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

net/publication/273458792

Heat-treatment Processing of Austenitic Manganese Steels

Conference Paper · September 2004

CITATIONS READS

4 5,546

3 authors, including:

Selcuk Kuyucak R. Zavadil

Natural Resources Canada Natural Resources Canada
14 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   114 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

PhD thesis work View project

CDA Project on lead-free copper alloys View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Selcuk Kuyucak on 13 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Heat-treatment Processing of Austenitic Manganese Steels

Selçuk Kuyucak, Renata Zavadil, Val Gertsman

CANMET – Materials Technology Laboratory, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

Hadfield’s austenitic manganese steels are best described as retained austenites.

Steels heat-sensitized at 400 – 800°C range, such as slowly cooled castings, de-
velop intergranular embrittlement caused by hypereutectoid carbide precipitation.
A solution annealing and water quenching heat treatment restores the mechanical
properties. The present paper is an overview of research results describing the
quantitative effect of grain boundary constituents on impact toughness and effect
of section size on heat treatment, and a method of measuring of quench time using
quench water temperatures.

Keywords: manganese steel castings, heat-treatment, embrittlement

INTRODUCTION

Hadfield’s steels with a basic composition of 1.2% C, 13% Mn are metastable

austenites. This basic composition has remained the same since its discovery by
Robert Hadfield in 1882. Both carbon and manganese help stabilize austenite
against martensite formation. The martensite start temperature Ms is typically
below the temperature of liquid nitrogen (196°C). The embrittling carbides
present in the as-cast structure are removed by solution annealing above 1000°C
and quenching. The resulting “retained” austenite structure with a large amount
of carbon in solution gives these steels their high impact toughness and high
strain-hardening rate and capacity, which give them their excellent impact-abra-
sion resistance.

This overview of our recent studies on manganese steels [1-10] was funded by the
American Foundry Society and the North American metal casting industry. It
encompasses the nature of embrittling phases and their quantitative relationship to
impact toughness, the behaviour of carbides and phosphide eutectic, structural
soundness and microporosity distribution, macro- and micro- segregation, and a
method of measuring quench time as a process control tool. The overview fo-
cuses on results, the specific details of procedures and materials are found in
individual research papers.

BEHAVIOUR OF CARBIDES

The embrittling intergranular carbides in manganese steels form during slow

cooling or reheating through the 400 – 800°C range. They are removed by solu-
tion annealing above 1000°C followed by rapid quenching. The kinetics of car-
bide formation follow the typical C-curve of an isothermal transformation diag-
ram, with the fastest growth (carbide nose) occurring at 600 – 650°C. Essentially,
two types of carbides form: the “thin” carbides form very rapidly and appear as
grain boundary delineations in the etched structure at 200-1000H (Fig. 1a-d).
Later, thick carbides nucleate on thin carbides and grow along the grain bounda-
ries. The thin carbides do not embrittle the steel significantly, whereas the thick
carbides embrittle severely. The latter are distinguished from the thin carbides by
having a resolvable cementite interior with a clear austenite / carbide interphase
boundary on both sides of the cementite film. The thin carbides remain as deline-
ations even at high magnifications, their cementite is not resolved at 1000H.

In regular manganese steels (ASTM A 128, Grade B), the thin carbide delinea-
tions are less than 0.2 µm thick, and the thick carbides have a starting thickness of
0.5 – 1.5 µm, and appear as a step where they meet the thin carbides (arrows in
Fig. 1). In Cr-bearing manganese steels (Grade C), intermediate “thickened” car-
bides are also observed (Fig. 1e,f). These are effectively similar to thin carbides.
They appear as thick diffuse delineations and the cementite is not resolved by
light microscope.

Figures 2a-d show extracted replica images of grain boundary carbides by trans-
mission electron microscopy (TEM). The thickened carbides in Grade C steel are
seen to have a straight interface with one austenite grain and a serrated interface
with the other. Although, their total width in the thickened areas have reached 3 –
4 µm, their centers are 1.0 – 1.5 µm thick when their finger-like growth is exclu-
ded.

Figures 2e-g show thin foil TEM micrographs of the three carbides. The thin car-
bide delineations are seen to be discreet particles. They nucleate on a grain boun-
dary, but growth usually takes place into only one austenite grain. The “thicken-
ed” carbides in Grade C steel also consist of many discreet particles but with grea-
ter protrusions into austenite matrix. There are indications of stress on the lattice
particularly as the particles get larger (Fig. 2f). The thick carbide films, on the
other hand, are continuous (Fig. 2g).

Figure 3 shows energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) line scans across a thin
and a thick carbide in a Grade C steel using the TEM’s nanoprobe. The thin car-
bide’s Mn and Cr contents are close to those of austenite matrix, 13% and 2.5%,
respectively. The thick carbide has significantly higher concentrations of Mn and
Cr in solid solution (18% and 6%, respectively) and the diffusion of these ele-
ments into the carbide causes a depleted layer in the surrounding matrix. The lite-

2
rature on phase diagrams shows that in a 13% Mn, 1.2% C steel, the Mn content
of the cementite that forms at 600°C varies between 17% Mn (Benz 1973, in [11])
and 32% Mn (Koch and Keller 1964, in [11]). The 18% measured composition of
the thick carbide in Fig. 3 falls within this range. This supports the hypothesis
that the thick carbides are the stable phase, and the thin carbides are metastable.

The thin carbides appear as delineations under light microscope, primarily be-
cause they are comprised of many small, discreet particles. The “thickened” car-
bides in Grade C steel are essentially the same, with greater protrusions into auste-
nite matrix. Crystallographically, all carbides index to an M3C cementite struc-
ture but their chemical compositions are significantly different. It is proposed that
the following mechanism operates for carbide precipitation during quenching:

• The thin carbides are less stable but have a good lattice match with the
austenite matrix. This gives rise to a low energy interface and a low nuc-
leation barrier. The thick carbides, on the other hand, are the more stable
constituents, but have a higher energy interface and a higher nucleation
barrier.

• Discrete, metastable thin carbides whose Mn and Cr contents are similar to

those of the matrix nucleate rapidly at the grain boundaries. They are
comprised of many discreet particles, which give rise to the observed deli-
neations in the etched microstructure. These carbides have good cohesion
with austenite because of their small size and low energy, possibly cohe-
rent, interface. They often show preferred growth into one austenite grain.
In Grade C steel, this growth is more pronounced, resulting in the appea-
rance of thickened carbides (Figs. 1f, 2c,d,f).

• Soon after they form, the thin carbide growth slows down and stops be-
cause of the increased lattice mismatch and stress at the interface, and the
driving force being low, is not able to overcome the increased interfacial
energy. Eventually, a thick carbide with a larger driving force and an in-
coherent interface forms.

• The thick carbide thus formed grows rapidly in the lateral direction in a
continuous film, along the grain boundary, incorporating any thin carbides
along its way. Growth in the normal direction slows after a micron or so
thickness because of the required diffusion of Mn and Cr from the matrix
and of Si from the carbide. The thick carbides embrittle the steel either
from their poor cohesion with austenite, in which case cracks propagate
along the carbide / austenite interface, or because of their continuous na-
ture and the cracks propagate through the brittle carbide.

QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMBRITTLING PHASES

AND IMPACT TOUGHNESS

The degree of embrittlement in austenitic manganese steels depends on the degree

of grain boundary coverage by the embrittling phases. In this respect, intergran-

3
ular carbides play a key role but other embrittling phases such as phosphide eutec-
tic, non-metallic inclusions and microporosity also are involved. It is important to
note that the abundance of an embrittling phase is not as important as its distribu-
tion. As low as 5 ppm bismuth can embrittle high copper alloys [12] and the pre-
sence of 60 ppm aluminum nitride as grain boundary films is sufficient to em-
brittle steels [13]. These constituents, even in very thin layers, cause a loss of co-
hesion with the matrix. Oxides have the least cohesion with a metal matrix, but
typically their distribution is in the form of random discrete particles, hence they
are not as harmful to toughness. Phosphorous is a greater concern in manganese
steels it tends to segregate at grain boundaries, liquefies during solution annealing
and forms an embrittling phosphide eutectic film. Sulphur in low carbon steels
can form Type II grain boundary iron-sulphide eutectic during solidification [14];
but in manganese steels, tends to form globular manganese sulphides which are
not particularly detrimental.

The very heterogeneous distribution of the embrittling phases in austenitic manga-

nese steels makes it difficult to predict their impact toughness from metallogra-
phic observations. A sufficiently large area must be characterized and averaged to
achieve adequate accuracy. This was done for three steels, regular manganese
steel (Grade B3: 1.2% C, 13% Mn), high C steel (Grade B4: 1.3% C, 13% Mn),
and Cr-bearing steel (Grade C: 1.2% C, 13% Mn, 2% Cr). Charpy specimens
from these steels were tested and their ends were prepared for metallography. The
samples were examined at 200H magnification to easily distinguish the thin,
thickened and the thick carbides from each other. Although each field presented a
0.1 mm2 area, approximately 1000 fields were scanned to qualitatively establish
the grain boundary coverage by a given constituent. For rapid characterization,
albeit with some loss of precision, a procedure based on a multi-field comparison
was employed. The fraction of grain boundary covered by a certain constituent
was mentally recorded while scanning the sample by moving the microscope
stage. The overall average was recorded and the procedure was repeated for each
constituent. A trained eye can accomplish this within ±10% precision in 20 mi-
nutes each sample. As each constituent embrittles Hadfield’s steel differently,
each is assigned a weight. For example, we know that as-cast material, comp-
letely covered with thick carbides, has toughness less than 90% of its optimum.
Therefore, the thick carbides are given a weight of 0.9. Phosphide eutectic is
about as detrimental as the thick carbides, also is weighted at 0.9. On the other
hand, a heat-treated steel displaying only the thin carbides is very close to its
optimum toughness; therefore, the thin carbides are weighted at 0.1. Thickened
carbides are considered somewhere between and are weighted at 0.5. Microporo-
sity, of course, creates complete decohesion, and is weighted at 1.0. Therefore,
according to this scheme, a 90% coverage by the thin carbides is equivalent to
10% coverage by thick carbides.

Figure 4 shows the room temperature CVN impact toughness plotted against the
weighted grain boundary coverage in the three steels mentioned [5]. A good cor-
relation was obtained regardless of the steel type and processing. The results can
be summarized as follows:

4
 Weighted g.b. Coverage Toughness CVN, J
< 20 % Excellent >100
20 - 40% Good >50
> 50% Poor < 20

Impact toughness decreased at a rate of 3.5 J per percent weighted grain boundary
coverage, from a nominal value of 180-200 J.

MACRO- AND MICRO- SEGREGATION

Macro-segregation

The kinetics of carbide precipitation in manganese steels increase sharply with

carbon content, so that steels having more than 1.3% C are difficult to produce.
Any positive macrosegregation therefore would compound this problem, as this
steel’s poor thermal diffusivity and now higher carbon content would make it very
difficult to heat treat the section centers. However, chemical analyses of top-
poured and side-poured blocks showed negligible or inverse macrosegregation.
Carbon was richer around the perimeter of the casting and leaner towards the
center [4,7]. This was true for most of the other elements, phosphorous in partic-
ular showed a clear inverse macrosegregation (Fig. 5). The problem of heat trea-
ting the thick-sectioned austenitic manganese steels is therefore strictly a heat
transfer problem.

Micro-segregation and its Effect on Phosphide Eutectic

Steels having more than 0.06% P or solution annealed above 1150°C can be sus-
ceptible to phosphide eutectic embrittlement, where a phosphide-carbide eutectic
liquefies at the grain boundaries, gradually spreads along the grain boundary
during the course of heat treatment and remains in place on quenching [3]. The
as-cast structures contain this eutectic at the centers of carbide colonies as glob-
ular constituents with a mottled appearance [2,4]. In the as-cast steels, the cooling
castings do not spend as much time at high temperatures as in heat treatment, the
eutectic does not have time to spread over the grain boundaries. Phosphide eutec-
tic embrittlement is reversible. When castings are heat treated at the correct solu-
tion annealing temperature, it re-dissolves into the austenite matrix. In severely
embrittled steels, however, a trail of Kirkendall voids and cavities are left behind
and the toughness is not completely restored [3].

Most solutes in manganese steels, notably Mn and Cr, and to some extent P, mic-
rosegregate towards grain boundaries and intercellular regions. The degree of
microsegregation increases with section size [7]. This makes the thick sections,
especially near the casting surface, where the phosphorous content and the tem-
peratures are higher, more susceptible to phosphide eutectic formation.

5
MICROPOROSITY

Austenitic manganese steels have a long freezing range, and microporosity is a

common feature in these castings, regardless of feeding. Microporosity occurs in
clusters as random pockets, and its occurrence does not correlate with any thermal
criteria such as Niyama’s [8]. Figure 6 shows the typical distributions of porosity
in 1-in. dia. sections in side-poured and well-fed ([Niy]>0.5) 1 , 4-8 in. thick, 15 in.
wide, 20 in. long wedge-block castings in regular manganese steel. The random
distribution of microporosity in clusters suggests heterogeneous nucleation. Each
cluster is interconnected through intercellular regions. Microporosity can nucleate
when the pressure drop ahead of the solidification front caused by the need to feed
the solidification shrinkage leads to the supersaturation by the gaseous solutes.
Usually, a large supersaturation and a favorable site (a non-wetting surface such
as an oxide inclusion) are required to nucleate a pore [15]. When a pore nuc-
leates, it quickly grows to fill the interdendritic channels by the exsolution of gas
until the liquid is no longer supersaturated. This process may repeat itself at other
nucleation sites, leading to the observed microporosity clusters in a 2-D section.

Gaseous solute content, oxide inclusion content and distribution, and the solidifi-
cation rate (pouring temperature, molding media, use of chills, and section size)
primarily affect the formation of microporosity. Among these, the gaseous solute
content and solidification rate are probably the more important as oxide inclusions
are a common feature in aluminum-killed steels.

Microporosity forms preferentially in interdendritic areas (Fig. 6e,f); therefore, its

grain boundary fraction is much greater than its volume fraction. Indeed, the
grain boundary fraction of microporosity as an embrittling constituent in this steel
was estimated to be 5-10% [5]. Since the embrittling phases decrease Charpy im-
pact toughness at a rate of 3.5 J per percent coverage, the contribution of micropo-
rosity to embrittlement is expected to be a 15-30 J decrease in impact toughness
from an expected maximum of 180-200 J. Microporosity is a secondary but a sig-
nificant concern for loss of toughness next to intergranular carbides.

The microporosity of 1-in. dia. core sections varied from 0.04 to 1.5% [8]. The
average porosity in the two blocks was 0.37%. As this is not large enough to
compensate for the 3% solidification shrinkage, risers are required to feed the cas-
tings.

QUENCH TIME MEASUREMENT

The quenching operation is critical in the production and heat treatment of auste-
nitic manganese steels. The quench speed depends on the load distribution on a
pallet, initial quench water temperature, section size and bath agitation. Among

1
[Niy] is Niyama’s criterion value (G/√MT/Mt) in (°C s)½ mm-1, where G is the
local thermal gradient and MT/Mt is the cooling rate.

6
these, the load distribution is the least effectively controlled. If the water permea-
tion through the load is poor, then the “effective” section size of the load becomes
much larger, and with the thermal diffusivity of the steel being poor, the quen-
ching operation can slow down considerably. The other process variable that is of
interest is the initial quench water temperature. Although each metal caster has its
own specifications for maximum initial and final water temperatures, in hot sum-
mer months and with large loads, these can become difficult to attain. Typically,
specifications apply to worst case scenarios (large section sizes). It is desirable to
know if a certain load can be quenched (or has been quenched) even though the
initial water temperature is (or has been) above the specified limit.

The steel chemistry plays an important role in determining the required quenching
speed. Increasing carbon content increases the rate of carbide precipitation, and
steels having more that 1.3% C are difficult to make. Chromium also increases
the carbide precipitation rate by increasing the carbide stability and causes car-
bides to start forming at higher temperatures.

The measurement of quench water temperatures provides a cost-effective means

to evaluate a quenching operation. As castings cool, the quench water warms;
hence, there is a one-to-one temperature relationship between the two. Quench
water temperatures and heat capacity data of the steel, can be used to derive the
average temperature of the castings at a given time during the quench, starting
from their furnace (solution annealing) temperature. A useful, single-valued de-
termination that lends itself to comparison would be the time to extract 90% of the
heat from the load. This is schematically shown in Fig. 7 for a laboratory quench
[3]. The total temperature rise in the quench water corresponds to the total heat
taken from the castings. Therefore, 90% of that rise corresponds to 90% heat ex-
traction. From the construction in the graphic, 90% heat extraction (t90%) in this
quench took 4.2 minutes. In regular manganese steels having 1.2% C, satisfactory
toughness (>100 J) is obtained if t90% is kept below 10 mins [3]. In higher carbon
manganese steels (>1.3% C), the required t90% decreases to less than 5 minutes.

Figure 8 shows an industrial quench where there is continuous water circulation

from a cooling tower [6]. The cooling rate of the quench tank (T ) attributable to
the cooling water is given by:

M W CW T  m CW (T  TCW )
m (1)
T  (T  TCW )
MW

where m is the cooling water flow rate, MW is the mass of quench water, TCW is
the cooling water temperature as it enters the tank, and T is the tank temperature.
The cooling water flow rate is usually known, but if not, it can be estimated from
the data. At the end of a quench, when the castings are sufficiently cool, their
contribution to heating the tank could be neglected and the tank temperature is
solely affected by the cooling water. In Figure 8, 30 minutes after the quench, the
tank cooling rate was 0.136°C/min., the tank temperature was 23.4°C, the cooling
water temperature could be taken to be the tank temperature prior to the quench,

7
 m
Ti  (Ti  TCW ,i ) ti (2)
MW

The “adjusted water temperature” curve thus obtained represents the water tempe-
rature in the absence of any cooling. The quench times can now be found by a
similar construction as in Fig. 7.

The precision of the quench time analysis can be improved by taking temperatures
in more than one location in the tank and averaging the results, the cooling water
temperature as it enters the tank, and the ambient temperature. The data can be
further processed to obtain cooling rates that show transitions from vapor blanket
to nucleate boiling, and lastly convective cooling, and to conduct quench factor
analysis using information from an isothermal transformation diagram [9].

CONCLUSIONS

Heat treatment processing of austenitic manganese steels has been studied with
the following results:

Intergranular embrittlement by hypereutectoid carbide precipitation. The detri-

mental “thick” carbides have been distinguished from the relatively harmless
“thin” carbides. A model has been proposed for the different types of carbide for-
mation. A quantitative relationship has been established between impact tough-
ness and grain boundary coverage by the embrittling phases.

Chemical segregation. Macrosegregation was either absent or negative (concen-

trations were higher around the perimeter of the castings than in the center). As
carbon and chromium are not any richer in the center, the thick section problem in
quenching the manganese steels is strictly a heat transfer problem. Microsegrega-
tion increases with section size, and together with inverse macrosegregation, com-
pounds the phosphide eutectic embrittlement around the casting perimeter.

Microporosity and structural soundness. Microporosity was observed as ran-

domly and heterogeneously distributed colonies in castings. Although its volume
fraction averaged 0.37%, it had a preferred location at intergranular and inter-
cellular regions, where its grain boundary fraction was 5-10%. Its embrittling
effect was secondary to carbides, decreasing the impact toughness by an estimated
15-30 J.

Quench time measurement. A cost-effective procedure was developed making

use of quench water temperatures, to quantitatively assess the quenching opera-
tion.

8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Mark Charest for TEM replica study and Cathy
Bibby for sample preparation.

REFERENCES

1) KUYUCAK S, Newcombe P and Zavadil R – On the heat treatment of Had-

field's austenitic manganese steels, Part I: step-down temperature and resid-
uals. AFS Trans., 108, Paper No. 00-154, (2000).
2) KUYUCAK, S and Zavadil, R – On the heat treatment of Hadfield's auste-
nitic manganese steels - Part II: metallographic studies. AFS Trans., 108,
Paper No. 00-126, (2000).
3) KUYUCAK S, Zavadil R and Newcombe – On the heat treatment of Had-
field’s austenitic manganese steels, Part III: heat transfer model, macrosegre-
gation and phosphide eutectic. AFS Trans., 109, Paper No. 01-117, (2001).
4) KUYUCAK S and Zavadil R – On the heat treatment processing of austenitic
manganese steels. Proc. 21st Heat Treat Conf., 5-8 Nov. 2001, ASM Interna-
tional, Paper No. 16.
5) KUYUCAK S and Zavadil R – On the heat-treatment of Hadfield’s austenitic
manganese steels, Part IV: microstructure vs. impact toughness relationship.
AFS Trans., 110, Paper No. 02-116, (2002).
6) KUYUCAK S and Newcombe P – On the heat-treatment of Hadfield’s auste-
nitic manganese steels; Part V: measuring quench time in industrial castings.
AFS Trans., 111, Paper No. 03-102, (2003).
7) KUYUCAK S and Zavadil R – On the heat-treatment of Hadfield’s austenitic
manganese steels; Part VI: impact toughness, microstructure, macro- and
micro- segregation in large wedge-block castings. AFS Trans., 111, Paper
No. 03-133, (2003).
8) KUYUCAK S, Zavadil R and Ouellet G – On the heat-treatment of Had-
field’s austenitic manganese steels; Part VII: casting soundness and micro-
porosity in large wedge-block castings. AFS Trans., 111, Paper No. 03-134,
(2003).
9) KUYUCAK S, Newcombe P, Bruno P, Grozdanich R and Looney G – Mea-
surement of quench time as a process control tool. Proc. Technical and Ope-
rating Mtg., Nov. 2003, Steel Founders Society of America.
10) KUYUCAK S, Gertsman V Y and Zavadil R – On the heat-treatment of Had-
field’s austenitic manganese steels; Part VIII: studies on microcharacteriza-
tion. AFS Trans., 112, Paper No. 04-129, (2004).
11) RAYNOR G V and Rivlin V G – in Phase Equilibrium in Iron Ternary Al-
loys, The Institute of Metals, London, (1988), pp. 172-173.

9
12) SADAYAPPAN M, Zavadil R and Sahoo M – Effect of impurity elements on
the mechanical properties of aluminum bronze alloy C95800. AFS Trans.,
107, pp. 329-336, (1999).
13) WOODFINE B C and Quarrell A G .– Effect of Al and N on the occurrence
of intergranular fracture in steel castings. J Iron and Steel Inst., 195, (1960),
pp. 409-414.
14) EEGHEM V J and DeSy A – Side effects of cast steel deoxidation. AFS
Trans., 72, (1964), pp. 142-148.
15) CAMPBELL J – in Castings, Butterworth-Heinemann, (1991), p. 203.
16) PIWONKA T S, Kuyucak S and Davis K – Shrinkage-related porosity in
steel castings. AFS Trans., 110, Paper No. 02-113, (2002).

10
a b

c d

e f

Fig. 1. Intergranular, hypereutectoid carbides in austenitic manganese steels [2,5].

(1a,b) regular manganese steel. Arrows show transition from thin to thick car-
bides where a double austenite / carbide phase boundary on the carbide film be-
comes visible. (1c,d) Further examples from regular manganese steel: carbide-
free and thin carbide grain boundaries (1c), thick carbide laterally growing into a
thin carbide (1d). (1e,f) Cr-bearing manganese steel. The “thickened” carbides
in (1e) do not show a clear austenite / carbide phase boundary, whereas the
“thick” carbides in (1f) do. Etched in equal parts of water, conc. HCl and conc.
HNO3.

11
 a b

c d

e f

Fig. 2. Transmission electron microscopy images of carbides in Cr-bearing man-

ganese steel [10]. (2a-d) carbon replica images, (2e-g) thin foil images. (2a) thin
carbide, (2b) thick carbide, (2c,d) thickened carbide, (2e) thin carbide resolved
into discreet particles (arrows indicate growth direction), (2f) thickened carbides
(the extended tips in the growth direction are caused by dislocations), (2g) thick
carbide showing as a continuous film.

12
 14 7
a
12 Mn 6

10 5

Cr, C (wt.%)
Mn (wt.%)

8 4
C
6 3
Cr
4 2

2 1

0 0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Distance (µm)

20 10
b
16 8

Cr, C (wt.%)
Mn (wt.%)

12 Mn 6

8 4

4 Cr 2
C
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Distance (µm)

Thickness Composition (wt. pct.)

(µm) C Mn Cr Fe
Grade C steel 1.2 12.4 1.9 83
Thin carbide 0.07 4.5 (6.8) 13 2.5 78
Thick carbide 0.8 6.0 (6.8) 18 6 69

Note: carbon content measured by the TEM nanoprobe is lower than the expected
amount from the stoichiometry of cementite (given in parentheses). This is almost
always the case for EDX analysis when a light element is present along with hea-
vier elements in the compound. Iron is from balance.

Fig. 3. EDX profiles across thin (3a) and thick (3b) carbides in Grade C steel
[10].

13
 200
Regular manganese steel, Grade B3
High C manganese steel, Grade B4
Cr-bearing manganese steel, Grade C
Charpy Toughness, J 150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Weighted Grain Boundary Coverage, pct.

Fig. 4. Correlation between weighted grain boundary coverage by the embrittling

constituents and impact toughness [5].

0.08
5 in. 6 in. 7 in.
Block 1
Block 2
6 in.
0.06 5 in.
Pct. P

7 in.

0.04

0.02
-3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
Drag Distance from Center, in. Cope

Fig. 5. Macrosegregation behaviour of phosphorous in side-poured 4-8 in. thick,

15 in. wide, 20 in. long wedge-blocks (1.2% C, 13.7% Mn, 0.6% Cr, 0.3% Mo,
0.050% P) [7]. Samples were taken from 5-in., 6-in. and 7-in. sections.

14
 a b

c d

e f

Fig. 6. Observed microporosity in sections taken from 1-in. dia. core samples, cut
from wedge-block castings (6a-d). (6a) B1-7-4-6 (key: 1st block, core taken from
7-in. section, 4 in. from left, sectioned at 6 in. from drag). (6b) B2-7-6-7, (6c) B1-
6-2-2, (6d) B2-7-4-2, from [8]. (6e) Intergranular and intercellular microporosity
in a 1-in. thick block casting [16]. (6f) An extreme example of intergranular
porosity [5]. (6a-e) as-polished, (6f) etched in equal parts of water, conc. HCl and
conc. HNO3.

15
 Water Temperature, °C

30

25

20

15
∆T90% ∆T
10

5
t90%= 4.2 min.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Quench Time, minutes F9034-HT.xls

Fig. 7. Construction to determine quench time from quench water temperatures in

a laboratory quench tank [3].

Block 2, Quench Severity H = 3.0 per in.

40
Adjusted Temp.
T max = 37°C
Quench water temperature, °C

36 T 90% = 35.5°C
Actual Temp.
32

Cooling rate:
28
0.25°C/min at 32°C

24
T i = 22°C
20
t 90% = 6.3 min
16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Quenching time, minutes Sivyer HT.xls

Fig. 8. Quench time determination in an industrial quench tank with cooling

water recirculating from a cooling tower [6].

16

View publication stats