~t:.

QUenChlng................................................................................

Cooling rate curve area:

anew measure of quenchant
performance
Recent work in Europe suggests that no single parameter adequately relates the cooling curve
to the properties of a quenched piece. A new approach begins by calculating
the area under the cooling rate curve between a pair of temperatures.
by G.E. TOTTEN, M.E. DAKINS, K.P. ANANTHAPADMANABHAN and R.W. HEINS
over the years there have
been numerous methods
of
evaluating the relative
()
speeds of quenching
media. In general, these methods can
be classified as either thermal
response or metallurgical response. I
Of the two, the thermal response
method has been generally accepted
as being the more desirable in terms
of cost, speed, and reproducibility,
especially over long periods of time.
In this regard, the IFHT (Interna
tional Federation of Heat Treatment)
has adopted a standardized pro
cedure for cooling curve measure
ment. 2 But even though cooling
curves can now be obtained with
reasonable reproducibility, there is
still no consensus on the best method
of utilizing these curves for the
evaluation of relative quenchant
speed.
Cooling curves obtained by
quenching hot metals, e.g. steel, in
to a quench ant medium such as oil or
an aqueous polymer solution are
typically composed of three regions
(Fig. 1). The A-stage region rep
resents the formation of a vapor
blanket around the hot metal. Upon
subsequent cooling, the vapor
blanket collapses, leading to nucleate
boiling, the fastest cooling region of
the curve. This is designated as the B
G.E. Totten and K.P. Ananthapadmanabhan
are project sCientists, Specialty Chemicals Oiv.,
Union Carbide Corp., Tarrytown, N. Y. 10591;
(914) 789-2519. M. Oakins is a mathematician
with the same division. R. W. Heins is a con
sultant for Tenaxol, Inc., 5801 W. National
Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53214; (414) 476-1400.
18

stage region. The C-stage region oc

curs when the temperature of the hot
metal drops further, and nucleate
boiling ceases and convective cooling
begins.

c - 511g8

, ~------------------~
Time

Fig. 1: The three stages of the

cooling curve
Cooling curve data obtained from
quenchant experiments have been
correlated with metallurgical proper
ties, such as hardness, using different
approaches. Although these inter
pretive procedures vary widely, it is
generally agreed that it is desirable to
have as short an A-stage as possible
and to maximize the B-stage cooling
rate to optimize hardness, while
minimizing the C-stage rate to reduce
cracking and distortion. Therefore,
two coo'ting curve parameters that
relate to these processes are the max
imum cooling rate (CRmaJ and a,
cooling rate within the martensitic'
transformation range of steel
(CRm , i:e., cooling rate at 232C
(415F.3 These parameters may be

readily obtained from the first

derivative of the cooling curve.
New interpretations: IFHT
Work is currently in progress within
the IFHT to further characterize the
cooling capacity of various quench
ing oils by cooling curve measure
ment. Recently K.-E. Thelning (of
Snedjebacken-Boxholm Stal AB,
Boxholm, Sweden) published a sum
mary of results obtained from a
round-robin study conducted to
develop an effective method'of cool
ing capacity classification by cooling
curve interpretation. 4 One of the
conclusions reached as a result of this
study was that all three stages rep
resented by the cooling curve are im
portant in considering the influence
of a quenchant bath on the final pro
perties of the quenched piece. It was
also found that the use of single
parameters, such as CR max , was
useful but not truly representative of
the properties obtained.
Other long-held beliefs that were
found to be unsubstantiated as a
result of Thelning's work were:
I) The maximum rate oj cooling
is an accurate predictor oj
metal hardness. While this pre
diction is useful for a given class
of oil, it did not hold for dif
ferent oils or steel grades.
2) It is desirable to minimize the
A-stage cooling time. In fact, it
was shown that there is an op
timal-not necessarily the
shortest-A-stage cooling time
that will give the best hard
ness results.
HEAT TREATINGIDECEMBER 1987

."If
~

III

I,

oJ!.

f,J

'j

Research Institute, Birmingham,

3) There is a relationship between
might be expected that the area under
Ala.) The property curve, usually
the cooling time between dif
, the cooling rate curve between
ferent temperatures, e.g. 800
known as the "C" curve, indicates
, 600-300C would be proportional to
500C or 640-400C, and metal
the critical time required to
CRmax.) For example, compare the
hardness. The results of the
precipitate a constant amount of the
data for Ucon E (15070) and conven
IFHT round robin showed that
required phase material under iso
tional oil: although the oil has a faster
there is little correlation be
thermal conditions. In the case of
CR max , it has a smaller ~300'
iron or steel, the phase of interest is
tween this parameter and the
Simitarly, the martempering oil has
metal hardness achieved.
martensite. The que~ch factor "q"
a greater CRmax than either the Ucon
at any time "t" (and therefore at a
Quenchant E or the conventional oil,
As a result of this work, Thelning
concluded that it is difficult to iden
Area, cm2 in the temperature range
tify a single parameter that relates the
(OC)
Relative hardness of '
cooling curve to the properties of the
quenched piece
650-400
600-300
500-200
quenched piece.
An alternative procedure suggested
High
32
29
15
by Thelning to quantify the cooling
Low
23
25
14
capacity of a quenchant bath is to
calculate the area under the cooling
Table I: illustration of the USB of cooling rate curve area determination to
rate curve between a predetermined
predict steel hardness
pair of temperatures. Of those
temperatures examined, 600-3()()OC
(I I 12-572 F) were reported to be the
Quenching medium
CR mll
CRm
A600.300 (OC/oC/sec)
best for general interpretation, rec
1
ognizing that the temperature range
20.1
Water
54.3
12979
is dependent on the type and degree
6.5
31 .6
5824
Conventional oii2
of alloying of the steel.
Fast Oil2
6.9
34.6
6663
Martempering oil 3
33.9
3.3
4781
Using a graphical integration pro
Ucon Quenchant A
cedure, Thelning illustrated the cor
. 14.5
(25%)4
41.7
9121
relation shown in Table I, in which
Ucon
Quenchant
A
the speed of the quench oil was
. 15.1
(15%)4
46.8
9815
directly proportional to the area
Ucon Quenchant E
(cm2) under the cooling rate curve
(15%)5
28.0
6.6
6147
between the temperatures indicated,
Of the temperature ranges used for
1. Quenching conditions were 90F, 100 ft/min .
integration, it was reported that
2. These oil were evaluated at 150F, 100 ft/min .
600-300C is best for unalloyed steel
3. This oil was evaluated at 300F, 100 ft/mln .
and 500-200C is best for alloyed
4. Polymer A was evaluated at 100 ft/min and 100C (212F).
steel.
5. Polymer E was evaluated at 50 ft/min and 140C (285F).
In view of Thelning's proposition,
it was of interest to relate the values
Table II: Comparison of CR max , CR m and area under the cooting rate
for CRmax and CR 232 with the area
curve from 600-300C
under the cooling rate curves for
various quenching media ranging
particular temperature "T" under
from water to oil to two widely used
and yet it has the smallest Awo-300'
This data appears to confirm Thel
continuous cooling conditions) is
aqueous synthetic polymers, Ucon
defined as:
ning's proposal that single parameter
Quenchant A and Ucon Quenchant
characterization of quenchants may
E. The data in Table II and Fig. 2 (p.
lead to erroneous results, and that
20) illustrate this attempted correla
q = 11 t/CT
characterization as a function of
tion. (It should be noted that these
curve shape may be more mean
quenching media give different re
where CT is the critical time required
to attain the required property.
ingful. Of course, these results need
sults at different levels of circulation
Essentially, q is the ratio of the
rate and bath temperature. There
to be confirmed by actual metal
lurgical evaluation.
time the specimen stays at temper
fore, these results are intended to be
illustrative only.)
ature T to the critical time the
The results in Table II show the ex
specimen must remain at that temper
Quench factor analysis
pected trends with respect to the
In contrast to Thelning's approach,
ature to attain a certain property.
C.E. Bates' quench factor analysis,5
Thus, q is proportional to the amount
relative CRmax and CRm obtained
under the quenching conditions
of the desired phase material preci
based upon the initial work of Evan
employed. However, the areas under
pitated under the given conditions.
cho and StaleY,6 takes into account
the cooling rate curve do not follow
a property curve as well as the cool
The cumulative quench factor, Q, is
the expected trends. (In general, it
ing curve. (Bates is with the Southern " obtained by summing lip the q values

HEAT TREATINGIDECEMBER 1987

19 ,

Quenchlng....................................~...............................

New measure
over a specified temperature range;
Bates has selected 800F for the up
per temperature and 300F for the
lower.
Thus the quench factor "Q" is:

800

QJ

c...

::J
+J
ItJ

c...

QJ

QJ

Time
Fig. 2a: The cooling curve for conventional oil

800~------------------------------~
QJ

c...

c...

QJ

tIer

300

::J
+J
ItJ

= ~ t:.

Area Under
Rate Curve

0-

QJ

The quench factor, Q, is related to

the kinetics of precipitation of the

phase that imparts the desired prop
erties to the material and, therefore,
has a metallurgical basis. This ap
proach, however, requires a reliable
C curve, a disadvantage compared
with Thelning's method. For a rapid
first approximation of differences in
quenchant behavior, the A6QO.300 pro
cedure can be readily applied to prac
tical cooling curve interpretation.
Future efforts should, however, be
directed towards developing quench
factor-type analyses that consider
both the quench media and the prop
erties of the material being quenched.
Looking ahead
In conclusion, while quantitative
cooling curve analysis is still in its
early stages of development, it is evi
dent that considerable strides have
been made. The current state of the
art suggests that future work should
be focused on correlating cooling
curve shape with desired physical
properties. Thus far, applications of
this idea range from Thelning's in
tegration of the area under the cool
ing rate curve to Bates's quench fac
tor analysis . Whatever the approach
that will gain wide acceptance in the
future, it seems clear that it will not
employ single cooling curve para
meter characterization such as has
been utilized in the past. Ci:I
REFERENCES

Cooling Rate
Fig. 2b: The cooling rate curve for conventional oU
20

1. Carey, P. E., Metal Progress; Feb., 1966, 90.

2. "Laboratory Test for Assessing the Cooling Charac
terlstics of Industrial Quenching Media", Wolfson
Heat Treatment Centre, Engineering Group (1982).
3. Tensl, H. M. and Steffen, E., Steel Research;~, 1985,
49.
4. Thelnlng, KE., Proceeding 01 5th IFHT Congress on
Heat Treatment 01 Materials held In Budapest on
Oct. 2024, 1988; Vol. 3, 17371759.
5. Bates, C. 1;. , Landlg, T., and Seltanakls, G., "Quench
factor analysis: A powerful tool comes of age," Heat
Treating; Dec. 1985, p. 13.
6. Evancho, J. W. and Staley, J. T., Metallurgical
Transactions; 5, 43, 1974.

HEAT TREATINGIDECEMBER 1987