
martensite. For this reason, predicted hardnesses in the QFA for quenchant characterization will now be
range of 35-45 HRC must be experimentally validated provided. One example is the comparison of the
for low-hardenability steels such as AISI 1045. ability of a fast oil and a slow oil to harden AISI 1045.
This method of describing quench severity is quite Fig. 3 illustrates the effect of section size on the
different from Grossmann H-values which are related ability of a polymer quenchant to harden AISI 1045,
solely to the ability of a quenchant to extract heat and low-hardenability carbon steel. As expected, hardness
not to the transformation kinetics of the steel being decreases significantly with increasing cross-section
heat treated. Thus, quench factors represent a size [31]. For comparison, a relatively slow aqueous
favorable alternative to Grossmann H-factors for polymer quenchant solution was used to harden the
quantifying quench severity since they can be directly same series of cross-section sizes of a low-alloy AISI
related to as-quenched hardness achievable as 4140 steel which is more hardenable than AISI 1045.
described above. The results of this study are shown in Fig. 4 where there
126 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review
Fig. 3 Illustration of the ability of a relatively fast aqueous
polymer quenchant to harden different section sizes of AISI
1045 carbon steel (Polymer quenchant concentration was
10%, bath temperature 90 °F).
is minimal, but continuous, decrease hardness up to
the maximum 2.0 inch (50 mm) section size quenched
in this study [31].
The application of Q-factors would address an
important industry shortcoming where a reliable
indicator of quench severity, especially as it may
impact hardness such as head-to-head comparison of
different quenchants from different suppliers,
variation of quench severity achievable from a
commercial quenchant and/or quench system and for
use in industry, national and international product and
process specifications is needed. As was shown in Eq.
(4), the Q-factor is a single value that is reflective of
all parameters throughout the cooling process that will
impact as-quenched hardness. These values may be
determined in a well-controlled laboratory setting or
within an actual load of parts being quenched. In
either case, a reusable Type 304 stainless steel probe
is used to obtain the time-temperature cooling curve of
the quenching medium. In a laboratory setting, such
Q-factors may be used to qualify or specify a
quenchant by quantifying the quench severity relative
to a reference TTP curve. In a production environment,
any variation of the quenching medium due to the
quenchant or the system can be readily quantified and
monitored over time as a quality control procedure. In
fact, these potentially very important applications of
QFA have not been adequately investigated to date
Fig. 4 Illustration of the ability of a relatively slow
aqueous polymer quenchant to harden different section
sizes of AISI 4140 low-alloy steel (Polymer quenchant
concentration was 20%, bath temperature 140 °F).
although the potential has been shown.
3.2 TTP Curve Availability
One of the reasons for the limited use of quench
factors up to the present time is the unavailability of
TTP curves for the alloy of interest since they have
not yet been generated. Two methods have been
reported to experimentally generate TTP curves. One
method is to austenitize a number of test specimens of
the alloy of interest. A test specimen could be a
tensile bar obtained from a forging or casting of the
alloy of interest. Typically, the test specimen is
sufficiently small to assure temperature uniformity
during isothermal heat treatment. After
austenitization, the test specimens are transferred
within approximately 5 s to an agitated molten salt
bath composed of potassium nitrate and sodium nitrite
mixture and maintained within ±5 °C of the desired
isothermal holding time and temperature. After the
test specimens have been held at the isothermal
holding temperature for the desired time, it is
quenched to room temperature. Cooling rates are
determined by inserting a Type K thermocouple to the
geometric center of the test bar and data acquisition
was acquired at the appropriate sampling rate to
provide smooth transformation curves. After cooling,
the test specimens were tested for the property of
interest in order to construct a C-curve.
 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review
An alternative procedure to determine TTP curves
experimentally is to computationally model Jominy
data, which may be obtained from experimentally
determined or calculated Jominy curves for the alloy
of interest. There are a number of references in the
literature for experimentally determining surface
cooling rates as a function of position on a Jominy bar
and correlating them with hardness. One of the earlist
references was provided by Weinman et al. [32] and
Pumphrey and Jones [33]. Yazdi et al. more recently
described the experimental procedure for obtaining
TTP curves from Jominy data for AISI 4130 and the
correlation of experimental and computational results
[14].
Therefore, experimental procedures are known to
obtain TTP curves and only need to be applied to the
alloys of interest. Also, since TTP curves vary with
steel chemistry, as do TTT and CCT curves, it is
necessary to obtain typical curves for the most
common alloy compositional ranges encountered.
Further work is necessary to more readily predict
these curves as a function of steel chemistry.
4. Conclusions
 A brief overview of the computation and use of
quench factor analyses to quantify as-quenched
hardness for carbon and low-alloy steels was
provided.
 The potential use of quench factor analysis to
qualify a quenching medium or process or to
effectively monitor variation of quench severity due to
either the quenchant or the system was introduced.
 The ability of quench factor analysis to
successfully predict as-quenched hardness usually
within measurement error has been demonstrated for
AISI 1045, 4130, 4140 and 5140, previously.
Although the method is relatively easy to perform
computationally, it has not gained any significant
acceptance in the industry up to this time primarily
because of the substantial variation of the K-constants
due to chemistry dependent variation of the TTP
127
curves for each alloy. However, this is a problem that
can be addressed using Jominy curves as described in
Ref. [7].
 One reported example using AISI 5140 steel
showed excellent agreement between predicted and
measured hardness [6].
 Selected examples were provided showing the
utility of the use of quench factors.
 Further work is required to extend the availability
of a broader range of TTP curves for more steels.
References
[1] T.F. Russell, Some Mathematical Considerations of the
Heating and Cooling of Steel, Iron and Steel Institute
Special Report No. 14, 1936, pp. 149-187.
[2] M.A. Grossman, M. Asimov, S.F. Urban, Hardenability,
its relation to quenching and some quantitative data, in:
Hardenability of Alloy Steels, American Society for
Metals, Cleveland, OH, 1939, pp. 124-190.
[3] M.A. Grossmann, M. Asimow, Hardenability and
quenching, The Iron Age 36 (1940) 25-29.
[4] B. Liscic, H.M. Tensi, G.E. Totten, G.M. Webster,
Non-lubricating process fluids: Steel quenching
technology, in: G.E. Totten, S.R. Westbrook, R.J. Shah
(Eds.), Fuels and Lubricants Handbook: Technology,
Properties, Performance and Testing, Chapter 22, ASTM
International, West Conshocken, 2003, pp. 587-634.
[5] D.J. Carney, A.D. Janulionis, An examination of the
quenching constant—H, Transactions of the American
Society for Metals 43 (1951) 480-496.
[6] G.E. Totten, G.M. Webster, C.E. Bates, S.W. Han, S.H.
Kang, Limitations of the Use of Grossman Quench
Severity Factors, in: Proceedings of the 17th Heat
Treating Society Conference Including the 1st
International Induction Heat Treating Symposium, ASM
International, Materials Park, OH, 1997, pp. 411-422.
[7] G.F. vander Voort, Hardenability, in: Atlas of
Time-Temperature Diagrams for Irons and Steels, 1991,
ASM International, Materials Park, OH, USA, pp. 73-77.
[8] G.E. Totten, C.E. Bates, N.A. Clinton, Cooling curve
analysis, in: Handbook of Quenchants and Quenching
Technology, ASM International, Materials Park, OH,
USA, Chapter 3, 1993, pp. 69-128.
[9] P.M. Kavalco, L.C.F. Canale, Evolution of quench Factor
analysis: A review, J. ASTM International 6 5 () (2009)
JAI102131.
[10] C.E. Bates, G.E. Totten, Quench severity effects on the
as-quenched hardness of selected alloy steels, Heat
Treatment of Metals (2) (1992) 45-48.
 128 Quench Factor Characterization of Steel Hardening: A Review
[11] G.E. Totten, C.E. Bates, Y.H. Sun, Simplified property
predictions based on quench factor analysis for AISI
4140, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
on Quenching and Control of Distortion, ASM
International, Materials OH, 1999, pp. 219-225.
[12] L.C.F. Canale, A.C. Canale, C.E. Bates, G.E. Totten,
Quench factor analysis to quantify steel quench severity
and its successful use in steel hardness prediction, SAE
Technical Paper Series, Paper Number 2006-01-2814,
Sao Paulo, Brazil, November, 2006.
[13] C.E. Bates, Predicting properties and minimizing residual
stress in quenched steel parts, J. Heat Treat. 6 (1) (1988)
27-45.
[14] A.Z. Yazdi, S.A. Sajjadi, S.M. Zebarjad, S.M.M. Nezhad,
Prediction of hardness at different points of Jominy
specimen using quench factor analysis method, J. of
Material Processing Technology 199 (2008) 124-129.
[15] E. Scheil, Initiation time of the austenite transformation,
Archive Iron and Steel Industry 12 (1935) 565-567.
[16] M. Avrami, Kinetics of phase change. I General theory, J.
Chem. Phys. 7 (12) (1939) 1103-1112.
[17] A. Avrami, Kinetics of phase change. II
Transformation-time relations for random distribution of
Nuclei, J. Chem. Phys. 8 (2) (1940) 212-214.
[18] J.W. Cahn, The kinetics of grain boundary nucleated
reactions, Acta Metallurgica 4 (5) (1956) 449-459.
[19] J.W. Cahn, Transformation kinetics during continuous
cooling, Acta Metallurgica 4 (6) (1956) 572-575.
[20] J.H. Holloman, L.D. Jaffe, Ferrous Metallurgical Design,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1947.
[21] J.S. Kirkaldy, B.A. Thomason, E.G. Beganis, Prediction
of Multicomponent Equilibrium and Transformation for
Low-Alloy Steel, Hardenability Concepts with
Applications to Steel, American Inst. Of Metallurgical,
Mining and Petroleum Engineers Inc., Warrendale, PA,
1978, p. 82.
[22] M. Umemoto, N. Komatsubara, I. Tamura, Prediction of
hardenability effects from isothermal transformation
kinetics, J. Heat Treating 1 (3) (1980) 57-64.
View publication stats
[23] M. Umemoto, N. Nishioka, I. Tamura, Prediction of
hardenability from isothermal transformation diagrams, J.
Heat Treating 2 (2) (1981) 130-138.
[24] J.W. Evancho, J.T. Staley, Kinetics of precipitation in
aluminum alloys during continuous cooling,
Metallurgical Transactions 5 (1974) 43-47.
[25] J.W. Evancho, J.T. Staley, Heat Treating of Aluminum
Alloys, Metals Handbook, 9th ed., American Society for
Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1981, pp. 675-718.
[26] J.E. Hatch, Aluminum: Properties and Physical
Metallurgy, American Society for Metals, Metals Park,
OH, 1984.
[27] P. Archambault, J. Bouvaist, J.C. Cherier, G. Beck, A
contribution to the 7075 heat treatment, Mat. Sci. and
Eng. 43 (1980) 1-6.
[28] R.T. Shuey, M. Tiryakioğlu, K.B. Lippert, Mathematical
pitfalls in modeling quench sensitivity for aluminum
alloys, in: Proceedings of the 1st International
Symposium on Metallurgical Modeling for Aluminum
Alloys, October 13-15, 2003, Pittsburgh, pp. 47-53.
[29] M. Tiryakioğlu, R.T. Shuey, Metallurgical modeling for
aluminum alloys, in: Proceedings of the 1st International
Symposium on Metallurgical Modeling for Aluminum
Alloys Materials Solutions Conference 2003, pp 39-45.
[30] C.E. Bates, G.E. Totten, Method for predicting quench
severity effects on the properties of aluminum and steel
alloys, Industrial Heating 59 (1992) 19-23.
[31] G.E. Totten, Y.H. Sun, G.M. Webster, C.E. Bates, L.M.
Jarvis, Computerized steel hardness predictions based on
cooling curve analysis, SME Technical Paper, Paper No.
CM98-203, 1998.
[32] E.W. Weinman, R.F. Thomson, A.L. Boegehold, A
correlation of end-quenched test bars and rounds in terms
of hardness and cooling characteristics, Trans. ASM 44
(1952) 803-844.
[33] T.F. Russell, J.G. Williamson, Surface Temperature
Measurements during the Cooling of a Jominy Test Piece,
Iron and Steel Institute Special Report No. 36, 1946, pp.
34-46.