SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

2002-01-0918

Induction Hardened Ductile Iron Camshafts

Alan P. Druschitz and Steve Thelen
Intermet Corp.

Reprinted From: Designing and Achieving Lightweight Vehicles

(SP1684)

SAE 2002 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 4-7, 2002
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A.

Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for
resale.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

2002-01-0918

Induction Hardened Ductile Iron Camshafts

Alan P. Druschitz and Steve Thelen
Intermet Corporation

Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
The General Motors L850 world engine uses an induction
hardened, ductile iron, camshaft. Unlike most induction
hardened camshafts that are machined first and then
hardened, this camshaft is deep hardened first and then
machined. Using this process, the beneficial compressive
surface residual stresses are extremely high.
During the development of the L850 camshaft, the casting
process was optimized to produce material of sufficient
quality to resist quench cracking during the hardening
process and to resist mechanical cracking during the
machining process. Retained austenite content, residual
stress profiles, hardness, microstructure and chemical
composition were all characterized and optimized.

characteristics (microstructure, hardness and residual

stress distribution), a comprehensive research program
was performed. INTERMETs Radford Foundry produced
L850 camshafts with three levels of manganese. General
Motors Tonawanda Engine Plant induction hardened and
machined these camshafts. INTERMET Materials R&D
performed a preliminary examination of the camshafts and
then sent samples to Lambda Research, Cincinnati, OH
for determination of residual stresses and retained
austenite by x-ray diffraction. This paper details the
results of that study. The exhaust and intake camshafts
for the L850 engine are shown in Figure 1.

This paper reviews the material and process development

for this unique automotive application.

BACKGROUND
A wide variety of materials and processes are used to
produce camshafts for the automotive industry. One of
the most versatile material-process combinations is cast
ductile iron and induction hardening. Cast ductile iron
produces a low cost, near net shape component that is
suitable for subsequent precision machining and heat
treatment. Induction hardening can be economically used
to heat the casting and subsequent quenching produces
hard, wear resistant martensite or ausferrite (austempered
ductile iron). Machining can be performed before or after
induction hardening.
INTERMET Corporation currently produces L850 camshaft
castings for General Motors Corporation. To develop a
firm understanding of the interactions between casting
chemistry (manganese level), processing history
(induction hardening and machining) and final component

Figure 1. The camshafts for the L850 engine.

Since a camshaft is a multi-purpose component, different

properties are needed at different locations; for example,
the desirable characteristics for the cam lobes are a hard,
wear resistant surface with high load carrying capacity,
however the bearing surfaces need to be readily
machinable, dimensionally accurate and smooth.
Therefore, a strong, readily machinable material, such as
ductile iron, combined with localized induction hardening
is often used. Induction hardening produces a tempered
martensite layer at the surface and, when combined with
the appropriate grinding process, very high beneficial
compressive surface residual stresses. A cross section
through a cam lobe is shown in Figure 2.

Analyzer on camshaft lobes that were sectioned, polished

and etched. Retained austenite content was determined
by averaging the results from 200 fields of view at 200x for
each sample.

Tempered martensite

Pearlite

Residual stresses and retained austenite contents as a

function of distance from the surface were measured at
the base circle for samples of lobe 3 in the induction
hardened only condition using X-ray diffraction techniques.
Residual stresses and retained austenite contents at the
surface and at a depth of 0.1 mm (near surface) were also
measured at the base circle for samples of lobe 3 and
lobe 6 in the induction hardened then fully machined
condition using X-ray diffraction techniques

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 2. Cross section through a hardened L850 cam lobe.

A hard, dimensionally accurate mold, clean metal plus a

well designed gating system that minimizes the formation
of inclusions is mandatory for the production of camshaft
castings since inclusions will cause cracking during
induction hardening and/or machining.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Since many automotive specifications require high Mn
contents (>0.45 wt%), L850 camshafts were poured at
three different Mn contents that covered the typical range
and significantly lower, Table I. For each Mn level, five to
ten castings from one mold cavity were sent to GM
Tonawanda for induction hardening on production
equipment. Two castings of each Mn level were then fully
machined at Tonawanda and all castings were returned to
INTERMET Materials R&D for analysis.

Table I. Composition of L850 Camshafts (wt%)

Sample ID

Mn

Si

Cu

Mg

Cr

Ni

Mo

Low Mn

0.35

3.87

2.07

0.73

0.035

0.075

0.04

0.011

Med Mn

0.46

3.80

2.10

0.78

0.040

0.081

0.04

0.014

High Mn

0.64

3.80

2.01

0.83

0.032

0.080

0.04

0.017

The surface hardness (Rockwell C) of the induction

hardened camshafts, before and after machining, were
measured on the nose, ramps and base circle. The depth
of the hardened layer was determined by visual
examination and the retained austenite content was
estimated using a fully automated, Clemex Image

The induction hardening process used in this investigation

used RF frequency (30 KHz) to simultaneously heat four
of the camshaft lobes, quenching in a water-polymer
solution and immediately tempering using induction
heating.
The camshaft was then indexed and the
remaining four lobes hardened and tempered in a similar
fashion. During induction hardening, the camshaft was
rotated slowly to produce more uniform heating.

During induction hardening, the surface of the camshaft

heats rapidly and the heat soaks into the component.
Since silicon strongly affects the temperature at which
ferrite transforms to austenite, silicon must be closely
controlled to insure consistent hardening response. For a
camshaft, the heat soaks farther into the nose than into
the base circle due to the difference in mass. The nose of
the cam lobe also reaches higher temperatures since it is
closer to the induction coil. Care must be taken not to
overheat the casting since the amount of carbon that
dissolves into the high temperature phase of iron
(austenite) is a function of temperature, time, chemical
composition and starting microstructure.
A starting
matrix microstructure of >80-90% pearlite is desirable to
minimize the carbon diffusion distance.
Since its
desirable to keep cycle times short, exceptionally high
temperatures (as high as 1038oC) are often used. The
amount of carbon that goes into solution at these high
temperatures later determines the temperature at which
martensite forms during quenching. For example, if the
maximum temperature reached during heating is 900oC,
martensite will start to form at 195oC during quenching.
However, if the maximum temperature reached during
heating is 1038oC, martensite will not start to form until
162oC during quenching. During quenching, the rate of
cooling must be controlled since too slow of a quench will
not produce martensite and too fast of a quench will
cause the formation of excessive amounts of retained
austenite and may cause cracking. Tempering after

quenching is necessary to improve toughness and relieve

excessive residual stresses .

Induction Hardened Only

60

Ramp Hardness, Rockwell C

In the induction hardened only condition, low Mn (0.35

wt%) castings had the highest hardness values at the
nose for all lobes, Figure 3a. In the induction hardened
and machined condition, only the low Mn castings met
the hardness specification at all lobe noses, Figure 3b.
Average surface hardness data for all cam lobes taken on
the nose, ramps and base circle are shown in Figures 3-5.
All locations showed a characteristic wide variation in
hardness in the induction hardened only condition and a
greatly reduced variation after machining.
The wide
variations in hardness were due to variations in the
retained austenite content near the cam lobe surfaces
since these were the regions that reached the highest
temperatures during heating.

58
56
54
52

0.35% Mn

50

0.46% Mn
48

0.64% Mn

46
1

Lobe

Figure 4a. Average ramp hardness after induction hardening only.

Induction Hardened then Fully Machined

Induction Hardened Only
60

Nose Hardness, Rockwell C

Ramp Hardness, Rockwell C

0.35% Mn

60

0.46% Mn

58

0.64% Mn
56
54
52
50
48

58
56
54

0.35% Mn

spec minimum

52

0.46% Mn
50

0.64% Mn
48

spec. min.

46
1

46
1

Lobe

Lobe

Figure 3a. Average nose hardness after induction hardening only

Figure 4b. Average ramp hardness after induction hardening and
machining.

Induction Hardened then Fully Machined

58
Induction Hardened Only
56
60

54
spec minimum

52

0.35% Mn
0.46% Mn

50

0.64% Mn
48

spec. min.

46
1

Lobe

Base Circle Hardness, Rockwell C

Nose Hardness, Rockwell C

60

58
56
54
52

0.35% Mn

50

0.46% Mn
48

0.64% Mn

46
1

Figure 3b. Average nose hardness after induction hardening and

machining.

Lobe

Figure 5a. Average base circle hardness after induction hardening

only.

Representative microstructures for the three compositions

are shown in Figures 6-8.

Induction Hardened then Fully Machined

Base Circle Hardness, Rockwell C

60
58
56
54
spec minimum

52

0.35% Mn
0.46% Mn

50

0.64% Mn
48

spec. min.

46
1

Lobe

Figure 5b. Average base circle hardness after induction hardening

and machining.

As expected, increasing Mn caused higher average

retained austenite contents in induction hardened only
camshafts, Table II. This was caused by Mn segregation
and was the reason for falling hardness with increasing
Mn level. The reason for the poor agreement between
image analysis and X-ray diffraction for the 0.46 wt% Mn
sample is not known. After grinding, the variation in
retained austenite content was greatly reduced, Table III.

Figure 6. Representative microstructure of the nose of the induction

hardened camshaft with 0.35 wt% Mn before grinding. Light colored
areas are retained austenite.

Table II. Average Retained Austenite Content as a

Function of Mn Content at the Surface of Induction
Hardened Only Camshafts.
Retained Austenite Content, vol%
0.35% Mn

0.46% Mn

0.64% Mn

Image analysis (lobe 3)

28

41

38

X-ray diffraction (lobe 3)

32.4

27.5

40.7

Measurement Technique

Table III. Retained Austenite Content as a Function of Mn

Content at the Surface of Induction Hardened Then Fully
Machined Camshafts.
Retained Austenite Content, vol%
0.35% Mn

0.46% Mn

0.64% Mn

X-ray diffraction (lobe 3)

28.5

30.8

30.5

X-ray diffraction (lobe 6)

25.0

30.5

30.4

Measurement Technique

Figure 7. Representative microstructure of the nose of the induction

hardened camshaft with 0.46 wt% Mn before grinding. Light colored
areas are retained austenite.

Induction Hardened Only

(hoop stress)
150
0.35 wt% Mn
100

0.46 wt% Mn
0.64 wt% Mn

Residual Stress, MPa

50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200

Figure 8. Representative microstructure of the nose of the induction

hardened camshaft with 0.64 wt% Mn before grinding. Light colored
areas are retained austenite.

-250
0

Depth Below Surface, mm

Figure 9. Hoop residual stress distributions for induction hardened

only (lobe 3).

In the induction hardened only condition, surface residual

stresses were tensile in the hoop and axial directions.
This explained the tendency for lobe cracking when
defects were present or if the induction hardening
conditions were not properly controlled. As manganese
content increased, the magnitude of the surface residual
stress in the axial direction decreased but the depth at
which the residual stress changed from tension to
compression increased (an undesirable trend).
The
residual stress distributions in the induction hardened only
condition are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Retained
austenite content did not correlate with residual stress,
Table IV.

Induction Hardened Only

(axial stress)
150

Residual Stress, MPa

Manganese, over the range investigated (0.35-0.64 wt%),

had no measurable effect on hardenability (depth of the
hardened layer). The measured depth of the hardened
layer before machining was 6 6.5 mm at the nose and
~4 mm at the base circle for all samples. Therefore, the
lack of a measurable Mn effect on hardenability indicated
that other elements were present in more than sufficient
quantity to provide full hardening, for the hardening
process used.

100

0.35 wt% Mn

50

0.46 wt% Mn

0.64 wt% Mn

-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0

Depth Below Surface, mm

Figure 10. Axial residual stress distributions for induction hardened

only (lobe 3).

Table IV. Residual Stress and Retained Austenite Content

as a Function of the Depth Below the Surface for Cams in
the Induction Hardened Only Condition.

Induction Hardened then Fully Machined

(axial stress)
-800
0.35 wt% Mn

0.35 wt% Mn lobe 3

Hoop
Stress
(MPa)

Axial
Stress
(MPa)

Retained
Austenite
Content
(vol %)

0.02
0.99
2.05
3.00

62
-121
-184
-130

108
-76
-163
-181

32.4
28.8
26.3
28.7

-700
0.46 wt% Mn
-600

Residual Stress, MPa

Sample

Depth
Below
Surface
(mm)

0.64 wt% Mn

-500
-400
-300
-200
-100

0.46 wt% Mn lobe 3

0.64 wt% Mn lobe 3

0.04
1.17
1.98
3.01

59
-139
-185
-192

80
-96
-104
-205

27.5
27.4
23.8
26.5

0.03
1.06
2.17
3.02

52
-71
-214
-163

45
11
-105
-199

40.7
29.5
27.9
24.2

0
Surface of Lobe 6

Surface of Lobe 3

0.1 mm Below Surface of Lobe 3

Figure 12. Axial residual stresses at surface of lobes 3 and 6 and at

0.1 mm below the surface of lobe 3. Note: the scale has been
reversed from Figures 9 and 10.

CONCLUSIONS
1.
In the induction hardened then fully machined condition,
surface residual stresses were highly compressive in the
hoop and axial directions. Residual stress as a function
of depth below the surface was not determined for this
condition since they were expected to be shallow.
However, since the compressive residual stresses were
much higher than expected, residual stresses at 0.1 mm
below the surface were determined for lobe 3. At 0.1 mm
below the finished machined surface, the residual
stresses were much lower but still compressive. The
residual stresses in the induction hardened then fully
machined condition are shown in Figures 11 and 12.

2.

3.

4.
Induction Hardened then Fully Machined
(hoop stress)

Residual Stress, MPa

-800
-700

0.35 wt% Mn

-600

0.46 wt% Mn

-500

0.64 wt% Mn

-400

5.
6.

-300

The induction hardening process alone produced

tensile surface residual stresses and compressive
subsurface residual stresses. The tensile surface
residual stresses caused cracking to occur if casting
defects were present.
Manganese did not have an effect on residual
stresses in the hoop direction, but did have a
significant effect on residual stresses in the axial
direction. Increasing manganese decreased the
magnitude of the surface residual stress in the axial
direction and increased the depth at which the axial
residual stress changed from tension to compression.
The grinding process used after induction hardening
resulted in a final product that had significant
beneficial compressive surface residual stresses.
Increasing manganese content produced higher
retained austenite content and lower hardness in the
cam lobe nose, which reached the highest
temperature during induction heating and had the
fastest cooling rate during quenching.
Retained austenite content did not correlate with
residual stress.
Manganese, over the range investigated (0.35-0.64
wt%), had no measurable effect on hardenability.

-200
-100
0
Surface of Lobe 6

Surface of Lobe 3

0.1 mm Below Surface of Lobe 3

Figure 11. Hoop residual stresses at surface of lobes 3 and 6 and at

0.1 mm below the surface of lobe 3. Note: the scale has been
reversed from Figures 9 and 10.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTERMET Radford Foundry made the camshaft castings.
General Motors Tonawanda Plant induction hardened and
machined the camshafts. Melanie Folks of INTERMET
Materials R&D performed the hardness measurements
and metallography. Lambda Research, Cincinnati, Ohio
performed the residual stress and retained austenite
measurements using X-ray diffraction techniques.

CONTACT
Dr. Alan P. Druschitz received his PhD in Metallurgical
Engineering in 1982 from the Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago, Illinois. He is currently the Director
of Materials Research and Development for INTERMET
Corporation. He is located at the INTERMET Technical
Center, Lynchburg, Virginia 24502. He can be reached at
adruschitz@notes.intermet.com or (434) 237-8749. Before
joining INTERMET Corporation, he was a staff research
engineer for General Motors Corporation for fourteen
years. He has been a member of the American Foundry
Society for thirteen years, the Society of Automotive
Engineers for twenty years and ASM International for
twenty-five years. He is currently the Vice President of the
Ductile Iron Society, a member of the Industrial Advisory
Board for the Central Virginia Governors School, and a
member of the Governors Board of Transportation Safety
for the Commonwealth of Virginia.