Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carbon Equivalent PDF
Carbon Equivalent PDF
95 January 2007
Abstract
A practical method to predict HAZ hardness distribution was studied by consider-
ing the effect of prior austenite grain sizes on hardenability and that of tempering.
For 400 to 490MPa grade steels, hardness distribution between fusion and Ac3 lines
can be fairly well predicted by introducing the effect of grain sizes to the maximum
HAZ hardness prediction method. For boron added 780MPa grade steel, since the
maximum hardness is obtained at the area a little bit away from the fusion line, the
present method cannot predict its HAZ hardness well. Hardness at Ac1 line can be
evaluated with the tempering parameter.
means that a steel having a long critical cooling time undergoes mar-
1. Introduction tensitic transformation easily.
To evaluate hardenability, which is an important metallurgical As explained above, both the ideal critical diameter and carbon
characteristic of steel, two kinds of indices have been proposed: the equivalent are indicators of how easily a steel undergoes martensitic
ideal critical diameter (or the hardenability-multiplying factor ex- transformation, and thus their metallurgical meanings are consid-
pressing it) 1) and the carbon equivalent 2, 3). ered the same. The interrelation between them has been made clear
The ideal critical diameter is the maximum diameter of a round through application of heat transfer analysis 5).
bar specimen that can be quenched to the center under the condition One of the differences between these indicators, on the other hand,
of ideal quenching (assuming an infinite cooling capacity at the sur- is whether the influence of austenitic grain size is taken into consid-
face), and a specimen is judged to be quenched to the center when eration; whereas the equation for calculating the ideal critical diam-
the fraction of martensite at the center is 50% or more (100% in eter includes a term of the hardenability-multiplying factor based on
some cases). It is easy to understand that when quenching a steel austenitic grain size, the equation for the carbon equivalent usually
bar, the larger its diameter the more difficult it is for the center por- does not include a term of grain size or diameter. The ideal critical
tion to transform into martensite. This means that a steel whose diameter is used mainly for heat treatment of a steel material, and
ideal critical diameter is larger can transform into martensite more the carbon equivalent for evaluating a HAZ. However, this does not
easily. mean that the hardenability of a HAZ does not depend on the auste-
The carbon equivalent is an indicator expressing the critical cool- nitic grain size: in fact, hardness distribution measurement of a HAZ
ing time required for a steel material to change into 100% marten- shows that hardness tends to decrease as the distance from the fusion
site. The carbon equivalent was initially used to express not the line increases.
critical cooling time but the critical cooling rate 3), but it is presently A reason why the influence of the austenitic grain size has not
used to express the critical cooling time because the cooling time been taken into consideration in calculating the carbon equivalent is
from 800 to 500℃ was used for an equation to calculate the hard- presumably that the portion that poses problems regarding the prop-
ness of a heat-affected zone (HAZ) of a weld joint 4). If the cooling erties of a HAZ is the coarse-grain portion near the fusion line, and
time after welding a steel is shorter than the critical cooling time, the because the carbon equivalent was initially used for evaluating the
structure of a HAZ turns into 100% martensite, and otherwise, the properties of that portion, the maximum heating temperature could
structure of a HAZ may contain phases other than martensite. This be considered roughly constant to be just below the melting tem-
- 53 -
NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 95 January 2007
- 54 -
NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 95 January 2007
where, τAe3 is the value of τ when T = Ae3 , and τMs is that when T Table 1 Summary of coefficients of alloy elements in carbon equivalent
= Ms, and their values are assumed to be ∞ in the equation modifi- Element Ax Ax /Ac CE (Bastien) CE (Yurioka)
cation.
When the calculation of Equation (6) is conducted, the carbon CEcal (Eq.(12)) (Ref.(3)) (Ref.(9))
equivalent is determined as follows: C – 3.02 1 1 1
1n ∆tM =1n 300 − AC ⋅ C− C 0 +ASi ⋅ Si −Si 0 +AMn ⋅ Mn−Mn 0 + ⋅⋅⋅ Si – 0.08 1/38 - 1/24
= C 0 − A C ⋅ CE M Mn – 0.50 1/6.0 1/4.1 1/6.0
- 55 -
NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 95 January 2007
N is defined by the following equation using the number of grains n rite-pearlite), HFP (hardness of 100% ferrite-pearlite), then the hard-
per mm2: ness of a HAZ HV will be expressed as follows:
1 H V = H M ⋅ V M + H B ⋅ V B + H FP ⋅ V FP (19)
n ≡ 8 ⋅ 2N = 2 (17)
π g / 3.552 Many formulae for predicting the maximum hardness so far pro-
Note that, Equation (17) is based on the fact that a two-dimen- posed include terms accounting for volume fractions of these micro-
sional grain diameter is expressed as g/1.776, g being a three-dimen- structures, but by our experience, the estimation accuracy of the one
sional grain diameter. Conveniently, Equation (16) is separable, and Yurioka et al. proposed 9) was the best among them. According to
substituting Equation (16) into Equation (15) using Equation (17), their prediction formula, the volume fraction of martensite VM is es-
the following equation was obtained: timated as:
- 56 -
NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 95 January 2007
- 57 -
NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 95 January 2007
Fig. 6 Experimental ( ● ) and calculated ( ○ ) results of hardness Fig. 8 Experimental ( ● ) and calculated ( ○ ) results of hardness
distribution in Steel D distribution in Steel F
- 58 -
NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 95 January 2007
- 59 -
NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 95 January 2007
Fig. 9 Microstructures of Steel F after SAW(a: in the vicinity of fusion Fig. 10 Relationship between hardness at Ac1 line and I2
line, b: region of maximum hardness)
with boron during cooling, leading to a decrease in hardenability. This is in the same form as I in Equation (18). Note that for the
At positions where the maximum heating temperature is lower, average value of the activation energy Q2, one was used that used by
nitrides do not dissociate and boron, working as free boron, serves to Inoue, that is,
increase hardenability. Fig. 9 shows microstructures of Steel F welded
by the SAW at a position along the FL (part a) and the position where Q2 = 330,000 (J/mol) (34)
8)
the hardness was highest (part b): the structure shown in part b is The following equation was used to calculate the Ac1 tempera-
more hardened than that of part a; thus it is clear that the hardening ture, which was indispensable for the calculation:
effect is not necessarily highest along the FL. Because the equations
used in the present study for estimating hardness were formulated in 1n Ac 1 – 273 = 6.5792 – 0.038058C + 0.052317S i + 0.011872 Ni
such a way that they agreed with past knowledge at the FL, and be-
– 0.045575V + 0.18057Al + 0.011442W – 0.013403Cu + 5.5207B
cause the above behavior of boron was not a part of the past knowl-
+ 0.91209S – 1.1002P + 0.060014MnC – 0.096628CrC
edge, the hardness prediction result for Steel F did not agree with the
experimental data. This non-agreement is a subject of future study. + 0.050625CrSi + 0.39802MoC – 0.34782MoMn + 0.40986MoSi
5.4 Prediction of hardness at Ac1 line – 0.12959MoCr – 0.048128NiC – 0.01090Mn2 – 0.03550Si 2
The base metal structure along the Ac1 line is considered to be + 0.010207Cr 2 + 0.36074Mo 2 – 0.0030705Ni 2
tempered by the heat of welding, and for this reason, it is impossible (35)
to predict the hardness along the line by the method described earlier Here, again, the unit of Ac1 temperature in Equation (35) is Kelvin
herein. Generally speaking, it is adequate to evaluate the change in (K). A comparison was made to the hardness at Ac1 with I2 in Equa-
hardness after tempering by using a temper parameter such as the tion (33), and it was found that, as Fig. 10 shows, their mutual rela-
one Okumura et al. used in the formula for predicting HAZ hardness tionship was roughly linear in each of the specimen steels. The rela-
after stress relieving 14). However, since a temper parameter is calcu- tionship can be expressed as follows.
lated based on holding temperature and time of heat treatment, with-
out modification, it is inapplicable to a process such as welding in H V Ac1 − H FP = − 11.1 × I 2 + 382 (Steels C, D and E) (36)
which temperature changes with time. Such a problem occurs not
H V Ac1 − H FP = − 30.16 × I 2 + 1113 (Steel F) (37)
only in welding but also in evaluating the effects of heating and cool-
ing before and after tempering treatment. To solve the problem, Here, HFP is given from Equation (30). Note that the right-hand
Inoue17) introduced the following parameter: side of either of these equations may become negative with a large
value of I2 ; in such a case, the value of the right-hand side is as-
I 2 = log Σi 10 λ i , sumed to be zero, which means that the hardness at Ac1 line cannot
Q (32) be lower than HFP. The coefficients in the right-hand sides of Equa-
λ i = log t − 2 1 + 50
2.3R T tions (36) and (37) are considered dependent on steel, but it was not
Equation (32) means that a welding thermal history is divided possible to obtain a general solution applicable to any steel grades.
into a step function, and λi for each step is determined to calculate Nevertheless, the present study is significant in showing the possi-
I2. When the interval of each step is reduced, and Equation (32) bility of evaluating the influence of welding heat on HAZ hardness
becomes the form of integration as follows. at Ac1 line by using I2 as shown in Fig. 10.
I 2 = 50 + log exp − Q 2 / RT dt (33)
- 60 -
NIPPON STEEL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 95 January 2007
- 61 -