SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

2002-01-0918

Induction Hardened Ductile Iron Camshafts

Alan P. Druschitz and Steve Thelen
Intermet Corp.

Reprinted From: Designing and Achieving Lightweight Vehicles (SP1684)

SAE 2002 World Congress Detroit, Michigan March 4-7, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

2002-01-0918

Induction Hardened Ductile Iron Camshafts

Alan P. Druschitz and Steve Thelen
Intermet Corporation

Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
The General Motors L850 world engine uses an induction hardened, ductile iron, camshaft. Unlike most induction hardened camshafts that are machined first and then hardened, this camshaft is deep hardened first and then machined. Using this process, the beneficial compressive surface residual stresses are extremely high. During the development of the L850 camshaft, the casting process was optimized to produce material of sufficient quality to resist quench cracking during the hardening process and to resist mechanical cracking during the machining process. Retained austenite content, residual stress profiles, hardness, microstructure and chemical composition were all characterized and optimized. This paper reviews the material and process development for this unique automotive application.

characteristics (microstructure, hardness and residual stress distribution), a comprehensive research program was performed. INTERMETs Radford Foundry produced L850 camshafts with three levels of manganese. General Motors Tonawanda Engine Plant induction hardened and machined these camshafts. INTERMET Materials R&D performed a preliminary examination of the camshafts and then sent samples to Lambda Research, Cincinnati, OH for determination of residual stresses and retained austenite by x-ray diffraction. This paper details the results of that study. The exhaust and intake camshafts for the L850 engine are shown in Figure 1.

BACKGROUND
A wide variety of materials and processes are used to produce camshafts for the automotive industry. One of the most versatile material-process combinations is cast ductile iron and induction hardening. Cast ductile iron produces a low cost, near net shape component that is suitable for subsequent precision machining and heat treatment. Induction hardening can be economically used to heat the casting and subsequent quenching produces hard, wear resistant martensite or ausferrite (austempered ductile iron). Machining can be performed before or after induction hardening. INTERMET Corporation currently produces L850 camshaft castings for General Motors Corporation. To develop a firm understanding of the interactions between casting chemistry (manganese level), processing history (induction hardening and machining) and final component

Figure 1. The camshafts for the L850 engine.

Since a camshaft is a multi-purpose component, different properties are needed at different locations; for example, the desirable characteristics for the cam lobes are a hard, wear resistant surface with high load carrying capacity, however the bearing surfaces need to be readily machinable, dimensionally accurate and smooth. Therefore, a strong, readily machinable material, such as ductile iron, combined with localized induction hardening is often used. Induction hardening produces a tempered martensite layer at the surface and, when combined with the appropriate grinding process, very high beneficial compressive surface residual stresses. A cross section through a cam lobe is shown in Figure 2.

Analyzer on camshaft lobes that were sectioned, polished and etched. Retained austenite content was determined by averaging the results from 200 fields of view at 200x for each sample. Residual stresses and retained austenite contents as a function of distance from the surface were measured at the base circle for samples of lobe 3 in the induction hardened only condition using X-ray diffraction techniques. Residual stresses and retained austenite contents at the surface and at a depth of 0.1 mm (near surface) were also measured at the base circle for samples of lobe 3 and lobe 6 in the induction hardened then fully machined condition using X-ray diffraction techniques

Tempered martensite

Pearlite

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The induction hardening process used in this investigation used RF frequency (30 KHz) to simultaneously heat four of the camshaft lobes, quenching in a water-polymer solution and immediately tempering using induction heating. The camshaft was then indexed and the remaining four lobes hardened and tempered in a similar fashion. During induction hardening, the camshaft was rotated slowly to produce more uniform heating.

Figure 2. Cross section through a hardened L850 cam lobe.

A hard, dimensionally accurate mold, clean metal plus a well designed gating system that minimizes the formation of inclusions is mandatory for the production of camshaft castings since inclusions will cause cracking during induction hardening and/or machining.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Since many automotive specifications require high Mn contents (>0.45 wt%), L850 camshafts were poured at three different Mn contents that covered the typical range and significantly lower, Table I. For each Mn level, five to ten castings from one mold cavity were sent to GM Tonawanda for induction hardening on production equipment. Two castings of each Mn level were then fully machined at Tonawanda and all castings were returned to INTERMET Materials R&D for analysis.

Table I. Composition of L850 Camshafts (wt%)

Sample ID Low Mn Med Mn High Mn Mn 0.35 0.46 0.64 C 3.87 3.80 3.80 Si 2.07 2.10 2.01 Cu 0.73 0.78 0.83 Mg 0.035 0.040 0.032 Cr 0.075 0.081 0.080 Ni 0.04 0.04 0.04 Mo 0.011 0.014 0.017

The surface hardness (Rockwell C) of the induction hardened camshafts, before and after machining, were measured on the nose, ramps and base circle. The depth of the hardened layer was determined by visual examination and the retained austenite content was estimated using a fully automated, Clemex Image

During induction hardening, the surface of the camshaft heats rapidly and the heat soaks into the component. Since silicon strongly affects the temperature at which ferrite transforms to austenite, silicon must be closely controlled to insure consistent hardening response. For a camshaft, the heat soaks farther into the nose than into the base circle due to the difference in mass. The nose of the cam lobe also reaches higher temperatures since it is closer to the induction coil. Care must be taken not to overheat the casting since the amount of carbon that dissolves into the high temperature phase of iron (austenite) is a function of temperature, time, chemical composition and starting microstructure. A starting matrix microstructure of >80-90% pearlite is desirable to minimize the carbon diffusion distance. Since its desirable to keep cycle times s hort, exceptionally high temperatures (as high as 1038oC) are often used. The amount of carbon that goes into solution at these high temperatures later determines the temperature at which martensite forms during quenching. For example, if the maximum temperature reached during heating is 900oC, martensite will start to form at 195oC during quenching. However, if the maximum temperature reached during heating is 1038oC, martensite will not start to form until 162oC during quenching. During quenching, the rate of cooling must be controlled since too slow of a quench will not produce martensite and too fast of a quench will cause the formation of excessive amounts of retained austenite and may cause cracking. Tempering after

quenching is necessary to improve toughness and relieve excessive residual stresses .

60

Induction Hardened Only

In the induction hardened only condition, low Mn (0.35 wt%) castings had the highest hardness values at the nose for all lobes, Figure 3a. In the induction hardened and machined condition, only the low Mn castings met the hardness specification at all lobe noses, Figure 3b. Average surface hardness data for all cam lobes taken on the nose, ramps and base circle are shown in Figures 3-5. All locations showed a characteristic wide variation in hardness in the induction hardened only condition and a greatly reduced variation after machining. The wide variations in hardness were due to variations in the retained austenite content near the cam lobe surfaces since these were the regions that reached the highest temperatures during heating.

Ramp Hardness, Rockwell C

58 56 54 52 50 48 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.35% Mn 0.46% Mn 0.64% Mn

Lobe

Figure 4a. Average ramp hardness after induction hardening only.

Induction Hardened then Fully Machined Induction Hardened Only 60 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.35% Mn 0.46% Mn 0.64% Mn Ramp Hardness, Rockwell C

58 56 54 52 50 spec minimum

Nose Hardness, Rockwell C

0.35% Mn 0.46% Mn 0.64% Mn

48 46 1 2 3 4 5 6

spec. min.
7 8

Lobe

Lobe

Figure 3a. Average nose hardness after induction hardening only Figure 4b. Average ramp hardness after induction hardening and machining.

Induction Hardened then Fully Machined 60

Nose Hardness, Rockwell C

58 Induction Hardened Only 56 60

Base Circle Hardness, Rockwell C

54 52 50 48 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 spec minimum

0.35% Mn 0.46% Mn 0.64% Mn spec. min.

58 56 54 52 50 48 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.35% Mn 0.46% Mn 0.64% Mn

Lobe

Figure 3b. Average nose hardness after induction hardening and machining.

Lobe

Figure 5a. Average base circle hardness after induction hardening only.

Induction Hardened then Fully Machined 60

Representative microstructures for the three compositions are shown in Figures 6-8.

Base Circle Hardness, Rockwell C

58 56 54 52 50 48 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 spec minimum

0.35% Mn 0.46% Mn 0.64% Mn spec. min.

Lobe

Figure 5b. Average base circle hardness after induction hardening and machining.

As expected, increasing Mn caused higher average retained austenite contents in induction hardened only camshafts, Table II. This was caused by Mn segregation and was the reason for falling hardness with increasing Mn level. The reason for the poor agreement between image analysis and X -ray diffraction for the 0.46 wt% Mn sample is not known. After grinding, the variation in retained austenite content was greatly reduced, Table III.

Figure 6. Representative microstructure of the nose of the induction hardened camshaft with 0.35 wt% Mn before grinding. Light colored areas are retained austenite.

Table II. Average Retained Austenite Content as a Function of Mn Content at the Surface of Induction Hardened Only Camshafts.
Retained Austenite Content, vol%

Measurement Technique Image analysis (lobe 3) X-ray diffraction (lobe 3)

0.35% Mn

0.46% Mn

0.64% Mn

28 32.4

41 27.5

38 40.7

Table III. Retained Austenite Content as a Function of Mn Content at the Surface of Induction Hardened Then Fully Machined Camshafts.
Retained Austenite Content, vol%

Measurement Technique X-ray diffraction (lobe 3) X-ray diffraction (lobe 6)

0.35% Mn

0.46% Mn

0.64% Mn

28.5 25.0

30.8 30.5

30.5 30.4

Figure 7. Representative microstructure of the nose of the induction hardened camshaft with 0.46 wt% Mn before grinding. Light colored areas are retained austenite.

Induction Hardened Only (hoop stress)

150 0.35 wt% Mn 100 50 0.46 wt% Mn 0.64 wt% Mn

Residual Stress, MPa

0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0 1 2 3 4

Figure 8. Representative microstructure of the nose of the induction hardened camshaft with 0.64 wt% Mn before grinding. Light colored areas are retained austenite.

Depth Below Surface, mm

Figure 9. Hoop residual stress distributions for induction hardened only (lobe 3).

Residual Stress, MPa

Manganese, over the range investigated (0.35-0.64 wt%), had no measurable effect on hardenability (depth of the hardened layer). The measured depth of the hardened layer before machining was 6 6.5 mm at the nose and ~4 mm at the base circle for all samples. Therefore, the lack of a measurable Mn effect on hardenability indicated that other elements were present in more than sufficient quantity to provide full hardening, for the hardening process used. In the induction hardened only condition, surface residual stresses were tensile in the hoop and axial directions. This explained the tendency for lobe cracking when defects were present or if the induction hardening conditions were not properly controlled. As manganese content increased, the magnitude of the surface residual stress in the axial direction decreased but the depth at which the residual stress changed from tension to compression increased (an undesirable trend). The residual stress distributions in the induction hardened only condition are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Retained austenite content did not correlate with residual stress, Table IV.

Induction Hardened Only (axial stress)

150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0 1 2 3 4 0.35 wt% Mn 0.46 wt% Mn 0.64 wt% Mn

Depth Below Surface, mm

Figure 10. Axial residual stress distributions for induction hardened only (lobe 3).

Table IV. Residual Stress and Retained Austenite Content as a Function of the Depth Below the Surface for Cams in the Induction Hardened Only Condition.
Depth Below Surface (mm) 0.02 0.99 2.05 3.00 0.04 1.17 1.98 3.01 0.03 1.06 2.17 3.02 Retained Austenite Content (vol %) 32.4 28.8 26.3 28.7 27.5 27.4 23.8 26.5 40.7 29.5 27.9 24.2

Induction Hardened then Fully Machined (axial stress)

-800 0.35 wt% Mn -700 0.46 wt% Mn -600

Sample

Residual Stress, MPa

Hoop Stress (MPa) 62 -121 -184 -130 59 -139 -185 -192 52 -71 -214 -163

Axial Stress (MPa) 108 -76 -163 -181 80 -96 -104 -205 45 11 -105 -199

0.64 wt% Mn

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 Surface of Lobe 6 Surface of Lobe 3 0.1 mm Below Surface of Lobe 3

0.35 wt% Mn lobe 3

0.46 wt% Mn lobe 3

Figure 12. Axial residual stresses at surface of lobes 3 and 6 and at 0.1 mm below the surface of lobe 3. Note: the scale has been reversed from Figures 9 and 10.

0.64 wt% Mn lobe 3

CONCLUSIONS
1. In the induction hardened then fully machined condition, surface residual stresses were highly compressive in the hoop and axial directions. Residual stress as a function of depth below the surface was not determined for this condition since they were expected to be shallow. However, since the compressive residual stresses were much higher than expected, residual stresses at 0.1 mm below the surface were determined for lobe 3. At 0.1 mm below the finished machined surface, the residual stresses were much lower but still compressive. The residual stresses in the induction hardened then fully machined condition are shown in Figures 11 and 12.
Induction Hardened then Fully Machined (hoop stress)

2.

3.

4.

-800 -700
0.35 wt% Mn 0.46 wt% Mn 0.64 wt% Mn

Residual Stress, MPa

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

Surface of Lobe 6 Surface of Lobe 3

5. 6.

The induction hardening process alone produced tensile surface residual stresses and compressive subsurface residual stresses. The tensile surface residual stresses caused cracking to occur if casting defects were present. Manganese did not have an effect on residual stresses in the hoop direction, but did have a significant effect on residual stresses in the axial direction. Increasing manganese decreased the magnitude of the surface residual stress in the axial direction and increased the depth at which the axial residual stress changed from tension to compression. The grinding process used after induction hardening resulted in a final product that had significant beneficial compressive surface residual stresses. Increasing manganese content produced higher retained austenite content and lower hardness in the cam lobe nose, which reached the highest temperature during induction heating and had the fastest cooling rate during quenching. Retained austenite content did not correlate with residual stress. Manganese, over the range investigated (0.35-0.64 wt%), had no measurable effect on hardenability.

0.1 mm Below Surface of Lobe 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTERMET Radford Foundry made the camshaft castings. General Motors Tonawanda Plant induction hardened and machined the camshafts. Melanie Folks of INTERMET Materials R&D performed the hardness measurements and metallography. Lambda Research, Cincinnati, Ohio performed the residual stress and retained austenite measurements using X-ray diffraction techniques.

Figure 11. Hoop residual stresses at surface of lobes 3 and 6 and at 0.1 mm below the surface of lobe 3. Note: the scale has been reversed from Figures 9 and 10.

CONTACT
Dr. Alan P. Druschitz received his PhD in Metallurgical Engineering in 1982 from the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois. He is currently the Director of Materials Research and Development for INTERMET Corporation. He is located at the INTERMET Technical Center, Lynchburg, Virginia 24502. He can be reached at adruschitz@notes.intermet.com or (434) 237-8749. Before joining INTERMET Corporation, he was a staff research engineer for General Motors Corporation for fourteen years. He has been a member of the American Foundry Society for thirteen years, the Society of Automotive Engineers for twenty years and ASM International for twenty-five years. He is currently the Vice President of the Ductile Iron Society, a member of the Industrial Advisory Board for the Central Virginia Governors School, and a member of the Governors Board of Transportation Safety for the Commonwealth of Virginia.