Search Documents

By G. R. Brophy, A. J. Miller

The Grossmann principle1 for the calculation of hardenability of steel from composition is attractive because of its simplicity. It postulates that the hardenability of a steel for any particular grain size may be expressed in terms of an ideal critical diameter, which is the product of an ideal critical diameter for a "pure" iron-carbon base multiplied by a succession of factors for each element of composition contained, including the incidentals. It infers that the multiplying factor for a given quantity of an element is constant for all combinations of composition. Gross-mann has stated that in the great majority of cases the experimental values of hardenability are found to be well within 10 per cent of the calculated values. The validity of the scheme has been confirmed in principle by Crafts and Lamont2,3 and by Kramer et al.4 Their results differ from the original in the magnitude of the effect of some elements but, since they accepted the product concept and followed its direction, it is to be ex~ected that similar results would be obtained. Crafts and Lamont, in their second Paper, recognized that the factor relations for manganese and nickel were not continuously linear, but beyond certain critical amounts increase sharply. Austin, Van Note and Prater6 demonstrated nonlinear relations between hardenability and alloy contents. Their curves for chromium, silicon, manganese and nickel were all convex upward to show decreasing incremental effects. They concluded that Grossmann's factors under-evaluate the hardening effect of low percentage additions of these elements, and overevaluate the larger additions. More recently W. Stevens has found that the factor method fails when applied to complex steels containing two or three principal alloying elements other than carbon. Multiplying factors derived from his results bear a complex relation to composition and are not constant for a given amount of an element as the base composition varies. C. A. Liedholm7 found that, using either the Grossmann or the Crafts-Lamont multiplying factor values, not only were the relative hardenabilities of two heats of S.A.E. 6130 chromium-vanadium steel

Jan 1, 1947

By A. J. Miller, G. R. Brophy

The Grossmann principle1 for the calculation of hardenability of steel from composition is attractive because of its simplicity. It postulates that the hardenability of a steel for any particular grain size may be expressed in terms of an ideal critical diameter, which is the product of an ideal critical diameter for a "pure" iron-carbon base multiplied by a succession of factors for each element of composition contained, including the incidentals. It infers that the multiplying factor for a given quantity of an element is constant for all combinations of composition. Gross-mann has stated that in the great majority of cases the experimental values of hardenability are found to be well within 10 per cent of the calculated values. The validity of the scheme has been confirmed in principle by Crafts and Lamont2,3 and by Kramer et al.4 Their results differ from the original in the magnitude of the effect of some elements but, since they accepted the product concept and followed its direction, it is to be ex~ected that similar results would be obtained. Crafts and Lamont, in their second Paper, recognized that the factor relations for manganese and nickel were not continuously linear, but beyond certain critical amounts increase sharply. Austin, Van Note and Prater6 demonstrated nonlinear relations between hardenability and alloy contents. Their curves for chromium, silicon, manganese and nickel were all convex upward to show decreasing incremental effects. They concluded that Grossmann's factors under-evaluate the hardening effect of low percentage additions of these elements, and overevaluate the larger additions. More recently W. Stevens has found that the factor method fails when applied to complex steels containing two or three principal alloying elements other than carbon. Multiplying factors derived from his results bear a complex relation to composition and are not constant for a given amount of an element as the base composition varies. C. A. Liedholm7 found that, using either the Grossmann or the Crafts-Lamont multiplying factor values, not only were the relative hardenabilities of two heats of S.A.E. 6130 chromium-vanadium steel

Jan 1, 1947

By H. E. Hostetter

Grossmann's method1 for calculating the hardenability of steel from the composition and grain size has gained wide acceptance, and when properly used, has been well proved in practical application, both for estimating the hardenability of known compositions and for selecting compositions to meet known hardenability requirements. The Grossmann method uses as the criterion of hardenadility the "ideal critical diameter," DI, which is the' size round that will just harden to a structure of 50 per cent martensite at the center when given the theoretically fastest quench, or "ideal quench." The DI can be related to actual quenching practice if the severity of quench is known; or the DI can be correlated with hardenability as determined by the Jominy end-quench method.2 The effect on hardenability of each element present in a steel can be represented by a multiplying factor, the value of which depends on the amount of the element present and the degree of effectiveness of the particular element. (The value of the factor for a given carbon content varies with the grain size.) When the factors for all elements present in a steel have been determined from charts, they are multiplied, and the resultant product is the DI of the steel. The validity of Grossmann's scheme of multiplying factors has been confirmed in a number of other investigations.3-6 It can be appreciated that a certain desired level of hardenability can be obtained by adding chromium, molybdenum, nickel and vanadium to a base composition containing carbon, manganese, silicon and the usual impurities. Many of the ranges of hardenability used commercially can be obtained by any of the foregoing alloying elements used singly in the base composition. The same hardenability levels also can be obtained through use of any of a great number of multiple element combinations of these alloying elements. In this report a method will be presented for determining what one combination is the most efficient (based on hardenability and cost of added alloy) for a given level of hardenability. It should not be assumed from the emphasis given to hardenability, that hardenability is the only criterion for the selection of an alloy composition. Such properties as the hot-working characteristics, machinability, carburizing characteristics, amount of distortion during quenching and the retention of austenite may be considerations of importance in many applications. However, hardenability is one of the most important properties of an alloy steel and one that must be considered in almost all cases involving heat-treatment by quenching. Therefore, a method for determining the lowest-cost alloy combination should be of considerable value. Determination of Most Efficient Combinations For comparing the alloying elements on standards of cost and hardenability, it

Jan 1, 1947

By H. E. Hostetter

Grossmann's method1 for calculating the hardenability of steel from the composition and grain size has gained wide acceptance, and when properly used, has been well proved in practical application, both for estimating the hardenability of known compositions and for selecting compositions to meet known hardenability requirements. The Grossmann method uses as the criterion of hardenadility the "ideal critical diameter," DI, which is the' size round that will just harden to a structure of 50 per cent martensite at the center when given the theoretically fastest quench, or "ideal quench." The DI can be related to actual quenching practice if the severity of quench is known; or the DI can be correlated with hardenability as determined by the Jominy end-quench method.2 The effect on hardenability of each element present in a steel can be represented by a multiplying factor, the value of which depends on the amount of the element present and the degree of effectiveness of the particular element. (The value of the factor for a given carbon content varies with the grain size.) When the factors for all elements present in a steel have been determined from charts, they are multiplied, and the resultant product is the DI of the steel. The validity of Grossmann's scheme of multiplying factors has been confirmed in a number of other investigations.3-6 It can be appreciated that a certain desired level of hardenability can be obtained by adding chromium, molybdenum, nickel and vanadium to a base composition containing carbon, manganese, silicon and the usual impurities. Many of the ranges of hardenability used commercially can be obtained by any of the foregoing alloying elements used singly in the base composition. The same hardenability levels also can be obtained through use of any of a great number of multiple element combinations of these alloying elements. In this report a method will be presented for determining what one combination is the most efficient (based on hardenability and cost of added alloy) for a given level of hardenability. It should not be assumed from the emphasis given to hardenability, that hardenability is the only criterion for the selection of an alloy composition. Such properties as the hot-working characteristics, machinability, carburizing characteristics, amount of distortion during quenching and the retention of austenite may be considerations of importance in many applications. However, hardenability is one of the most important properties of an alloy steel and one that must be considered in almost all cases involving heat-treatment by quenching. Therefore, a method for determining the lowest-cost alloy combination should be of considerable value. Determination of Most Efficient Combinations For comparing the alloying elements on standards of cost and hardenability, it

Jan 1, 1947

By Sidney Sigel, J. Gardner Brooks, Irvin R. Kramer

In 1942 Grossmannl proposed that the hardenability of a steel may be calculated from its chemical composition by considering the base hardenability associated with its carbon content and grain size and multiplying this base by factors for each element present. Since Grossmann's original publication, several investigaton2-6 have reexamined the multiplying factors for the individual elements and in general have found that the multiplying principle is valid. However, some of the individual factor curves developed have been in poor agreement. Inasmuch as the carbon-factor curve obtained by Grossmann was dependent Lipon the factors for all the other alloying elements present in the steel, it logically followed that his results were in need of correction in the light of the new data available for manganese, silicon, and the other alloying elements. Furthermore, in order to avoid the possibility that errors in the manganese, silicon, or other curves might influence the carbon-factor curve, investigation of iron-carbon alloys containing little or no manganese and silicon was necessary. That the effect of carbon on hardenability was greater than indicated by Grossmann is shown by a comparison of the diameters of completely hardened rounds of iron-carbon alloys with the ideal critical diameter calculated from Grossmann's factors. These alloys have a greater hardenability in a finite quench than predicted by Grossmann's factors for an infinite quench (Table I). Among the other important variables that were in need of further investigation were the effect of deoxidation practice on the grain-size correction curves and the effect of stable carbide-forming elements on the depth of hardening. Most Of the work by Kramer, Hafner, and Toleman4 was done on silicon-killed steels. It was not known whether Gross-mann's grain-size correction curves, determined on aluminum-killed steels, was valid when applied to steels with different deoxidation practice. More data on the

Jan 1, 1947

By J. Gardner Brooks, Sidney Sigel, Irvin R. Kramer

In 1942 Grossmannl proposed that the hardenability of a steel may be calculated from its chemical composition by considering the base hardenability associated with its carbon content and grain size and multiplying this base by factors for each element present. Since Grossmann's original publication, several investigaton2-6 have reexamined the multiplying factors for the individual elements and in general have found that the multiplying principle is valid. However, some of the individual factor curves developed have been in poor agreement. Inasmuch as the carbon-factor curve obtained by Grossmann was dependent Lipon the factors for all the other alloying elements present in the steel, it logically followed that his results were in need of correction in the light of the new data available for manganese, silicon, and the other alloying elements. Furthermore, in order to avoid the possibility that errors in the manganese, silicon, or other curves might influence the carbon-factor curve, investigation of iron-carbon alloys containing little or no manganese and silicon was necessary. That the effect of carbon on hardenability was greater than indicated by Grossmann is shown by a comparison of the diameters of completely hardened rounds of iron-carbon alloys with the ideal critical diameter calculated from Grossmann's factors. These alloys have a greater hardenability in a finite quench than predicted by Grossmann's factors for an infinite quench (Table I). Among the other important variables that were in need of further investigation were the effect of deoxidation practice on the grain-size correction curves and the effect of stable carbide-forming elements on the depth of hardening. Most Of the work by Kramer, Hafner, and Toleman4 was done on silicon-killed steels. It was not known whether Gross-mann's grain-size correction curves, determined on aluminum-killed steels, was valid when applied to steels with different deoxidation practice. More data on the

Jan 1, 1947

By L. D. Jaffe Hollomon, Hollomon John H.

For many steel parts it is desired to obtain the maximum toughness consistent with the strength required by the mechanical design. It is generally recognized that the greatest toughness at any given strength is found in steels having a tempered martensitic structure.' and is virtually independent of the composition of the steel2 (except for carbon). The choice of the composition of a steel for the parts in question should be based, therefore, on hardenability considerations and on manufacturing facility and economy. In a recent paper3 the concept of hardenability was discussed and a somewhat new approach to the problem was suggested. The hardenability was defined in terms of the cooling conditions (speed of cooling) required to avoid the pearlite and the bainite reactions. Since all the alloying elements do not have the same effects on the two reactions, the bainitic and pearl-itic hardenabilities must be considered separately. In order to design a steel for a given part, it is necessary to design a composition that has both sufficient pearlitic and sufficient bainitic hardenability. However, this requirement does not fix the combination of alloying elements to be used; an infinite number of steels would have the required hardenabilities. Other considerations limit the choice. For example, decreasing the carbon content increases the toughness at a given hardness, and for this reason low-carbon steels are often desired. Limitations or requirements of refining, casting, or forming practices often affect the level of some of the alloying elements. Price considerations enter. Frequently, however, it is very desirable to minimize the tendency toward quench-cracking while maintaining the necessary hardenability. This paper is concerned with suggesting a method for choosing compositions that will have the required hardenability together with minimum tendency toward quench-cracking. Quench Cracking Since only the case in which the entire part will transform to martensite in the particular quench employed is being considered, the analysis of the quench-cracking problem is somewhat simplified. Quench-cracking arises from the temperature gradients existing throughout the piece during cooling. Because of these temperature gradients, the contraction arising from the decreasing temperature and the expansion arising from the austenite-martensite reaction do not occur uniformly over the parts, and stresses are set up that tend to cause cracking. The temperature gradients can be reduced by decreasing the severity of quench. This, however, requires that the hardenability be correspondingly increased by increasing the carbon or alloy content. An

Jan 1, 1947

By Hollomon John H., L. D. Jaffe Hollomon

For many steel parts it is desired to obtain the maximum toughness consistent with the strength required by the mechanical design. It is generally recognized that the greatest toughness at any given strength is found in steels having a tempered martensitic structure.' and is virtually independent of the composition of the steel2 (except for carbon). The choice of the composition of a steel for the parts in question should be based, therefore, on hardenability considerations and on manufacturing facility and economy. In a recent paper3 the concept of hardenability was discussed and a somewhat new approach to the problem was suggested. The hardenability was defined in terms of the cooling conditions (speed of cooling) required to avoid the pearlite and the bainite reactions. Since all the alloying elements do not have the same effects on the two reactions, the bainitic and pearl-itic hardenabilities must be considered separately. In order to design a steel for a given part, it is necessary to design a composition that has both sufficient pearlitic and sufficient bainitic hardenability. However, this requirement does not fix the combination of alloying elements to be used; an infinite number of steels would have the required hardenabilities. Other considerations limit the choice. For example, decreasing the carbon content increases the toughness at a given hardness, and for this reason low-carbon steels are often desired. Limitations or requirements of refining, casting, or forming practices often affect the level of some of the alloying elements. Price considerations enter. Frequently, however, it is very desirable to minimize the tendency toward quench-cracking while maintaining the necessary hardenability. This paper is concerned with suggesting a method for choosing compositions that will have the required hardenability together with minimum tendency toward quench-cracking. Quench Cracking Since only the case in which the entire part will transform to martensite in the particular quench employed is being considered, the analysis of the quench-cracking problem is somewhat simplified. Quench-cracking arises from the temperature gradients existing throughout the piece during cooling. Because of these temperature gradients, the contraction arising from the decreasing temperature and the expansion arising from the austenite-martensite reaction do not occur uniformly over the parts, and stresses are set up that tend to cause cracking. The temperature gradients can be reduced by decreasing the severity of quench. This, however, requires that the hardenability be correspondingly increased by increasing the carbon or alloy content. An

Jan 1, 1947

By M. A. Orehoski, J. M. Hodge

It is now generally conceded that if a steel is to develop optimum physical properties in the conventionally quenched and tempered condition, the microstruc- ture after quenching should consist wholly of martensite; and that transformation of austenite to intermediate-temperature products during quenching will have a deleterious effect upon the physical properties, particularly the toughness, of the tempered material. This implies that, in order to obtain the optimum physical properties from a given steel, its "harden-ability " should be high enough to suppress all transformation except that to martensite under the heating and quenching conditions to which it will be subjected, and this premise is probably the most important reason for hardenability control. However, the criterion of hardenability that at present is most widely accepted and used is based on a microstructure of 50 per cent martensite. This criterion, which was suggested by Grossmann,' does have considerable justification. It may be readily measured by a fracture or etch test and, since it represents the point at which the hardness is changing most rapidly with variations in cooling rate, it may be determined empirically from a hardness-depth curve by determining the point of steepest slope (the inflection point). Furthermore, in plain carbon steels or in steels of low hardenability, the difference in hardenability expressed in

Jan 1, 1947

By J. M. Hodge, M. A. Orehoski

It is now generally conceded that if a steel is to develop optimum physical properties in the conventionally quenched and tempered condition, the microstruc- ture after quenching should consist wholly of martensite; and that transformation of austenite to intermediate-temperature products during quenching will have a deleterious effect upon the physical properties, particularly the toughness, of the tempered material. This implies that, in order to obtain the optimum physical properties from a given steel, its "harden-ability " should be high enough to suppress all transformation except that to martensite under the heating and quenching conditions to which it will be subjected, and this premise is probably the most important reason for hardenability control. However, the criterion of hardenability that at present is most widely accepted and used is based on a microstructure of 50 per cent martensite. This criterion, which was suggested by Grossmann,' does have considerable justification. It may be readily measured by a fracture or etch test and, since it represents the point at which the hardness is changing most rapidly with variations in cooling rate, it may be determined empirically from a hardness-depth curve by determining the point of steepest slope (the inflection point). Furthermore, in plain carbon steels or in steels of low hardenability, the difference in hardenability expressed in

Jan 1, 1947

By J. H. Hollomon, L. D. Jaffe

The hardenability concept has become widely used during the last few years for the choice and substitution of steels. Before the work of Grossmann,1 the systems for predicting hardenability from chemical composition could be used only over a narrow range of composition. Grossmann introduced a comprehensive system, which has been effective in calculating the hardenability of most types of moderate or low-alloy steels. However, occasions often arise that require the calculation of the hardenability of high-alloy steels from their chemical compositions. Experimental determinations of the hardenabilities of such steels indicate that the Grossmann system predicts much greater hardenabilities than are realized. The fact that cases do arise in which the Grossmann method does not apply indicates that the fundamental hypothesis of the system may not be generally applicable. It seems advisable to re-examine not only Grossmann's system but also the concept of hardenability itself. Hardenability If steel parts are to possess a martensitic structure after quenching, they must first be austenitized and then cooled through the pearlite and bainite transformation ranges sufficiently rapidly to avoid the formation of pearlite, bainite, and pro-eutectoid products.* If, on cooling, these transformations are avoided, the resulting structure can consist only of martensite (and retained austenite). The hardenability of a steel is measured in terms of the severity of the cooling conditions necessary to avoid the pearlite and bainite transformations. The less rapid is the cooling necessary to prevent the formation of bainite and pearlite, the higher is the hardenability. The pearlite and bainite reactions appear to be differently affected by the alloying elements. Not only is this indicated by the published isothermal transformation data, but recent work by Zener2 affords a rational interpretation of the differing effects of the alloying elements. Manganese,3 for example, appears to decrease the rates of the pearlite and bainite transformations by equal percentages, while molybdenum45 is approximately 10,000 times more effective in retarding the pearlite than in retarding the bainite transformation, on the basis of isothermal measurements. In some steels, the formation of bainite restricts the formation of martensite while

Jan 1, 1947

By L. D. Jaffe, J. H. Hollomon

The hardenability concept has become widely used during the last few years for the choice and substitution of steels. Before the work of Grossmann,1 the systems for predicting hardenability from chemical composition could be used only over a narrow range of composition. Grossmann introduced a comprehensive system, which has been effective in calculating the hardenability of most types of moderate or low-alloy steels. However, occasions often arise that require the calculation of the hardenability of high-alloy steels from their chemical compositions. Experimental determinations of the hardenabilities of such steels indicate that the Grossmann system predicts much greater hardenabilities than are realized. The fact that cases do arise in which the Grossmann method does not apply indicates that the fundamental hypothesis of the system may not be generally applicable. It seems advisable to re-examine not only Grossmann's system but also the concept of hardenability itself. Hardenability If steel parts are to possess a martensitic structure after quenching, they must first be austenitized and then cooled through the pearlite and bainite transformation ranges sufficiently rapidly to avoid the formation of pearlite, bainite, and pro-eutectoid products.* If, on cooling, these transformations are avoided, the resulting structure can consist only of martensite (and retained austenite). The hardenability of a steel is measured in terms of the severity of the cooling conditions necessary to avoid the pearlite and bainite transformations. The less rapid is the cooling necessary to prevent the formation of bainite and pearlite, the higher is the hardenability. The pearlite and bainite reactions appear to be differently affected by the alloying elements. Not only is this indicated by the published isothermal transformation data, but recent work by Zener2 affords a rational interpretation of the differing effects of the alloying elements. Manganese,3 for example, appears to decrease the rates of the pearlite and bainite transformations by equal percentages, while molybdenum45 is approximately 10,000 times more effective in retarding the pearlite than in retarding the bainite transformation, on the basis of isothermal measurements. In some steels, the formation of bainite restricts the formation of martensite while

Jan 1, 1947

By G. F. Comstock

A serious disagreement as to the effect of titanium on the hardenability of steel exists in published references to this subject. Kramer, Hafner and Toleman reported1 that acid-soluble titanium decreased the hardenability, with multiplying factors less than unity according to Grossmann's system for calculating hardenability from the composition. Crafts and Lamont, on the other hand, showed2 how titanium increased the hardenability, with multiplying fdctors up to nearly I.; for about 0.1 per cent titanium, though reducing the hardenability with higher titanium. Their data, however, were obtained almost exclusively from steels containing more than 1.4 per cent manganese, and thus should be considered as applying mainly to manganese steels. Likewise, the results of Kramer, Hafner and Toleman regarding titanium are subject to the limitation that although they eliminated the effect of the insoluble titanium compounds from their calculations, they did not make a similar correc- tion for the carbon that was combined with titanium and therefore occurred in a similarly ineffective form. It is suggested by the literature referred to that titanium may have different effects on hardenability, depending on the mode of its occurrence in the steel. The different effects on strength, ductility, etc., have already been discussed by the author.3 In the present discussion some comparisons, on the basis of hardenability as revealed by the Jominy end-quench test, are given between three titanium and two non-titanium steels heat-treated in the same ways, and between other titanium steels heat-treated in several different ways. Comparison of Plain-carbon, Vanadium and Titanium Steels The five steels used for these experiments were cominercially melted and rolled products received in the form of 1.5-in. rounds from three different mills. Their analyses are given in Table I. Steels 2, 3, and 4 are from the same basic electric heat1 containing 0.009 per cent of phosphorus and the same amount of sulphur. They were made by adding aluminum and low-carbon ferrotitanium to different ingots. No. I is a plain carbon

Jan 1, 1947

By G. F. Comstock

A serious disagreement as to the effect of titanium on the hardenability of steel exists in published references to this subject. Kramer, Hafner and Toleman reported1 that acid-soluble titanium decreased the hardenability, with multiplying factors less than unity according to Grossmann's system for calculating hardenability from the composition. Crafts and Lamont, on the other hand, showed2 how titanium increased the hardenability, with multiplying fdctors up to nearly I.; for about 0.1 per cent titanium, though reducing the hardenability with higher titanium. Their data, however, were obtained almost exclusively from steels containing more than 1.4 per cent manganese, and thus should be considered as applying mainly to manganese steels. Likewise, the results of Kramer, Hafner and Toleman regarding titanium are subject to the limitation that although they eliminated the effect of the insoluble titanium compounds from their calculations, they did not make a similar correc- tion for the carbon that was combined with titanium and therefore occurred in a similarly ineffective form. It is suggested by the literature referred to that titanium may have different effects on hardenability, depending on the mode of its occurrence in the steel. The different effects on strength, ductility, etc., have already been discussed by the author.3 In the present discussion some comparisons, on the basis of hardenability as revealed by the Jominy end-quench test, are given between three titanium and two non-titanium steels heat-treated in the same ways, and between other titanium steels heat-treated in several different ways. Comparison of Plain-carbon, Vanadium and Titanium Steels The five steels used for these experiments were cominercially melted and rolled products received in the form of 1.5-in. rounds from three different mills. Their analyses are given in Table I. Steels 2, 3, and 4 are from the same basic electric heat1 containing 0.009 per cent of phosphorus and the same amount of sulphur. They were made by adding aluminum and low-carbon ferrotitanium to different ingots. No. I is a plain carbon

Jan 1, 1947

By J. Russ, C. L. Clark

For many years attempts have been made to develop a laboratory test that would serve to indicate the proper temperatures to be used in the various hot-working applications to which metals may be subjected as they are being processed from the cast ingot to the desired finished products. That these attempts have not been very successful is indicated by the fact that most of the temperatures in use today in these operations have been developed over a period of years by trial and error. In other words, the selection of the proper temperatures for the hot-working of metals is generally an art rather than a science. Our knowledge with respect to the behavior of metals at elevated temperatures has been greatly extended during the past several years. While most of the work in this field has been done at proposed operating temperatures of equipment, rather than at processing or fabricating temperatures, one outstanding fact has been developed, which is applicable to the entire high-temperature range; that is, that the rate of deformation to which the metal is subjected is of the same order of importance as the temperature. The failure to properly recognize this fact has greatly retarded the development of a suitable laboratory test for determining hot-working temperatures. Influence of Rate of Deformation on High-temperature Properties It is not the intent of this paper to survey all the work that has been done On the effect of deformation rate On the properties of metals. The importance of this factor, however, was shown by Zay Jeffries' as early as 1919, when he called attention to the existence of the so-called equicohesive temperature and to the effect of certain factors on the location of this temperature' Fig. I is a diagrammatic sketch showing the effect of temperature On the relative strength of the crystals and grain boundaries and the type of fracture that will res depnding On the location of the test, or Or temperature with respect to the equicOhesive temperature. Since the type fracture varies, it also follows that at temperatures below the equicohesive temperature the major deformation occurs in the grains: while at temperatures above, the deformation results either from the movement of the grains with respect to each other or recrystallization of the strained material occurs almost instantaneously, producing new crystals at the fracture. As previously indicated, it is an established fact that the position of this equicohesive temperature for any given metal is dependent On the deformation rate' For example, in 0.15 per cent plain carbon steel the location of this temperature under

Jan 1, 1947

By C. L. Clark, J. Russ

For many years attempts have been made to develop a laboratory test that would serve to indicate the proper temperatures to be used in the various hot-working applications to which metals may be subjected as they are being processed from the cast ingot to the desired finished products. That these attempts have not been very successful is indicated by the fact that most of the temperatures in use today in these operations have been developed over a period of years by trial and error. In other words, the selection of the proper temperatures for the hot-working of metals is generally an art rather than a science. Our knowledge with respect to the behavior of metals at elevated temperatures has been greatly extended during the past several years. While most of the work in this field has been done at proposed operating temperatures of equipment, rather than at processing or fabricating temperatures, one outstanding fact has been developed, which is applicable to the entire high-temperature range; that is, that the rate of deformation to which the metal is subjected is of the same order of importance as the temperature. The failure to properly recognize this fact has greatly retarded the development of a suitable laboratory test for determining hot-working temperatures. Influence of Rate of Deformation on High-temperature Properties It is not the intent of this paper to survey all the work that has been done On the effect of deformation rate On the properties of metals. The importance of this factor, however, was shown by Zay Jeffries' as early as 1919, when he called attention to the existence of the so-called equicohesive temperature and to the effect of certain factors on the location of this temperature' Fig. I is a diagrammatic sketch showing the effect of temperature On the relative strength of the crystals and grain boundaries and the type of fracture that will res depnding On the location of the test, or Or temperature with respect to the equicOhesive temperature. Since the type fracture varies, it also follows that at temperatures below the equicohesive temperature the major deformation occurs in the grains: while at temperatures above, the deformation results either from the movement of the grains with respect to each other or recrystallization of the strained material occurs almost instantaneously, producing new crystals at the fracture. As previously indicated, it is an established fact that the position of this equicohesive temperature for any given metal is dependent On the deformation rate' For example, in 0.15 per cent plain carbon steel the location of this temperature under

Jan 1, 1947

By Harry K. Ihrig

The hot-working of iron and steel is an art dating back to antiquity, but until about 25 years ago, relatively few alloying elements were used, and these were present only in small percentages. With the exception of sulphur, the amounts of other elements in steels did not markedly affect their hot-workability. The references in the literature on the effect of other elements on the hot-workability of steel are usually reports of failure of these steels in forging or rolling.1-8 With the increased use of alloying elements, and their use in larger amounts, it was observed that many of the new steels were red short in certain critical ranges or at all hot-working temperatures. The stainless steels are particularly difficult to hot-work. The determining of the correct conditions for piercing, rolling and forging of these alloys by experimentation in the mill often results in large losses of these expensive metals. It also is found that the hot-workability limits of many types vary from heat to heat, and hence poor results are obtained on changing to a new heat after a previous one has rolled satisfactorily. To determine the effect on hot-workability of iron to which various elements have been added, it was necessary to devise a method that could be used on small quantities of metal. In such a method, the minimum number of variables should be present, and the procedure should be simple, quick and correlatable with large-scale hot-working operations. Sauveur,9 in the first Henry Marion Howe lecture in 1924, described the effect of carbon on the ductility of steels in torsion near their critical points. He found that carbon increases the plasticity of gamma iron. In the 1930 Campbell Memorial lecture,10 he gives the effect of carbon, chromium, and chromium and nickel on the ductility of steels under 2000°F. in torsion. Ellis11 has studied the malleability of steels at various elevated temperatures by means of a single-blow drop-hammer test. In this test the percentage decrease in height of standard cylinders is taken as a measure of their malleability. He has shown that in the low-alloy steels studied, carbon has a greater effect than nickel, chromium and vanadium. In 1938 the first tests were run on a new quantitative hot-workability test in the laboratories of the Globe Steel Tubes CO. Thum12 mentioned it in 1940. An illustration of the apparatus was published in January 1942.'' The effect of a few alloying elements on the hot-workability of metals was shown in a description of the test in 1944.14 Description of Test Method The method adopted after a trial of several others is a rapid twisting of bars to failure in a furnace. The standard-size bar was chosen as 9/16 in. It is prepared from larger pieces by forging and cold-

Jan 1, 1947

By Harry K. Ihrig

The hot-working of iron and steel is an art dating back to antiquity, but until about 25 years ago, relatively few alloying elements were used, and these were present only in small percentages. With the exception of sulphur, the amounts of other elements in steels did not markedly affect their hot-workability. The references in the literature on the effect of other elements on the hot-workability of steel are usually reports of failure of these steels in forging or rolling.1-8 With the increased use of alloying elements, and their use in larger amounts, it was observed that many of the new steels were red short in certain critical ranges or at all hot-working temperatures. The stainless steels are particularly difficult to hot-work. The determining of the correct conditions for piercing, rolling and forging of these alloys by experimentation in the mill often results in large losses of these expensive metals. It also is found that the hot-workability limits of many types vary from heat to heat, and hence poor results are obtained on changing to a new heat after a previous one has rolled satisfactorily. To determine the effect on hot-workability of iron to which various elements have been added, it was necessary to devise a method that could be used on small quantities of metal. In such a method, the minimum number of variables should be present, and the procedure should be simple, quick and correlatable with large-scale hot-working operations. Sauveur,9 in the first Henry Marion Howe lecture in 1924, described the effect of carbon on the ductility of steels in torsion near their critical points. He found that carbon increases the plasticity of gamma iron. In the 1930 Campbell Memorial lecture,10 he gives the effect of carbon, chromium, and chromium and nickel on the ductility of steels under 2000°F. in torsion. Ellis11 has studied the malleability of steels at various elevated temperatures by means of a single-blow drop-hammer test. In this test the percentage decrease in height of standard cylinders is taken as a measure of their malleability. He has shown that in the low-alloy steels studied, carbon has a greater effect than nickel, chromium and vanadium. In 1938 the first tests were run on a new quantitative hot-workability test in the laboratories of the Globe Steel Tubes CO. Thum12 mentioned it in 1940. An illustration of the apparatus was published in January 1942.'' The effect of a few alloying elements on the hot-workability of metals was shown in a description of the test in 1944.14 Description of Test Method The method adopted after a trial of several others is a rapid twisting of bars to failure in a furnace. The standard-size bar was chosen as 9/16 in. It is prepared from larger pieces by forging and cold-

Jan 1, 1947

By George Stern

The purpose of this investigation has been to study one method for making ordinary carbon steel by the powder metallurgy technique. This method con- sists of pressing and subsequently sintering an intimate mixture of iron powder and gaphite in a suitable atmosphere to Produce a steel. Two types of iron Powder have been studied, electrolytic and reduced. The sinkring of mixtures of loose Car-bonyf iron and carbon black for several hours at I000 to 1100 C. (1830' to 2010°F.), followed by forging of the resultant ingots to bars, has been studied by Offermann.' TrailZ has reported on the properties of hydrogen-reduced and electrolytic iron powders, both containing 0.5 per cent carbon. Methods for making steel bodies by powder metallurgy have also been sug- gested by Goetzel13 who recommends the addition of steel powder of well-defined carbon content to pure iron powder, and Volterra,~ who suggests compaction and subsequent sintering of a mixture of steel powder, iron oxide and iron powder. Additional methods for making steel bodies by powder metallurgy have been reported in the literature by Kohering Allen,6 Balke,7 Wulff,8 Boegehold,9 and others.,0,11,12 It is felt that the method of pressing iron powder and graphite, as described herein, lends itself best to production be-Cause of the lubricating action of the

Jan 1, 1946

By George Stern

The purpose of this investigation has been to study one method for making ordinary carbon steel by the powder metallurgy technique. This method con- sists of pressing and subsequently sintering an intimate mixture of iron powder and gaphite in a suitable atmosphere to Produce a steel. Two types of iron Powder have been studied, electrolytic and reduced. The sinkring of mixtures of loose Car-bonyf iron and carbon black for several hours at I000 to 1100 C. (1830' to 2010°F.), followed by forging of the resultant ingots to bars, has been studied by Offermann.' TrailZ has reported on the properties of hydrogen-reduced and electrolytic iron powders, both containing 0.5 per cent carbon. Methods for making steel bodies by powder metallurgy have also been sug- gested by Goetzel13 who recommends the addition of steel powder of well-defined carbon content to pure iron powder, and Volterra,~ who suggests compaction and subsequent sintering of a mixture of steel powder, iron oxide and iron powder. Additional methods for making steel bodies by powder metallurgy have been reported in the literature by Kohering Allen,6 Balke,7 Wulff,8 Boegehold,9 and others.,0,11,12 It is felt that the method of pressing iron powder and graphite, as described herein, lends itself best to production be-Cause of the lubricating action of the

Jan 1, 1946