Quenching distortion in AISI E52100

steel

Hans Kellner

Master of Science Thesis MH210X

Materials Science and Engineering, KTH

Abstract
Heat treatment of different steel products have existed for thousands of years. It has always been an
important tool to get the microstructure and resulting properties such as hardness and case hardness
and it is even more important today than ever before. This project concentrated on the quenching
process and means to decrease the distortion caused by this process. The effect of different oils,
temperatures, agitation and if gas quenching could give better results were investigated. The results
showed that Millers 75 quench oil was better than Parks 420 at slow agitation and that the viscosity of
the oils influenced how much changes in agitation speed and oil temperature affected the distortion. It
also shows that gas quenching is an alternative to oil quenching if the microstructure can be improved.
Otherwise using Millers 75 with low agitation in the Surface combustion furnace will give best results.

Sammanfattning
Vrmebehandling av olika jrn produkter har existerat i tusentals r. Det har alltid varit ett viktigt
redskap fr att f dem mikrostruktur och resulterande egenskaper s som hrdhet och det r nnu
viktigare idag n tidigare. Detta projekt koncentrerade p hrdningsprocessen och mjligheterna att
minska deformationen orsakad av denna process. Effekten av olika oljor, temperaturer, omrrning och
om gas r ett alternativ var underskt. Resultatet visar att Millers75 hrdnings olja var bttre n Parks
420 vid lngsam omrrning och att viskositeten av oljorna pverkar hur mycket frndringar i
temperaturen och omrrningen ndrar deformationen. Det visar ocks att gaser r ett alternative till
olja vid hrdningen om mikrostrukturen kan frbttras. Annars s gav Millers 75 olja med lngsam
omrrning i surface combustions ugn det bsta resultatet.

Abbreviations
HPGQ

High Pressure Gas Quenching

LOM

Light Optical Microscope

Troostite

Old name for fine perlite

USL

Upper Specified Limit

LSL

Lower Specified Limit

SL

Specified Limit

UCL

Upper Control Limit

LCL

Lower Control Limit

ALD

The company ALD Thermal Treatment

Ms

Temperature when martensitic transformation starts

M50

Temperature when martensitic transformation has reached 50%

AISI

The steel standard specified by American Iron and Steel Institute

BCC

Body Centered Cubic

BCT

Body Centered Tetragonal

FCC

Face Centered Cubic

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Sammanfattning............................................................................................................................................ 5
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Heat treating processes .......................................................................................................................... 11
Distortion ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Quenching process.................................................................................................................................. 12
Oil Quenching.......................................................................................................................................... 15
Gas Quenching ........................................................................................................................................ 17
AISI E52100 ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Objective ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Experiments ................................................................................................................................................ 20
Results and discussion ................................................................................................................................ 23
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Future work................................................................................................................................................. 34
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 35
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 36
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 38

10

Introduction
Heat treating processes
There are many different processes that fall under heat treating. Two processes where the material is
heated to a given temperature and then cooled down is normalizing and tempering. For the normalizing
process the metal is heated to approximately 100F (55 C) above the austenitizing temperature to get a
uniform size of the grains and uniform composition. It is then cooled down at an appropriate speed.
Then there is tempering where the temperature is held below the austenitizing temperature and that is
aimed to increase the ductility and toughness. Both of these methods theoretically fall under annealing
whose broader definition only says that the material is heated up to and held at a suitable temperature
and then cooled down at a suitable speed. Both the normalizing process and the tempering process can
be used to relieve stress in the material but tempering is the most used one. While the tempering can
cause precipitations the normalizing will give austenite again and you would have to quench it once
more (1).
Heat treating processes also include different hardening processes such as quenching, carburizing and
carbonitriding. Quenching can be used to get both surface hardness and through hardness depending on
how fast the material is cooled down throughout the part. Faster cooling give martensite while slower
cooling can give ferrite, bainite and perlite. But usually when quenching is used you want to get
martensite. Carburizing and carbonitriding on the other hand can only be used to get a hard surface
layer and is done by heating up the material in a carbon rich atmosphere or with a powder on the
material (1).
When steel is quenched to get martensite you will get retained austenite in almost all cases. To
transform this to martensite the material can be cold or cryogenic treated where the steel is cooled
down to around -120F (-84C) or -310F (-190C) (1).
These processes are put together in different ways and with different parameters to get the wanted
effect on the material. Most of the time this means to get as little distortion as possible and the right
microstructure.

Distortion
When a material is quenched there are three fields that will change. These are the thermal field, the
metallurgical field and the mechanical field that distortion falls under (2).
The distortion occurring during quenching can be divided into two main parts, shape distortion and size
distortion. Shape distortion is when the product twist, bend or warp out of shape while size distortion
keeps the form but the measurements change due to changing volume (3) (4).
There are three main reasons for distortion during quenching. First there are microstructure changes
that will induce transformation kinetics and transformation plastics. This will give slightly different
11

volumes when the phases change resulting in internal stress that when it exceeds the yield strength
causes distortion of the part. Work on simulating this has been done by e.g. Seok-Jae et al. (5) using the
FEM software ABAQUS. Their simulation of distortion in AISI 5120 during quenching was relatively close
to the actual result from quenching. The second reason is gradients in the materials thermal field that
will cause different expansion coefficients with stress as a result. Last of the three main reasons is
residual stresses that can distort the material when the temperature is raised and the yield strength
decrease. The residual stresses are mainly due to the machining of the parts and will vary somewhat
during the lifetime of the tools used to produce the parts (3). Any distortion occurring will originate
from one or more of these reasons. In Figure 1 the relationships between the three reasons described
above and several others are shown.

Figure 1. The relationship between the different fields and what affects them during the quenching process (2).

In the study by Ashok et al. (2) it was concluded that the material properties that affect the residual
stresses and distortion are the thermal conductivity, the Ms temperature and the shear modulus.
Surm et al. (6) studied different causes for distortion and roundness deformation on bearing rings made
of AISI E52100 and concluded that the stacking geometry of the parts during the quenching was
important. As this affects the flow of the quenching media and therefore can cause temperature
gradients this result is to be expected. They also concluded that the austenitizing temperature, soaking
time and pre-heating temperature did not affect the distortion (6).

Quenching process
There exists a multitude of quenching methods e.g. air quenching, oil quenching, water quenching, gas
quenching, spray quenching, fog quenching and martempering (1). As different quenching media have
different heat transfer coefficients they will cool down the material differently and give different
thermal fields. With a slower cooling the thermal fields in the material will not differ that much resulting
in less deformation. Lijun et al. (7) compared different quenching media and got the cooling curves seen
in Figure 2.
12

Figure 2. Cooling curves for different quenching media both from the surface and center of the tested part (7).

These curves are for both the center and the surface of the part and show a temperature difference
between them. According to Figure 2, nitrogen gives the slowest cooling while oil is the next slowest. It
is also these two that have the smallest temperature difference between the surface and the center.
This is easier seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Temperature difference between the center and surface of the part as a function of internal temperature (7).

13

Together with Kessler et al. (8) it confirms that the cooling curve for gas quenching is slower and has less
difference in temperature than oil quenching and therefore lower distortion. The two quenching
methods considered in this project will therefore be the oil quenching and gas quenching methods. Both
of these methods work along the same basic principle for the quenching. After heating the parts up to
1500-1600F (815-870C) they are rapidly cooled down with the help of the quenching media.
To get as little distortion as possible and at the same time get the targeted microstructure and hardness
there are several things that need to be considered. These are the steel composition and hardenability,
geometry of the part, machining process, type of quenching medium, temperature of quenchant,
agitation and condition of the quenchant (1).
Of these parameters there are three that are decided before the quenching process. These are the steel
composition, geometry and tooling. The steel composition depends on what you will use the product for
when it is done and the same goes for the geometry of the part. These parameters will have to be
considered when the quenching process is set up the first time but do not change over time. Next, there
is machining, that is, how the part gets the right shape. Different machining processes give different
amount of residual stresses and even the same machining process can give a varying result over the
lifetime of the tool. This is not something you will always know for production purposes, which is why it
is something that is hard to account for every time. The most common thing is therefore to assume the
difference in the residual stresses under a tool life is negligible. It is then possible to count it as a
constant parameter in the same way as the material composition and the geometry of the part.
Then there are the parameters that you can change during the quenching process. First there is the
quenching medium. This is very important as different media have different cooling curves, see Figure 1,
and will consequently give different properties to the material. This is especially true for oil quenching
where there are three different phases during the quenching. These three phases are the vapor phase
when you have a uniform layer of vapor on the surface, the boiling phase where the quenching medium
boils on the surface and the convection phase where heat is dissipated through convection of the
medium only, see Figure 4.

14

Figure 4. The three stages during oil quenching. The vapor stage, vapor layer on the surface. The boiling state, bubbles of gas
is formed on the surface i.e. boiling. The convective stage when the heat transport occurs through convection (9).

With different media different phases can be promoted changing the cooling curve. For the gas
quenching process you only have the convection stage. Then there is the temperature of the quenching
media. This affects the quenching speed and for the oil it also controls the life of the oil as well as the
viscosity. The agitation helps to maintain a uniform temperature in the quenching bath. It helps to
shorten the vapor phase time and raise the maximum cooling rate which decrease the quenching time.
The condition of the quenching medium includes degradation of the oil or contaminations in it as well as
in the gas. Oxidation of the mineral oil and thermal degradation of polymers are examples of how the oil
change during usage and why it needs to be checked form time to time. It is also possible to get
contaminations in the quenching medium such as water in the oil or a different gas than the wanted one
in the gas quenching (1).

Oil Quenching
From the time that oil quenching first appeared and metals were submerged in a bucket of oil the
technique have evolved considerably. The goal has been to improve the surface finish, microstructure
and distortion. In modern furnaces it is possible to change the agitation during a quenching process thus
enabling a much better possibility to control how long each of the three stages of the quenching process
is. Its then possible to decrease and control the distortion to a higher degree compared to when only a
single agitation mode could be used or when no agitation is possible. It is also important to control how
the oil flows over the parts. This can be done by changing either the loading geometry or how the oil
flows around the parts (10).
The oil itself is also very important as different oils have different cooling curves and is made for
materials with different ability to quench harden. Even oils that would work perfectly theoretically or in
tests with only a few pieces may show slightly different cooling curves throughout the load if the
furnaces are packed with more parts or if the smaller parts are replaced by one big part. It is therefore
very important to keep track of how the distortion and hardness change throughout the load (11) (12).
15

The oil will also change properties with different contaminations and age. A list of the most common
contaminations found in quenching oils is given below:

Water
Hydraulic fluid
Temperature
Oxidation
Soot
Salt

The presence of hydraulic fluid, soot, salts or water increases the maximum cooling rate while oxidation
decreases the maximum cooling rate and the temperature of maximum cooling by increasing the
viscosity of the quench oil. An increased temperature will increases the maximum cooling rate of the oil
and the temperature of maximum cooling rate as the viscosity is decreased and as well as the heat
transfer. Salts and hydraulic fluids increase the temperature of maximum cooling by two different
mechanisms. Salt provides additional sites for bubble formation, causing the temperature of maximum
cooling to increase, while the presence of hydraulic fluid reduces the viscosity of the quench oil and
enhances bubble formation because of the different boiling points of oil and hydraulic fluid. Water
decreases the temperature of maximum cooling, which in turn cause increased distortion, see Fel! Hittar
inte referensklla.. It is also a fire and explosion hazard (13).

Figure 5. The effect of different contaminations in quenching oils (13).

It is therefore very important to keep track of any changes and contaminations in the oil.
Depending on what you want the oil to be able to do different additives is added to it and has to added
again once in a while as their effects deteriorate with time. It can be for faster cooling, antifoaming,
16

oxidation inhibitors and other functions. There are several ways to protect the oil from degrading and
the most important one is to use the oil in the intended temperature range as it oxidizes faster at
elevated temperatures. For this purpose its possible to use a protective atmosphere or vacuum as well.
Vacuum will result in less water in the oil since it will evaporate and it will prevent formation of ash to a
certain degree (14).

Gas Quenching
There is a wide range of different gas quenching furnaces. They can have one or two chambers, operate
under low or high pressure, different gases as quenching media and different possibilities for agitation
and control of the gas flow.
A quenching furnace with only one chamber will only allow gas as quenching medium while a two
chamber furnace can allow for switching between oil and gas. But If only gas will be used then a one
chamber furnace is enough and a two chamber furnace is just excessive cost (15).
The difference in pressure during the quenching will affect the thermal conductivity. A higher gas
pressure will give a higher thermal conductivity as the gas will be denser and therefore able to transfer
more heat. For the low pressure the opposite is true. In modern furnaces you can change the gas
pressure during the quenching and so affect the cooling effect (16).
Depending on how many pieces that you want to quench at the same time the agitation flow control
vary. If there is only one or a few pieces that is quenched at the same time it is possible to be much
more exact in how the flow is. Especially for single pieces where multiple nozzles can be put up to direct
the flow over the piece in a very exact manner. This was demonstrated by Schuettenberg et al. (17), (18)
using nozzles to control the flow to specific areas of the part minimizing and controlling the distortion. In
both cases the distortion and the flow were computer modeled before being confirmed with
experiments. Unfortunately this method is not possible to implement in a normal quenching furnace
where you put in a load of many parts at once and the parts can vary in size and geometry. That makes it
impossible to have stationary nozzles that control the gas flow on every piece. Instead you have to be
content with being able to control the flow more generally. Existing commercial ways is able to change
the general flow so it flows from top to bottom or reversed. It is also possible to change the speed of the
flow during the quenching. All this can be used to control the cooling curve (17) (18).
The risk of contaminations is lower using gas quenching since an inert gas is used. The one
contamination that do occur and that can cause a problem is small quantities of other gases than the
specific gas or gas mix that is intended for the quenching. It could then react with the material of the
product or change the properties of the gas (1).

17

AISI E52100
The AISI E52100 is a high carbon, chromium alloyed steel that is easy to machine before heat treatment
but that can reach relatively high hardness and abrasion resistance after heat treatment. It is a good
material when great wear resistance is needed (19) as is the case for parts in automotive engines. The
Isothermal transformation diagram that shows how fast you need to quench the material to avoid other
phases than martensite is in Figure 6.

Figure 6. The Isothermal Transformation diagram for AISI E52100 (1).

For normal hardening the material should be austenitized at 1555F (845C) but if distortions are an
issue it can be done at 1500F (815C) (1).
When the temperature reach Ms the cooling rate should be lower to allow for an even temperature
change throughout the whole part. In that way there is less induced stresses from thermal fields and
from changes in microstructure.
The change in microstructure during the austenite to martensite transformation induces a volume
increase as the BCT crystal structure has a lower density than the austenites FCC structure. Even if you
get ferrite instead of martensite a volume increase will take place even if it is less than for martensite.
This is due to the BCC structure that has a density between the BCT and FCC crystal structure. These
volume changes are true for all steel with some minor differences in the exact volume changes due to
the alloying elements.

18

Objective
The main objective of the present work was to build up the understanding of how AISI E52100 will
behave during different quenching parameters and quenching methods and then be able to decrease
the distortion and learn how to better control the remaining distortion
Several experiments to gather information have been performed both at Cummins and at other
companies. The focus has been on oil quenching as that is the current method used by Cummins and
testing on how the different agitation rates will affect the distortion has been performed. Each
company also uses different oils and will therefore run the test at different temperatures. To see how
the temperature affects the distortion, test with different temperatures was performed at Cummins.
Two tests were performed in a HPGQ furnace to see how that compares to the distortion from oil
quenching and if it could be a viable option.
The parts placement in the load was also analyzed as well as the thread temperings effect on the
distortion.
This project will also form the basis for a database that will continue to be filled out with information
from normal production and other test as a support of other long term projects that need information
that reach over a whole year and not just a few months to be of value. One example is how the oil
condition affects the distortion. This is important but the oil will not change during the short interval
between the two tests at every facility and is therefore not possible to consider in this project.

19

Experiments
All experiments were done with a full load where 27 parts were mere measured before and the
remaining parts were scrap parts to simulate reality. To be able to see how the distortion differed
throughout the load and as it consisted of 3 layers 9 different zones were picked, see Figure 7, and 3
parts that were measured beforehand with Zeiss Gage Max CMM were put in each zone. The
exceptions to this are the two tests done at ALD where the top blown and reverse blown had 40 and 37
parts each in the test. The exact zones for those parts are not known.

Figure 7. The way the parts were distributed in the three layers of the load. The front is the part loaded first into the furnace.

For every test the parts were austenitized first at a temperature of 1525 F in the heat chamber. After
they were quenched they followed the normal route with temper (325F), deep freeze (-150F), temper
(425F) and thread temper process after the quenching. This part was the same for all tests except
number 7. That test was left in the first tempering cycle much longer than the others by a mistake.
The tests were performed at 3 different companies and in both oil and gas quenching furnaces with different parameters
different parameters according to

Table 1. The furnaces that are used at Cummins and Nitrex are of the same model and manufacturer.
The top and reverse blown agitation for the ALD gas quench means that the cold gas flows through the
top to the bottom of the load. Reverse blown means just that. The flow comes from the bottom and
going out the top.

20

Table 1. The parameters for each test and where it was done as well as the furnace.

Test

Alternative
Name

Company

Furnace

Oil/gas

Agitation

Temperature/
pressure

M75S190

Nitrex

Surface combustion, two

chamber vacuum

Millers
quench oil 75

Slow

190F

M75F190

Nitrex

Surface combustion, two

chamber vacuum

Millers
quench oil 75

Fast

190F

H18BB

ALD

Module Therm Furnace

Helium

Bottom
blown

18 bar

H18TB

ALD

Module Therm Furnace

Helium

Top blown

18 bar

P420S190

Cummins

Surface combustion, two

chamber vacuum

Parks 420
quench oil

Slow

190F

P420F190

Cummins

Surface combustion, two

chamber vacuum

Parks 420
quench oil

Fast

190F

P420S210

Cummins

Surface combustion, two

chamber vacuum

Parks 420
quench oil

Slow

210F

P420F210

Cummins

Surface combustion, two

chamber vacuum

Parks 420
quench oil

Fast

210F

P420S190P

Cummins

Hayes, HPO-202436

Parks 420
quench oil

Slow

190 F

The production is currently done in the Hayes furnace while all other oil quenching tests were done in
the Surface combustion furnace. The main difference between these two furnaces is that the one used
for production does not have any water cooling of the oil during quenching which the Surface
Combustions furnace has.
Nitrex and Cummins use two different oils that have different cooling curves. The actual curves will be
looked at from oil samples during the experiment. Something that will not be looked at is the viscosity
21

and instead we will use the values for the new oils. The viscosities for the oils are 15 cSt for Miller 75 (at
40 F) and 54 cSt for Park 420 (at 100 F). As the viscosity decrease with a raised temperature the 420
quench oil have a much higher viscosity than the 75 quench oil.
After the thread temper the parts were measured in the Zeiss Gage Max CMM (exception test 3, 4 and 8
that were measured before as well) and one part from the middle zone were analyzed regarding the
hardness and microstructure to see that they conformed to the requirements Cummins have. For this
analysis an Arc Sparc (Spectro Max) model LMM04 was used for the Rockwell hardness measurements
and a LOM for the microstructure.

22

Results and discussion

The result form the measurement of the cooling curves for the used oils is seen in Figure 8. It shows that
the 420 quench oil starts cooling earlier but then slow down earlier as well compared to quench oil 75. It
is first towards the very end that it looks like they have the same cooling speed or a slightly slower one
for the 75 quench oil.

Figure 8. To the left it is the cooling curve for the used Miller's 75 from Nitrex vs new 420. To the right it is Cummins used 420
vs new 420. Red represent new 420, blue is used 420 and green is used 75. They were tested at 190 F and with no agitation.

More exact values at a few certain times on the cooling speed and time to reach different temperatures
is in Table 2. These values agree with the previous figure. While the 75 quench oils cooling speed is
faster at 572 F it is not by much and it will change at lower temperatures. If these values are compared
to the TTT diagram in Figure 6 it is clear that both oils will be cooling the material too slow to avoid the
phase transformations completely. But as this is done with no agitation the cooling curve of the oils will
change for the tests as agitation is used in them. As a result the material is cooled down fast enough so
that no phase transformations occur.
Table 2. Time to reach specific temperatures and cooling speed for the oils used during quenching at the quality they were in.
*There are no value for this, **The test sample did not come down to this temperature in 60 seconds.

Temperature
1112 F
752 F
572 F
392 F

Time to reach the temperature (Parker/Miller)

7.375/8.625 sec
14.750/11.625 sec
*
**/50.250 sec

Cooling speed (Parker/Miller)

*
*
8.49/9.18F sec
*

While a lot of different measurements were performed for each part only 10 will be considered in this
project. These measurements were divided with two on the OD and eight on the inside of the bore, see
Figure 9.

23

Figure 9. The barrel used for the tests and where the measurements were.

First there is the OD that had 2 measurements for each part. The distortion for each point and test is
seen in Figure 10. This data clearly shows that the distortion is bigger at measuring point H2 than at H1
which is closer to the thicker part of the pump tappet barrel. As this is the case to a varying degree for
each test the only influencing factor should be the geometry of the barrel.
While the USL is 40 m and only test 3 passes that, all tests are better than test 9 that represent the
production run. The tapering for test 9 is also as big as or bigger than any other test.

Distortion At The OD For Each Test

0.07

Distortion (mm)

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Measurement

H1 H2
M7

1
5S

H1 H2

90
7
M

19
5F

H1 H2
8
H1

H1 H2

BB
H

TB
18

P4

H1 H2
2

1
0S

H1 H2

90
P4

19
0F

0
P

H1 H2
2
0S
2
4

H1 H2

10
P4

21
0F

H1 H2

0
P4

20

9
S1

0P

Figure 10. The distortion at each measurement point on the OD for each test.

To confirm the graph the Cp and Cpk values were calculated for the tests giving the values seen in Table
3. As the Cp and Cpk is a measurement used to indicate process capability or how the measurements are
24

considering the SL they will indicate if the measurements are good or bad considering the SL. Cp is a
measurement of how centered the measurements are. Measurements closer together give a higher
value. Cpk shows how close the measurements are to the SL and a higher value is better here as well.
They were calculated in Minitab by creating the six pack figures found in appendix 1.
If we look at the OD values only test 2-4 would pass Cummins requirement of 1.67 as a value for Cp and
none for Cpk. But if the values are compared to test 9 all are better which confirms Figure 10.
Table 3. The Cp and Cpk values for the bore and OD from each test.

Cp (bore)
Cpk (bore)
Cp (OD)
Cpk (OD)

Test 1
1.10
1.09
1.47
0.11

Test 2
0.93
0.78
2.29
0.17

Test 3
1.88
1.80
2.46
0.58

Test 4
1.24
1.17
2.92
0.52

Test 5
0.96
0.69
1.33
0.33

Test 6
0.99
0.71
1.22
0.22

Test 7
0.98
0.74
1.39
0.14

Test 8
1.02
0.75
1.28
0.25

Test 9
1.00
0.89
1.19
-0.06

While the Cp and Cpk values for the OD did not fulfill the requirement for any test there is one case for
the bore where both the Cp and Cpk requirements are fulfilled. It is test 3 that succeeds while every
other test fails on both values. Of the other test it is number 4 that is closest followed by number 1. The
test done in the Surface Combustion furnace all has very similar results with no big difference visible in
the values. Together with the fact that the average distortion for these tests is very close together as
seen in Figure 11 the results point towards that there is very small differences in distortion between
those tests. The distortion curve for the bore also shows that test 3 and 4 is best followed by the tests
from Nitrex. Between the Nitrex tests there is also a bigger change in distortion when the agitation is
changed. This is due to the lower viscosity of the 75 quench oil compared to the 420 quench oil making
it much easier to put the oil into motion. All tests also show a similar shape on the distortion curve to
each other indicating that the shape depends on the geometry of the part and not something else. It is
at the thickest part that the biggest distortion is taking place and this is in agreement with the
theoretical knowledge that a thicker material has a bigger temperature gradient between the middle
and the edges giving more distortion.

25

Average Distortion For All Tests Over Inner Bore

0.02

Variable
M75S190
M75F190
H18BB
H18TB
P420S190
P420F190
P420S210
P420F210
P420S190P

0.01

Distortion (mm)

0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
A1

A2

A3
A4
A5
A6
Measurement point

A7

A8

Figure 11. Average distortion of the bore for all tests.

Something that is very important but isnt seen in this diagram or in the Cp values is the tapering. This is
instead shown in Figure 12-Figure 16. The mean distortion and tapering for the current production. For
test 1 and 2 the biggest tapering are around point A4 and A5. The overall tapering as well as distortion is
also less for test 2. This means that for this oil and temperature slow agitation is better than fast. When
the speed is increased the oil is moved around too much causing the material to cool down too fast and
giving more distortion. The temperature in the oil bath becomes more uneven as well for the faster
agitation causing more difference in distortion between the parts.
Mean Distortion And 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements M75F190

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.00

Distortion (mm)

Distortion (mm)

Mean Distortion And 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements M75S190

-0.02

-0.02

-0.04

-0.04

-0.06

-0.06
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

Figure 12. The mean distortion and tapering for test 1 and 2 at each measurement point.

26

For test 3 and 4 the tapering is seen in Figure 13. These graphs show a clear difference between the
bottom blown and top blown tests with more distortion and tapering under the threads for the top
blown. One explanation to this could be that the air coming up from the bottom hits the thinner area
first, gets warmed up a little bit before it hits the thicker part giving a more even temperature and
slower cooling. This theory agree with the fact that when the gas hit the top first you get less distortion
at the thinner part compared to the bottom blown. To really confirm this theory it should be a
difference between the different layers of the load but as there is no information on where the parts
were, this is not something that can be checked and unfortunately the theory cannot be confirmed.
Mean Distortion And 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements H18TB

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.00

Distortion (mm)

Distortion (mm)

Mean Distortion And 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements H18BB

-0.02

-0.02

-0.04

-0.04

-0.06

-0.06
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

Figure 13. The mean distortion and tapering for test 3 and 4 at each measurement point.

The distortion for test 5-8 looked very similar to each other in Figure 11 and the graphs in Figure 14 and
Figure 15 shows that the tapering is very similar as well. There is a slight decrease in tapering and
distortion when the agitation is fast which tells us that the temperature differences decrease. It is due
to the high viscosity that the difference is much less than for the tests using Millers 75. The raise in
temperature does not affect the results and give almost exactly the same result between the 190 F and
210 F. As the difference in distortion and tapering is very small for these four tests it would be possible
to change the print so that instead of reducing the distortion you re-center the part allowing for the
distortion so that the final measurements arent outside the limits. Of course it would be better to
change to another process instead of these that have less distortion.
Mean Distortion And 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements P420F190

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.00

Distortion (mm)

Distortion (mm)

Mean Distortion And 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements P420S190

-0.02

-0.02

-0.04

-0.04

-0.06

-0.06
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

Figure 14. The mean distortion and tapering for test 5 and 6 at each measurement point.

27

Mean Distortion and 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements P420F210

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.00

Distortion (mm)

Distortion (mm)

Mean Distortion And 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements P420S210

-0.02

-0.02

-0.04

-0.04

-0.06

-0.06
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

Figure 15. The mean distortion and tapering for test 7 and 8 at each measurement point.

For the current production process there is less tapering and distortion, see Figure 16, than in the other
tests done at Cummins. Or rather, the distortion is more centered letting all of the values get inside the
+/- 50 m limit. The only tests that have less distortion than the production are the slow agitation test at
Nitrex and the gas quenching tests. It is therefore only these tests that are better than the production
run when both the OD and bore distortion are considered.

Mean Distortion and 95 Percentile Box For Bore Measurements P420S190P

0.02

Distortion (mm)

0.00

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

Figure 16. The mean distortion and tapering for the current production.

Among all the tests there were tapering. This is something you want to avoid in order to predict where
the distortion will occur. As the tapering could depend on uneven temperature in the furnaces the

28

distortion in each zone were studied for each tests. If a connection between the zones in the furnace
and the distortion tapering exist it can be fixed by changing the agitation or modify the furnace.
In Figure 17 the zone distortion for test 1 is shown. For this test there are 2 zones that are standing out
from the others. It is zone 1 and 6 which is both in the lower layer on the left side seen from the load
front. It is therefore a good possibility that this depended on uneven flow of the oil in the furnace. To
confirm this, the same tendency would have to take place in test 2.
Distortion Individual Zones M75S190
Variable
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9

0.02

Distortion (mm)

0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
1

Figure 17. Mean distortion for each of the individual zones for test 1.

Compared to test 1 the zones distortion in test 2 more evenly spread out, see Figure 18. The zones that
are standing out from the others are 3 zones different from those in test 3. It is therefore impossible to
confirm if the distortion depends on the zones or not. At the same time, the faster agitation for test 2
may cause a different flow in the tank. That also makes it impossible to disregard the possibility without
further tests done at the slow agitation.

29

Distortion Individual Zones M75F190

0.02

Variable
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9

0.01

Distortion (mm)

0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
1

Figure 18. Mean distortion for each of the individual zones for test 2.

For the tests performed at Cummins the zone distortion looked very similar to the example in Figure 19
where there are no discernible connection between the zones and the tapering. This is true for both the
Surface combustion furnace and Hayes furnace.
Distortion Individual Zones P420F190
Variable
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9

0.00

Distortion (mm)

-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
1

Figure 19. Mean distortion for each of the individual zones for test 6.

30

In all the figures describing the bore distortion the thread tempering distortion has been included as
well. To see how just the thread tempering added to the distortion some tests were measured before
the thread tempering as well. Figure 20 shows how the distortion looks for the two gas quenching tests.
The only significant distortions are at measurement point A1 and A2 for both tests. This is no surprise
since these points are under the threads that are induction tempered while the other points are outside
the heated part. The reason the for the distortion is that when the induction tempering takes place the
temperature is not raised fast enough to just raise it in the threads. Instead the temperature is raised all
the way to the bore and to a higher temperature than the last tempering indicating as the steel get a
blue color during the tempering that is creeping towards the core. That color represents a temperature
of about 550-600 F and are much higher than the temperature of the last tempering (20). This cause
stress relaxation in the material that gives the distortion observed.
Distortion From Thread Tempering H18TB
0.005

0.000

0.000

Distortion (mm)

Distortion (mm)

Distortion From Thread Tempering H18BB

0.005

-0.005

-0.010

-0.015

-0.005

-0.010

-0.015
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

Figure 20. Thread tempering distortion for the gas quenching tests.

In Figure 21 the distortion for test 8 and 9 is shown and it is very similar to the gas quenching tests. This
indicates that independent of what method used to quench the product the thread tempering will be
the same. If the thread tempering step were removed a significant portion of the distortion would
disappear and all of the test would fall inside the distortion limits for the bore. The best way to do this
would be to try to change to a more powerful source of power for the induction heating. That would
allow for a faster raise in temperature during the thread tempering causing less heating of the core. If
only the threads could be heated there would be no significant distortion in the core.

31

Distortion From Thread Tempering P420S190P

0.005

0.000

0.000
Distortion (mm)

Distortion (mm)

Distortion From Thread Tempering P420F210

0.005

-0.005

-0.010

-0.015

-0.005

-0.010

-0.015
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

Figure 21. Thread tempering distortion for test 8 and 9.

While the goal is to limit and control the distortion the most important thing is to keep the required
microstructure and properties for the pump tappet barrel. Whether the parts from the tests fulfill the
hardness requirement and what microstructure they had is shown in Table 4. All parts fulfill the prints
requirement except test 3 and 4 from ALD that had troostite in the microstructure. While the amount is
small enough that it does not affect the hardness and would pass a test if it were a single sample from
production it is more important in this case. As no confirmation test has been done there is no way to
know if this is normal or if it is more or less than usually. That means that even small variations may
cause troostite in the material which is unwanted and can lower the hardness. Therefore it would be
best to change to oil M75S190 to get a decrease in distortion and still keep an acceptable
microstructure.
Table 4. Information about how the samples hardness and microstructure is compared to the prints requirement. The
amount of retained austenite found during the two measurements. The testing was done on a part from zone 5.

Print
Marten
-site

Test 1
Martensite

Test 2
Marten
-site

Hardness

53-62
HRc

Retained
Austenite

<5%

Follows
the
print
1.16%
1.15%

Follows
the
print
2.67%
1.99%

Microstructure

Test 3
Martensite,
troostite
Follows
the print

Test 4
Martensite,
troostite
Follows
the print

2.36%
1.92%

3.60%
3.43%

Test 5
Martensite

Test 6
Martensite

Test 7
Martensite

Test 8
Martensite

Test 9
Martensite

Follows
the
print
0.99%
0.79%

Follows
the
print
1.72%
1.42%

Follows
the
print
0.84%
0.43%

Follows
the
print
0.67%

Follows
the
print
1.45%
1.05%

32

Conclusions

All tests gave less distortion than the production run at the OD.

Changing agitation speed or temperature does not result in a significant difference in

distortion at Cummins.

Lower viscosity of the oil gives less distortion at the right speed.

There is no discernible connection between the different heating zones the parts were
in and differences in distortion.

Thread tempering causes constant distortion.

It is possible to change the print to accommodate for the distortion in a few cases.

It is recommended to use Millers 75 quench oil and slow agitation in the surface
combustion furnace.

33

Future work
There are several things that could be done as a continuation of this work. One of them is to try to
quench with a varying agitation speed during the process. That would allow for a better control over the
cooling curve and possibly also decrease the distortion. This could be done by changing the speed
manually at the furnaces currently used at Cummins. A furnace where you can change the agitation
speed automatically during the process would be even better. At the same time, a higher temperature
than the 210 F used here could be tried to see how that affect the distortion. If the furnace at Cummins
had been able to handle a temperature of 250 F this would have been possible to include in the present
work but unfortunately the furnace could not handle temperatures over the boiling point without risk of
exploding.
More tests with different oils would also be interesting as it was a big difference between the two tested
in the present work. It may be possible to find even better oils that Miller 75 for this process.
Since gas quenching turned out to be a good choice with respect to the distortion more tests should be
performed to investigate if the resulting microstructure is acceptable. Different parameters, i.e. the
pressure, could be varied in order to get less troostite in the final microstructure.
For the gas quenching it were a difference between bottom and top blown quench and it would
therefore be interesting to investigate how a reversed quench would look for oil quenching. If the
caskets is modified in such a way that they can lie with the thicker part down without damaging the
threads then this could be done. If the same relationship between bottom and top blown quench exist
for oil as for gas this would reduce the distortion.
The thread tempering give a lot of distortions and to resolve this a change to a more powerful source of
electricity was suggested in the present work. To test this hypotheses heat treated samples could be
sent from Cummins to a company that uses a bigger power source. If the result is better it is worth
investing in it.
Something that wasnt investigated in this project was how the machining tools affected the distortion.
A new and old tool should give slightly different distortion since an old tool will give more residual stress
than a new one. To see how this affect the distortion several test over the lifetime of the tool should be
performed. In that way a specific age of the tool can be specified, before it has to be changed, in order
to keep the distortion originating from the tool to a minimum .

34

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors Andrew Armuth and Danielle Kareus at Cummins for helping me
with the all the questions I have had about the project and just working and living in USA. They were a
great help for me and without their help it would have been impossible to do this. I would also like to
thank my supervisor at KTH, Joakim Odqvist, for his help with the project.
Chuck Thomas and Morgan Thomas at Nitrex were a great help by allowing me to use their quenching
furnace, enabling me to compare different oils. Finally there is Anders Eliasson at KTH. Without his offer
for this opportunity I would not have done this.

35

Bibliography
1. ASM International. Heat Treater's Guide Practices and Procedures for Irons and Steels . Materials
Park, OH : ASM International, 1995.
2. Sensitivity of material properties on distortion and residual stresses during metal quenching processes.
Ashok Kumar Nallathambi, Yalcin Kaymak, Eckehard Specht, Albrecht Bertram. pp. 204-210,
Magdeburg : Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2009, Vol. 210.
3. Overview of distortion and residual stress due to quench processing part I: factors affecting quench
distortion. Canale L.C.F., Totten G.E. Nos 1-4, pp. 4-52, s.l. : International Journal Materials and Product
Technology, 2005, Vol. 24.
4. Herring, Daniel H. The Heat Treat Doctor: Secrets of Effective Hot Oil Quench-ing. Industrial Heating.
[Online] Industrial Heating, April 4, 2006. [Cited: Mars 26, 2013.]
http://www.industrialheating.com/articles/86820-the-heat-treat-doctor-secrets-of-effective-hot-oilquench-ing?v=preview.
5. Finite element simulation of quench distortion in a low-alloy steel incorporating transformation
kinetics. Seok-Jae Lee, Young-Kook Lee. Seoul : Elsevier Ltd, 2007, Vol. 56.
6. Effect of machining and heating parameters on distortion of AISI 52100 steel bearing rings. Surm, H.,
Kessler, O., Hoffmann, F. and Mayr, P. Nos 1-4, pp. 270-281, s.l. : Int. J. Materials and Product
Technology, 2005, Vol. 24.
7. Study on the Cooling Capacity of Different Quenchant. Lijun Hou, Heming Cheng, Jianyun Li, Ziliang Li,
Baodong Shao, Jie Hou. pp. 515-519, s.l. : Procedia Engineering, 2012, Vol. 31.
8. Combinations of coating and heat treating processes: establishing a system for combined processes
and examples. O.H. Kessler, F.T. Hoffmann, P. Mayr. pp. 211-216, Bremen : Surface and Coatings
Technology, 1998, Vols. 108-109.
9. Herring, Daniel H. Oil Quenching. The Heat Treat Doctor. [Online] 2010. [Cited: 3 25, 2013.]
http://www.heat-treat-doctor.com/documents/Vacuum%20Oil%20Quenching%20Tech.pdf.
10. Shimadzu Mectem Inc. VHO Oil/Gas Quenching Vacuum Furnace. [Online] Shimadzu Mectem Inc.,
04 01, 2013. [Cited: 04 1, 2013.] http://www.shimadzu-mectem.com/product/furnace/vho.html .
11. Herring, Daniel H. Effects of Contamination on Quench-Oil Cooling Rate. Industrial heating. [Online]
January 09, 2002. [Cited: 04 01, 2013.] http://www.industrialheating.com/articles/89944-effects-ofcontamination-on-quench-oil-cooling-rate?v=preview.
12. . Oil Quenching Part One: How to Interpret Cooling Curves. Industrual heating. [Online] The
Herring Group Inc., 08 08, 2007. [Cited: 04 01, 2013.] http://www.industrialheating.com/articles/87886oil-quenching-part-one-how-to-interpret-cooling-curves.

36

13. MacKenzie, D. Scott. Effects of Contamination on Quench-Oil Cooling Rate. industrialheating.

[Online] Houghton International Inc., January 9, 2002. [Cited: 3 25, 2013.]
http://www.industrialheating.com/articles/89944-effects-of-contamination-on-quench-oil-coolingrate?v=preview.
14. INFLUENCE OF QUENCHING OILS COMPOSITION ON THE COOLING RATE. Ljiljana Pediic, Boidar
Matijevic, Boris Peric. Pula, Croatia : INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HEAT TREATMENT AND
SURFACE ENGINEERING OF TOOLS AND DIES, 2005.
15. HHV Technology. Gas / Oil quenching furnace . HHV TEchnology. [Online] HHV Technology, 2011.
[Cited: 04 01, 2013.] http://hhv.in/categories/vacuum-technology/vacuum--furnaces/gas--oilquenching%20furnace.
16. Otto, Frederick J. Information about Midwest Thermal - Vac. Columbus, IN, 03 12, 2013.
17. Process technology for distortion compensation by means of gas quenching in flexible jet fields. S.
Schuettenberg, F. Frerichs, M. Hunkel and U. Fritsching. Nos 1-5, Bremen : Int. J. Materials and Product
Technology, 2005, Vol. 25.
18. Quenching with fluid jets. S. Schuettenberg, F. Krause, M. Hunkel, H.-W. Zoch, U. Fritsching. 5-6,
Weinheim : WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2009, Vol. 40. DOI: 10.1002/mawe.200900468.
19. Tejas. m3tubecomponents. m3tubecomponents. [Online] M3 Excellence Limited, November 06,
2011. [Cited: April 02, 2013.]
http://www.m3tubecomponents.com/images/AISI%2052100%20SPECIFICATIONS.pdf.
20. Halcomb Steel Co. Colors of heated steels. [Online] Sizes Inc., December 28, 2007. [Cited: May 15,
2013.] http://sizes.com/materls/colors_of_heated_metals.htm.

37

Appendix
Process Capability Sixpack of Bore Distortion Test 1
Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

Sample Mean

0.02

UCL=0.01628

Target

LCL=-0.01597
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

S pecifications
LS L
-0.05
Target 0.00
USL
0.05
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
.04 0.03 0. 01 0.00 0. 01 0.03 0. 04
-0
-

Sample Range

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

0.08

UCL=0.08066

0.04

_
R=0.04327

0.00

A D: 5.469, P : < 0.005

LCL=0.00589
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

-0.05

0.00

Last 25 Subgroups

Within

Within
StDev 0.01520
Cp
1.10
Cpk
1.09
PPM
1004.42

0.00
-0.02
5

10

15
Sample

0.05

Capability Plot

0.02

Values

USL

_
_
X=0.00016

0.00

-0.02

LSL

20

Overall
StDev 0.01451
Pp
1.15
Ppk
1.14
Cpm
1.15
PPM
570.72

Ov erall
Specs

25

Process Capability Sixpack of OD Distortion Test 1

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

Sample Mean

0.06

UCL=0.05628

LSL

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.04
Target 0.00
USL
0.04

_
_
X=0.03706

0.04

0.02

LCL=0.01785
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

-0.032 -0.016

Sample Range

R Chart

0.000

0.016

0.032

0.048

Normal Prob Plot

A D: 0.820, P : 0.032

UCL=0.03338

0.030

0.015

_
R=0.01022

0.000

LCL=0
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0.02

Last 25 Subgroups

Values

USL

0.04
0.03
0.02
10

15
Sample

20

0.04

0.05

Capability Plot
Within
StDev 0.009058
Cp
1.47
Cpk
0.11
PPM
372948.44

0.03

25

Within
O v erall

StDev
Pp
Ppk
Cpm
PPM

Overall
0.007076
1.88
0.14
0.35
339138.32

S pecs

38

Process Capability Sixpack of Bore Distortion Test 2

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

Sample Mean

UCL=0.01136
0.000

LSL

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.05
Target 0.00
USL
0.05

_
_
X=-0.00774

-0.015
-0.030

LCL=-0.02684
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

5
0
5
0
5
0
5
.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0. 01 0. 03 0. 04
-0
-

Sample Range

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

0.10

UCL=0.0956

0.05

_
R=0.0513

0.00

A D: 10.307, P : < 0.005

LCL=0.0070
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

-0.05

Last 25 Subgroups

Values

USL

0.00

Capability Plot
Within

Within
StDev 0.01801
Cp
0.93
Cpk
0.78
PPM
10143.72

0.000
-0.025

10

15
Sample

20

Overall
StDev 0.01731
Pp
0.96
Ppk
0.81
Cpm
0.88
PPM
7728.86

O v erall

-0.050
5

0.05

S pecs

25

Process Capability Sixpack of OD Distortion Test 2

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

Sample Mean

0.06

UCL=0.05657

LSL

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.04
Target 0.00
USL
0.04

_
_
X=0.03459

0.04

0.02
LCL=0.01260
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0
5
0
5
0
5
0
.03 0.01 0. 00 0. 01 0.03 0.04 0.06
-0
-

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

Sample Range

0.04

A D: 1.686, P : < 0.005

UCL=0.03820

0.02

_
R=0.01169

0.00

LCL=0
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0.02

Last 25 Subgroups

0.04

0.035

Within
O v erall

0.025
5

10

15
Sample

20

0.06

Capability Plot
Within
StDev 0.01036
Cp
1.29
Cpk
0.17
PPM
300795.64

0.045

Values

USL

25

StDev
Pp
Ppk
Cpm
PPM

Overall
0.007795
1.71
0.23
0.37
243790.48

S pecs

39

Process Capability Sixpack of Bore Distortion Test 3

Sample Mean

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram
UCL=0.01151

0.01

LSL

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.05
Target 0.00
USL
0.05

_
_
X=0.00211

0.00

LCL=-0.00730

-0.01

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

5
0
5
0
5
0
5
.04 0.03 0. 01 0.00 0. 01 0.03 0. 04
-0
-

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

A D: 12.287, P : < 0.005

Sample Range

UCL=0.04707
0.04
_
R=0.02525

0.02

LCL=0.00344

0.00

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

-0.02

Last 25 Subgroups

0.00

-0.010

Within

20

25

30

Overall
StDev 0.008384
Pp
1.99
Ppk
1.90
Cpm
1.93
PPM
0.01

O v erall

-0.025
15

0.02

Capability Plot
Within
StDev 0.008870
Cp
1.88
Cpk
1.80
PPM
0.04

0.005

Values

USL

S pecs

35

Sample

Process Capability Sixpack of OD Distortion Test 3

Sample Mean

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram
UCL=0.04208

0.04

LSL

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.04
Target 0.00
USL
0.04

_
_
X=0.03058

0.03

0.02

LCL=0.01908
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

6
4
2
0
2
4
6
. 03 0. 02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0. 02 0. 03
-0
-

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

Sample Range

0.02

A D: 0.781, P : 0.041

UCL=0.01998

0.01

_
R=0.00611

0.00

LCL=0
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

0.02

Last 25 Subgroups
Within
StDev 0.005420
Cp
2.46
Cpk
0.58
PPM
41074.53

0.03

0.02
15

20

25

0.03

0.04

0.05

Capability Plot

0.04

Values

USL

30

35

Within
O v erall

Overall
StDev 0.004222
Pp
3.16
Ppk
0.74
Cpm
0.43
PPM
12823.10

S pecs

Sample

40

Process Capability Sixpac of Bore Distortion Test 4

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

Sample Mean

UCL=0.01722
0.01

LSL

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.05
Target 0.00
USL
0.05

_
_
X=0.00297

0.00
-0.01

LCL=-0.01127
1

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

5
0
5
0
5
0
5
.04 0.03 0. 01 0.00 0. 01 0.03 0. 04
-0
-

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

Sample Range

0.08

A D: 25.130, P : < 0.005

UCL=0.07126
_
R=0.03823

0.04

0.00

LCL=0.00520
1

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

-0.05

0.00

Last 25 Subgroups

Values

USL

Capability Plot
Within

Within
StDev 0.01343
Cp
1.24
Cpk
1.17
PPM
270.85

0.00
-0.02

25

30

35

Overall
StDev 0.01266
Pp
1.32
Ppk
1.24
Cpm
1.28
PPM
115.46

Ov erall
Specs

-0.04
20

0.05

40

Sample

Process Capability Sixpack of OD Distortion Test 4

Sample Mean

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram
UCL=0.04260

0.040

LSL

S pecifications
LS L
-0.04
Target 0.00
USL
0.04

0.032
0.024

LCL=0.02321
5

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
. 03 0. 02 0. 01 0. 00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
-0
-

R Chart
Sample Range

USL

_
_
X=0.03290

Normal Prob Plot

0.016

UCL=0.01684

0.008

_
R=0.00515

0.000

A D: 1.638, P : < 0.005

LCL=0
1

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

0.02

Last 25 Subgroups

0.03

0.035

Within
O v erall

0.030
20

25

30

0.04

Capability Plot
Within
StDev 0.004569
Cp
2.92
Cpk
0.52
PPM
60220.40

0.040

Values

Target

35

40

Overall
StDev 0.003621
Pp
3.68
Ppk
0.65
Cpm
0.40
PPM
25008.45

S pecs

Sample

41

Process Capability Sixpack of Bore Distortion Test 5

Sample Mean

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram
LSL

UCL=0.00452

0.000

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.05
Target 0.00
USL
0.05

_
_
X=-0.01391

-0.015
-0.030

LCL=-0.03233
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
.06 .04 .03 .01 0. 00 0. 01 0. 03 0.04
-0 -0 -0 -0

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

Sample Range

0.10

A D: 10.138, P : < 0.005

UCL=0.0922
_
R=0.0495

0.05

0.00

LCL=0.0067
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

-0.05

Last 25 Subgroups

0.00

-0.025
-0.050
5

10

15
Sample

0.05

Capability Plot
Within

Within
StDev 0.01737
Cp
0.96
Cpk
0.69
PPM
18982.29

0.000

Values

USL

20

Overall
StDev 0.01650
Pp
1.01
Ppk
0.73
Cpm
0.77
PPM
14409.07

O v erall
S pecs

25

Process Capability Sixpack of OD Distortion Test 5

Sample Mean

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

0.05

UCL=0.05149

0.03

_
_
X=0.03019

0.01

LCL=0.00890
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

LSL

Sample Range

USL

S pecifications
LS L
-0.04
Target 0.00
USL
0.04
0
5
0
.03 0. 01 0. 00
-0
-

R Chart

5
01
0.

0
5
03
04
0.
0.

Normal Prob Plot

0.04

A D: 0.419, P : 0.316

UCL=0.03700

0.02

_
R=0.01132

0.00

LCL=0
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0.00

Last 25 Subgroups

0.025
0.000
5

10

15
Sample

20

0.02

0.04

0.06

Capability Plot
Within
StDev 0.01004
Cp
1.33
Cpk
0.33
PPM
164281.12

0.050

Values

Target

25

Within
O v erall

StDev
Pp
Ppk
Cpm
PPM

Overall
0.009168
1.45
0.36
0.42
142362.26

S pecs

42

Process Capability Sixpack of Bore Distortion Test 6

Sample Mean

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram
LSL

UCL=0.00378

0.000

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.05
Target 0.00
USL
0.05

_
_
X=-0.01405

-0.015
-0.030

LCL=-0.03188
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
. 06 .04 .03 .01 0.00 0. 01 0. 03 0. 04
-0 -0 -0 -0

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

Sample Range

0.10

A D: 11.028, P : < 0.005

UCL=0.0892
_
R=0.0479

0.05

0.00

LCL=0.0065
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

-0.05

Last 25 Subgroups

0.00

0.05

Capability Plot
Within

Within
StDev 0.01681
Cp
0.99
Cpk
0.71
PPM
16320.65

0.000

Values

USL

-0.025

Overall
StDev 0.01592
Pp
1.05
Ppk
0.75
Cpm
0.78
PPM
12017.49

O v erall

-0.050
5

10

15
Sample

20

S pecs

25

Process Capability Sixpack of OD Distortion Test 6

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

Sample Mean

0.06

UCL=0.05606

0.04

LSL

S pecifications
LS L
-0.04
Target 0.00
USL
0.04

0.02
LCL=0.00956
4

10

13

16

19

22

25

2
6
0
. 03
. 01 0.00
-0
-0
-

R Chart

6
01
0.

2
03
0.

8
04
0.

Normal Prob Plot

0.04

Sample Range

USL

_
_
X=0.03281

A D: 0.675, P : 0.074

UCL=0.04039

0.02

_
R=0.01236

0.00

LCL=0
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0.00

Last 25 Subgroups

0.035
0.020
5

10

15
Sample

20

0.02

0.04

0.06

Capability Plot
Within
StDev 0.01096
Cp
1.22
Cpk
0.22
PPM
255837.59

0.050

Values

Target

25

Within
O v erall

StDev
Pp
Ppk
Cpm
PPM

Overall
0.009316
1.43
0.26
0.39
220034.38

S pecs

43

Process Capability Sixpack of Bore Distortion Test 7

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram
LSL

Sample Mean

UCL=0.00604

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.05
Target 0.00
USL
0.05

_
_
X=-0.01206

-0.015
-0.030

LCL=-0.03017
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
. 06 .04 .03 .01 0.00 0. 01 0. 03 0. 04
-0 -0 -0 -0

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

Sample Range

0.10

A D: 9.932, P : < 0.005

UCL=0.0906
_
R=0.0486

0.05

LCL=0.0066

0.00

10

13

16

19

22

25

-0.05

Last 25 Subgroups

0.00

-0.025
-0.050
5

10

15
Sample

0.05

Capability Plot
Within

Within
StDev 0.01707
Cp
0.98
Cpk
0.74
PPM
13254.97

0.000

Values

USL

0.000

20

Overall
StDev 0.01616
Pp
1.03
Ppk
0.78
Cpm
0.83
PPM
9523.81

O v erall
S pecs

25

Process Capability Sixpack of OD Distortion Test 7

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

Sample Mean

0.06

UCL=0.05622

LSL

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.04
Target 0.00
USL
0.04

_
_
X=0.03587

0.04

0.02

LCL=0.01552
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0
5
0
5
0
5
0
.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0. 04 0. 06
-0
-

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

Sample Range

0.04

A D: 0.308, P : 0.550

UCL=0.03536

0.02

_
R=0.01082

0.00

LCL=0
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0.02

Last 25 Subgroups
Within
StDev 0.009593
Cp
1.39
Cpk
0.14
PPM
333566.39

0.04
0.02
5

10

15
Sample

20

0.04

0.06

Capability Plot

0.06

Values

USL

25

Within
O v erall

StDev
Pp
Ppk
Cpm
PPM

Overall
0.008020
1.66
0.17
0.36
303460.83

S pecs

44

Process Capability Sixpack of Bore Distortion Test 8

Sample Mean

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram
LSL

UCL=0.00385

0.000

Target

S pecifications
LS L
-0.05
Target 0.00
USL
0.05

_
_
X=-0.01344

-0.015

-0.030

LCL=-0.03073
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
. 06 .04 .03 .01 0.00 0. 01 0. 03 0. 04
-0 -0 -0 -0

Sample Range

R Chart

Normal Prob Plot

A D: 10.465, P : < 0.005

UCL=0.08651

0.08

_
R=0.04641

0.04

LCL=0.00632

0.00

10

13

16

19

22

25

-0.05

Last 25 Subgroups

0.00

0.05

Capability Plot
Within

Within
StDev 0.01630
Cp
1.02
Cpk
0.75
PPM
12510.59

0.000

Values

USL

-0.025

Overall
StDev 0.01549
Pp
1.08
Ppk
0.79
Cpm
0.81
PPM
9144.50

O v erall

-0.050
5

10

15
Sample

20

S pecs

25

Process Capability Sixpack of OD Distortion Test 8

Xbar Chart

Capability Histogram

Sample Mean

0.06

UCL=0.05433

0.04

LSL

S pecifications
LS L
-0.04
Target 0.00
USL
0.04

0.02
LCL=0.01023
4

10

13

16

19

22

25

0
5
0
5
0
. 03 0. 01 0.00 0.01 0. 03
-0
-

R Chart

5
04
0.

Normal Prob Plot

0.04

Sample Range

USL

_
_
X=0.03228

A D: 0.475, P : 0.232

UCL=0.03831

0.02

_
R=0.01172

0.00

LCL=0
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

0.00

Last 25 Subgroups
Within
StDev 0.01039
Cp
1.28
Cpk
0.25
PPM
228757.04

0.03

0.01
5

10

15
Sample

20

0.02

0.04

0.06

Capability Plot

0.05

Values

Target

25

Within
O v erall

StDev
Pp
Ppk
Cpm
PPM

Overall
0.008812
1.51
0.29
0.40
190419.82

S pecs

45