effect of cooling line and hardness on thermal fatigue cracking behavior
DESCRIPTION
Effect of Cooling Line and Hardness on Thermal Fatigue Cracking Behavior John F. Wallace, David Schwam, Jain Nitin, Xiaohua Hu and Yulong Zhu. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. Summary of Presentation at NADCA Meeting on November 2, 2005 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Effect of Cooling Line and Hardness on Thermal Fatigue Cracking Behavior
John F. Wallace, David Schwam, Jain Nitin, Xiaohua Hu and Yulong Zhu
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
Summary of Presentation at NADCA Meeting on November 2, 2005
This presentation was given by Jack Wallace to outline the number of items that was presented at the meeting on November 2, 2005.
First, a description of the work that we have done with 1.5 inches diameter holes drilled into the centered immersion specimen used for our thermal fatigue measurements. This work involved first picking a desirable hardness range of about 40 to 51 HRC and to make specimen that complied with that requirement. These bars were shipped out to a regular heat treatment shop and the hardness levels were requested.
The second was repeating the request for a hardness of the same range as the first group except this group had a 1.8 inch diameter hole instead of 1.5 inch diameter hole. These specimens were also run as equivalent hardness level of 41 to 50 HRC. The heat treatment shop has some difficulties with the desirable hardness, so it was necessary to run a fifth specimen at 44HRC as requested.
In analysis of the results, it became apparent that the simple factors of heat treatment on the resulting behavior of the thermal fatigue materials differed considerably between the earlier work that was done on thermal fatigue specimens on M.S. Thesis on the subject. It was pointed out that the earlier work showed a much better comparison of the thermal fatigue results on the basis of the size of the hole in the specimen. Since this earlier work was done on the basis of oil quenching the specimens with a tempering temperature done in house was obvious that the tempering was different with was done with a commercial heat treatment.
The final portion of this work consisted of comparing the hardness, the thermal fatigue results for the three groups. This comparison followed an analysis of the tempering temperatures and its effect on the thermal fatigue results. It is apparent that the oil quenching gives a uniform hardness to the parts but that the variation in tempering from thermal fatigue operation is very important in providing consistent thermal fatigue results. Apparently, sufficient difficulty occurred in selecting the tempering temperatures to provide rather wide scatters in thermal fatigue resistance.
The final portion of the work consisted of a presentation of the results of the soldering and washout characteristics resulting from the review that we did to present this results in a NADCA program.
Summary of Presentation at NADCA Meeting on November 2, 2005 (Continued)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5000 10000 15000
Thermal Cycles
Tot
al C
rack
Are
a (
x 10
6 µm
2 )
H13/ 51 HRC
H13/ 47 HRC
H13/ 44 HRC
H13/ 40 HRC
2"X2"X7"WC7
51HRC
44 HRC
47 HRC
40 HRC
1.5" Cooling Line
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 5000 10000 15000
Thermal Cycles
Ave
rage
Max
Cra
ck L
engt
h (
x100
µm
)
H13/ 41 - 43 HRC/ 1.8" CL
H13/ 46.5 HRC/ 1.8" CL
H13/ 50 HRC/ 1.8" CL
2"X2"X7" WC7
41 HRC/ 1.8" CL
46.5 HRC/ 18" CL
50 HRC/ 18" CL
1.8" Cooling Line
Effect of Cooling Line and Hardness on Thermal Fatigue Behavior(Vacuum Quenching)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5000 10000 15000
Thermal Cycles
Tot
al C
rack
Are
a (
x 10
6 µm
2 )
H13/ 41 HRC/ 1.8"
H13/ 46.5 HRC/ 1.8" CL
H13/ 50 HRC/ 1.8" CL
2"X2"X7"WC7
46.5 HRC
41 HRC
50 HRC
1.8 Cooling Line
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 5000 10000 15000
Thermal Cycles
Ave
rage
Max
Cra
ck L
engt
h (
x100
µm
)
H13/ 44 HRC
H13/ 47 HRC
H13/ 51 HRC
H13/ 40 HRC44HRC
47HRC
51HRC
2"X2"X7"
40HRC
1.5" Cooling Line
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Distance from the Corner (inch)
Har
dn
ess
(HR
C)
Hardness 40 HRC
Hardness 44 HRC
Hardness 47 HRC
Hardness 51 HRC
1.5" Cooling Line
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Distance from Corner (inch)
Har
dn
ess
(HR
C)
H13/41 HRC/1.8"
H13/46.5 HRC/1.8"
H13/50 HRC/1.8"
1.8" Cooling Line
Effect of Cooling Line and Hardness on Softening Behavior after 15,000 Cycles(Vacuum Quenching)
1.5 Inch 1.8 Inch
Effect of Hardness and Testing Temperature on Charpy V-Notched Impact Properties
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Testing Temperature(F)
Imp
act
Pro
per
ty(f
t-lb
)
40HRC-1.5"
43HRC-1.5"
47HRC-1.5"
49HRC-1.5"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-50 50 150 250 350 450 550
Testing Temperature(F)
Imp
act
Pro
per
ty(f
t-lb
)
41HRC-1.8"
46.5HRC-1.8"
50HRC-1.8"
Heat treated with 1.5” Dunker Specimens Heat treated with 1.8” Dunker Specimens
1.5 Inch 1.8 Inch
Testing Temperature (F) -5 68 212 300 500
41HRC Impact (ft-lb) 16 23 34 52 64
Fibrous Fracture (%) 0 10 20 40 60
46.5HRC Impact (ft-lb) 14 15 26 26 45
Fibrous Fracture (%) 5 10 20 40 100
50HRC Impact (ft-lb) 6 6 15 8
Fibrous Fracture (%) 0 0 10 25
Effect of Hardness and Testing Temperature on Charpy V-Notched Impact Properties and Fibrous Fracture Percentage(Specimens Heat Treated with 1.8” Dunker Samples )
Effect of Cooling Line Size on Average Max Crack Length(Previous Data & Dunk Specimens Were Quenched in Oil)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 5000 10000 15000
Thermal Cycles
Ave
rage
Max
Cra
ck L
engt
h (
x 10
0 µm
)
H13-1.5"
H13-1.6"
H13-1.7"
H13-1.8"
2" X 2" X 7", WC7-- 46 HRC
From Our Previous Study
Effect of Cooling Line Size on Total Crack Area(Previous Data & Dunk Specimens Were Quenched in Oil)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5000 10000 15000
Thermal Cycles
Tot
al C
rack
Are
a(x
106
µm
2 )
H13-1.5"
H13-1.6"
H13-1.7"
H13-1.8"
2" X 2" X 7", WC7--46HRC
From Our Previous Study
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Distance from Corner(inch)
Har
dn
ess(
HR
C)
1.5"
1.8"1.7"
1.6"
Effect of Cooling Line Size on Softening Behavior(Previous Data & Dunk Specimens Were Quenched in Oil)
From Our Previous Study: 46HRC after 15,000 cycles
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 5000 10000 15000
Thermal Cycles
Ave
rage
Max
Cra
ck L
engt
h (
x 10
0 µm
)
H13-1.5" Oil Quenched
H13-1.8" Oil Quenched
H13-1.5" Vacuum Quenched
2" X 2" X 7", WC7-46.5 HRC
Comparison of Current and Previous Thermal Fatigue Behavior(Average Max Crack Length)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5000 10000 15000
Thermal Cycles
Tot
al C
rack
Are
a(x
106
µm
2 )
H13-1.5-Oil Quenched
H13-1.8 Oil Quenched
H13-1.5 Vacuum Quenched
2" X 2" X 7", WC7--46.5 HRC
Comparison of Current and Previous Thermal Fatigue Behavior(Total Crack Area)
1092 oF
1004 oF
Temperature Simulation of 1.5” and 1.8” Hole (Showing Max Temperature of 1092F for 1.5” and 1004F for1.8”)
1.5” 1.8”
37.2 MPa (5.31 KSi)
58.2 MPa (8.3 KSi)
1.5” 1.8”
Stress Simulation of 1.5” and 1.8” Hole (Showing Max Tensile Stress of 5.31ksi for 1.5” and 8.3ksi for 1.8”)
Maximum Cracking/wearing
observed at this spot in dunker
test results.
Compressive Stress of 717.2 MPa (102.45 KSi)
Maximum Cracking/wearing
observed at this spot in dunker
test results.
Compressive Stress of 798.4 MPa (112.7 KSi)
1.5” 1.8”
Stress Simulation of 1.5” and 1.8” Hole (Showing Max Compressive Stress of 102.45ksi for 1.5” and 112.7ksi for 1.8”)
Conclusion
The stress at the corner of the 1.8” specimens is higher than that of 1.5” specimens.
The softening is significantly improved by using 1.8” hole instead of 1.5” hole because the max temperature at the corner of 1.8” specimens is lower than that of 1.5” specimens.
The calculated max tensile stress on the corners of the 1.5” specimen is 5.31ksi and 8.3ksi for the 1.8” specimen.
The calculated max compressive stress on the corners of the 1.5” specimen is 102.45ksi and 112.7ksi for the 1.8” specimen.
The calculated max temperature on the corners of the 1.5” specimen is 1092F and 1004F for the 1.8” specimen.