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

net/publication/301375748

A Thermal Model for Laser Hardening Simulation

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.1115/MSEC2015-9478

CITATIONS READS
0 410

6 authors, including:

Erica Liverani Alessandro Fortunato

University of Bologna University of Bologna
32 PUBLICATIONS   569 CITATIONS    115 PUBLICATIONS   1,452 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alessandro Ascari Donato Sorgente

University of Bologna Università degli Studi della Basilicata
62 PUBLICATIONS   757 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   799 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Heat treatment and stamping of Aluminum alloys View project

Changes in Elasticity Modulus and Damping in Some Novel Magnesium Alloys at Room and High Temperatures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Erica Liverani on 30 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of ASME 2015 Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference
A THERMAL MODEL FOR LASER HARDENING SIMULATION
Erica Liverani
Alessandro Fortunato
Alessandro Ascari
Department of Industrial Engineering
University of Bologna
Bologna, Italy, 40136
Email: erica.liverani2@unibo.it
Email: alessandro.fortunato@unibo.it
Email: a.ascari@unibo.it
ABSTRACT
Laser hardening is a very flexible and useful process for sur-
face treatment of medium carbon steels, capable of processing
varied and complex geometries. In order to enlarge the range
of industrial applications to which this process can be applied,
a suitable model is necessary in order to reduce the setup time
requested for the optimization of new components. The process
model presented is based on the Arrhenius-like equation for es-
timation of the thermally induced process reaction time for mi-
crostructural transformations. By means of experiments, all un-
known parameters in the equations have been determined, high-
lighting the accuracy and low computation time of the simulator.
NOMENCLATURE
T Temperature [◦C]
t Time [s]
I p→a Pearlite → austenite transformation time [s]
I p→a,th Pearlite → austenite transformation time threshold [s]
Q p→a Pearlite → austenite activation energy [s]
R Universal gas constant [J/(mol K)]
Im→a Martensite → austenite transformation time [s]
Im→a,th Martensite → austenite transf time threshold [s]
Qm→a Martensite → austenite activation energy [s]
Im→t,min Tempering lower transformation time [s]
MSEC 2015
June 8-12, 2015, Charlotte, USA
MSEC2015-9478
Donato Sorgente
Leonardo Daniele Scintilla
Gianfranco Palumbo
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and Management
Politecnico di Bari
Bari, Italy, 70126
Email: donato.sorgente@poliba.it
Email: leonardodaniele.scintilla@poliba.it
Email: gianfranco.palumbo@poliba.it
Im→t,max Tempering upper transformation time [s]
Qt Tempering activation energy [J]
tAc1 Time of crossing A1 during heating [s]
tAr1 Time of crossing A1 during cooling [s]
tt,start Start time tempering [s]
tt, f inish Finish time tempering [s]
INTRODUCTION
Compared to conventional surface hardening processes,
laser surface hardening has the principal advantage of being flex-
ible. By using an appropriate laser source and beam displace-
ment system, an extensive range of geometries can be treated. In
order to increase flexibility and make the process as convenient
as possible, a process simulation is necessary due to the large
number of parameters involved. Both penetration of the hard-
ened zone and extension of the tempered areas are strongly influ-
enced by the radiation wavelength, surface quality and geometry
of the component, as well as process parameters such as laser
power, spot dimensions and scanning speed. Most of the above
mentioned parameters are, moreover, mutually interdependent,
making the process difficult to be optimized by means of exper-
imental tests. Process simulations must be fast and accurate, as
the laser yields the biggest economic advantages for processing
low volume batches.
1 Copyright
c 2015 by ASME
 Several works have been presented in recent years regarding TABLE 1. CONSTANT PARAMETERS FOR AISI1040.
the simulation of laser surface hardening processes [1–4]. Some
are capable of predicting the hardened zone but they are also very Q p→a 80000 [J/mol]
time consuming; others contain overly simplified assumptions
that lead to inaccurate predictions. These models are based on Qm→a 25000 [J/mol]
the assumption that the hardness of the resulting martensite de-
Qt 10000 [J/mol]
pends on the carbon homogenization of austenite. Fick’s equa-
tions are employed to predict the carbon solution in austenite, R 8.314 [J/(molK)]
consequently requiring a finer numerical discretization than that
used to solve the Fourier equation. It has, however, been shown
that carbon diffusion can be neglected [5]. In fact, in case of
The model presented in [6] is based on a Arrhenius-like
laser hardening, the thermal cycle is characterised by high heat-
equation to estimate the thermally induced micro-structure trans-
ing rates and the treated area remains for a short time over the
formations for both quenched and tempered substrates. The
austenitic temperature, greatly limiting the carbon diffusion. A
Arrhenius-like equation has been calculated for all transforma-
new framework has therefore been proposed for laser surface
tions involved:
hardening that requires only the solution of Fourier equation ap-
plied to initial microstructure, obtained by digital acquisition of 1. pearlite to austenite;
the real specimen microstructure. 2. martensite to tempered martensite;
Though the model has proved to be accurate, several equa- 3. martensite to austenite.
tion parameters were mathematically determined but were not
The general formulation of the Arrhenius-like equation is
validated experimentally in the aforementioned work. In order
given in Eqn. (1). Ii→ j provides the reaction time and is cal-
to populate a database of values according to material classes, a
culated from tAx , the time when the phase transformation i to
methodology for determining these parameters for a AISI 1040
j begins, and tAy , the time when it finishes. Ax and Ay are the
workpiece is provided in the present work. In particular, a physi-
starting and finishing temperatures of the transformation under
cal simulator is used to reproduce the severe heating rate of laser
consideration, respectively. Equation 1 also requires knowledge
interaction and determine the aforementioned values. The equa-
of the thermal cycle T(t), activation energy Qi→ j , transformation
tion solutions presented in this work to define the edge of the
under consideration and the universal gas constant R (Tab. 1).
treated areas, both quenched and tempered, may easily be gen-
Prediction of the microstructure transformation is completed
eralized and comparable with thermal simulation outputs. More-
by assuming that phase i is transformed into phase j when the
over, on/off results, such ”transformation has occurred or not”’,
threshold is reached, thus calculating the transformation thresh-
are returned.
olds Ii→ j,th . These thresholds must be determined for every trans-
formation. They are supposed to be a property of the material [7],
depending only on the initial and final microstructures.
METHODOLOGY
As presented in [6], a fast and accurate method for simu-
Z tA  
lating surface hardening of medium carbon steels can be carried y Qi→ j
Ii→ j = exp − dt (1)
out by neglecting carbon diffusion in the CFC Fe matrix. This as- tAx RT (t)
sumption is due to the very limited time in which the Fe-C alloy
remains at a temperature higher than Ac1 , compared to that re-
Finally, it is important to note that the exact values of Ax and
quired for diffusion of the carbon atoms, during heat treatments
Ay are usually unknown because they depend on the heating rate;
with very fast heating rates such as laser heat treatment. This
however, an experimental methodology for evaluating them is
assumption leads to two fundamental implications:
also presented in this paper. In general, the unknown parameters
of the Arrhenius-like equations are:
1. Only pearlite is considered during the simulation because
the homogeneization of austenite does not occur therefore 1. The initial and final temperatures of the transformation
ferrite, with its very low carbon content, does not produce 2. The initial and final time of the transformation temperatures
martensite. 3. The transformation thresholds Ii→ j,th
2. All the austenite resulting from the pearlite is transformed
into martensite due to the high carbon content of the trans- The energy activation Qi→ j is assumed to be constant, taken
formed austenite (0.8%) together with the high cooling rate from literature. To summarize, the proposed model allows the
obtained via thermal conduction into the bulk material. prediction of the depth with the maximum hardness for a single

2 Copyright
c 2015 by ASME
laser path and the prediction of the extension of the tempered ing always produces two different zones: zone 1, which is char-
area for multiple passes, for any combination of laser process acterized by tempered martensite, and zone 2, which is the re-
parameters. austenized area characterized with low hardness structures re-
sulting from partial quenching of the austenite (see Fig. 2).
Application of the analytical tools
In order to clarify the utilization of the Arrhenius-like equa-
tions, we can consider Fig. 1 which refers to a single laser path
where the beam impinges on the upper surface of the specimen.
By applying Eqn.2, the depth with the maximum hardness can
be calculated. According to the proposed model, in fact, pearlite
is transformed into austenite when I p→a ≥ I p→a,th , with I p→a,th
being the threshold for the pearlite-austenite transformation and
I p→a the value calculated with Eqn. 2. The latter equation is
calculated during the time when the pearlite temperature exceeds
Ac1 , during the heating and cooling phase (e.g the time between
tAc1 and tAr1 ). Points closer to the surface absorb a higher laser
energy which leads to a higher value of I p→a . Moving away from
the surface, I p→a decreases because the heating cycle is less se-
vere. Calculating Eqn.2 once the threshold I p→a,th is known al-
lows prediction of the depth with the maximum hardness for any
combination of process parameters.

FIGURE 2. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE Im→t AND Im→a

VALUES AND THE TEMPERED AREA.

Zone 1 can be predicted by calculating Eqn.(3) and Eqn.(4)

while zone 2 can be predicted by calculating Eqn.(5). In partic-
ular, in order to determine point A, Eqn.(3) is calculated from
time zero, corresponding to the ambient temperature, up to the
time ttstart , where the initial tempering temperature tstart is at-
tained. Point B, on the other hand, is obtained by calculating
Eqn.(4) from the initial tempering temperature time ttstart up to
the time where tempering finishes tt f inish . Therefore, the starting
FIGURE 1. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE I p→a THRESHOLD value for martensite tempering, Im→t,min , corresponds to point A,
AND THE MAXIMUM HARDENED DEPTH. while the finishing value, Im→t,max , corresponds to point B. The
threshold for martensite to austenite transformation Im→a,th cor-
responds to point C in Fig. 2. At last, at all points that are located
after the line CB, the previous martensite is re-austenized and is
re-transformed into martensite after the subsequent quenching.
Z tAr1  
Q p→a Every parameter described is experimentally evaluated and
I p→a = exp − dt (2) the procedure will be presented in the following paragraph.
tAc1 RT (t)

The second aim of the model is to predict the tempering ex-

Z tt  
tension of the overlapped zone of two consecutive laser paths. start Qt
Im→tmin = exp − dt (3)
If a previously hardened area is considered, a subsequent heat- 0 RT (t)

3 Copyright
c 2015 by ASME
 T
Z tt  
f inish Qt
Im→tmax = exp − dt (4)
ttstart RT (t)

Z tAr1  
Qm→a
Im→a = exp − dt (5)
tAc1 RT (t)

EXPERIMENTAL
In order to determine the transformation temperatures and
the transformation times Ii→ j , severe thermal cycles were im-
posed on AISI1040 cylindrical specimens 6 mm in diameter in
a vacuum chamber using a Gleeble 3180 physical simulator. FIGURE 3. SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE HEATING
This device heats the specimen by the Joule effect through wa- TEST SETUP ON THE PHYSICAL SIMULATOR.
ter cooled jaws, creating a thermal gradient in the longitudinal
direction (Fig. 3). During the test, the longitudinal dilatation
Ac1 .
was measured in the centre of the specimen by a dilatometer,
based on a LVDT transducer, with a resolution of 0.4 µm. The
specimen was left free to expand longitudinally, thus any kind
of thermal stress was avoided. As result, it was also possible to 0,08

obtain the transverse contractions due to the microstructure trans- Dilatometer output

formations and thus, the temperature and times at which they oc- Smoothed data
0,06
curred, [8, 9]. In all the experiment carried out in this paper the
samples were subjected to a heating cycle of 2000 ◦C/s, which is
L [mm]

0,04
typical of laser hardening. This high thermal rate causes, during
the heating, a nearly constant temperature in the free span of the
specimen; while during the cooling the trend is parabolic. 0,02
The experimental setup was completed with three K type
Ac1
thermocouples welded onto the specimen in the centre of the free 0,00
span at fixed distances on both sides Fig. 3. The signal of the cen- 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
tral thermocouple was used as a feedback control of the heating
command system (accuracy of control: 1 K) while the other two -0,02
Temperature [°C]
thermocouples were used to calculate the temperatures along the
specimen by interpolating the three measurements.
FIGURE 4. DILATATION-TEMPERATURE DIAGRAM PRO-
Parameter evaluation VIDED BY GLEEBLE SYSTEM STARTING FROM QUENCHED
Parameters evaluation for calculation of Eqns. (2), (3), (4) AND TEMPERED SAMPLE.
and (5) is presented in the following paragraph starting from the
pearlite transformation. A typical output of the Gleeble machine,
relating to the measured dilatations, is reported in Fig. 4. The The I p→a,th threshold represents the maximum distance from
thermal contraction corresponds to the beginning of the pearlite the center of the specimen where the hardness still has its maxi-
to austenite transformation. Therefore Ac1 is the temperature for mum value and can be determined by means of a microstructural
which thermal expansion deviates from linearity. By repeating analysis. Every treated specimen was cut, hot mounted in a ther-
the test on three different specimens, the average measured tem- mosetting (bakelite) resin and polished. A HighWood HWMMT-
perature has been considered as the initial transformation tem- X7 hardness tester was utilized with a 500 gf load for a loading
perature, Ac1 , for the pearlite to austenite transformation. This time of 15 s. Since hardness measurements may be slightly af-
value is supposed to be also the transformation finish tempera- fected by surface etching, they were performed along the mid
ture during the cooling Ar1 because it is assumed to be equal to line of the polished (and not etched) circular specimen section.

4 Copyright

c 2015 by ASME
The result, presented in Fig. 5, provides the maximum distance
with maximum hardness to a distance of 8.25 mm, point E, from
the center. To the right of this point, the obtained martensite frac-
tion begins to decrease. The heating cycle corresponding to point
E is determined by the interpolation of the data provided by the
three thermocouples and it is represented in Fig. 6 by the solid
black line. Points situated to the left of point E were subjected to
a more severe heating cycle (they are closer to the center of spec-
imen) and were subjected to a higher heating cycle with respect
to E point. The thermal cycle measured by the thermocouple is
presented, as an example of an overheating cycle, with the dotted
line in Fig. 6. On the contrary, points to the right of point E have
a lower heat cycle, with respect to point E, and are characterized
by a heat cycle as presented in Fig. 6 by the dashed line.
800
E
700
600
Hardness [HV]
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5
8,25
10 15
Distance from the center [mm]
FIGURE 5. DISTANCE FROM THE CENTER AT WHICH THE
PEARLITE TO AUSTENITE THRESHOLD WAS LOCATED.
The experiment for the quenching previously described was
also used for the tempering study. Laser surface hardening of
large surfaces needs more than one laser track and, in the in-
teraction area between two adjacent tracks, tempering occurs.
Therefore the calculation of the integrals reported in Eqn.(3,4,5)
assumes a great relevance. Again, the unknown variables are:
1. The austenization temperatures related to quenched sam-
ples, Ac1 and Ar1 , and the relative time tAc1 and tAr1
2. The start and finish tempering temperatures, Tt,start and
Tt, f inish , and the corresponding transformation times tt,start
and tt, f inish
3. Im→a,th , Im→t,max and Im→t,min , respectively, the threshold for
the martensite into austenite transformation and the start and
finish transformation time for martensite tempering.
In order to find the previous unknown parameters, the
5 Copyright
900
800
700
Temperature [°C]
600
500
400
Threshold [8.25mm]
300
Underheated [10mm]
200 Overheated [6.5mm]
100
tAc1 tAr1
0
1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Time [s]
FIGURE 6. THRESHOLD HEATING CYCLE (BLACK LINE).
AISI1040 cylindrical specimens (6 mm in diameter) were
quenched in a previous heat cycle in the furnace so that the initial
micro-structure was a complete and homogenous martensite. Af-
terwards, they were mounted on the Gleeble and were subjected
to a new quenching cycle with the aim of obtaining new marten-
site in the free span of the specimen, as closer to the center as
possible.
The dilatometric graph was studied and contractions and
expansions of the material were highlighted, as shown in Fig.
7. As previously outlined, the deviation of dilatation from lin-
earity corresponds to a microstructural transformation. Fig. 7
presents three deviations which indicate the three temperatures:
Ac1 , Tt,start and Tt, f inish .
As described for the pearlite to austenite transformation, the
threshold Im→a,th for the martensite to austenite transformation
was determined with an hardness test carried out on the samples.
The resulting hardness profile is reported in Fig.8. The drop
in hardness due to tempering effects is evident and point E, as
discussed previously, corresponds to the martensite to austenite
transformation. The distance from the center of the specimen and
point E is 9.2 mm. In Fig.8, the heating cycle can be determined
once again by interpolating the three temperature measurements
on the sample.
This threshold cycle, together with an example of overesti-
mated and underestimated heating cycles, is shown in Fig.9.
MODEL APPLICATION
The previous paragraphs illustrate the method used for the
evaluation of the parameters required in the Arrhenius-like equa-
tions. Starting from these results, the transformation time from
pearlite to austenite and for the tempering of martensite were
calculated for AISI1040. Tab. 2 reports I p→a,th values resulting
c 2015 by ASME
 0,08
1000
Dilatometer output
900
0,06 Smoothed data
800
700
0,04

Temperature [°C]
600
L [mm]

0,02 500
400
Tr,i Tr,f Ac1
0,00 300
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Threshold [9.2mm]
200
Underheated [10.5mm]
-0,02 100 Overheated [8mm]
0
-0,04 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Temperature [°C] Time [s]

FIGURE 7. DILATATION-TEMPERATURE DIAGRAM PRO-

VIDED BY GLEEBLE SYSTEM STARTING FROM QUENCHED FIGURE 9. TEMPERATURE-TIME DIAGRAM FOR THE TEM-
SAMPLE. PERING THRESHOLD HEAT CYCLE.

TABLE 2. I p→a,th THRESHOLDS FOR THREE DIFFERENT

TESTS.
800
E
700

600
Test I p→a,th Ac1
4.36 · 10−6 724 ◦C
Hardness [HV]

500 1 s
400 2 4.99 · 10−6 s 720 ◦C
300
3 6.20 · 10−6 s 705 ◦C
200

100

0 TABLE 3. Im→t VALUES FOR TWO DIFFERENT TESTS.

0 2 4 6 8 9,2 10 12 14 16 18
Distance from the center [mm]
Test Im→t,min Im→t,max Tt,start Tt, f inish
1 2.11 · 10−3 s 5.16 · 10−3 s 400 ◦C 530 ◦C
FIGURE 8. DISTANCE FROM THE CENTER IN WHICH THE
2 2.35 · 10−3 s 5.21 · 10−3 s 390 ◦C 510 ◦C
MARTENSITE TO AUSTENITE THRESHOLD WAS LOCATED.

from three dilation tests, together with the calculated Ac1 tem-
peratures. Again, Ar1 is assumed to be equal to Ac1 . Analyzing
these values a good repeatability of I p→a,th evaluation is evident.
Knowledge of the bound of the integral allows calculation
of Eqn.2 in the laser heated domain and knowledge of the corre-
sponding threshold that represents the maximum hardness depth.
The dilatometric results obtained for the evaluation of the
tempering temperatures, together with the corresponding trans-
formation time values, are summarized in Tab. 3. The two Ac1
temperatures used for the threshold evaluation are reported in
Tab. 4, obtained for two repetitions carried out in order to evalu-
ate the repeatability of the procedure.
According to the results showed in Tabs. 2, 3 and 4 the
following conclusion can be drawn:
1. There is no significant difference in the Ac1 temperature ob-
tained in a specimen with a sorbitic or martensitic structure
and the repeatability is high.
2. I p→a,th , Im→a,th , Im→t,max and Im→t,min show good repeatabil-
ity.
Previous considerations allow the definition of the transfor-
mation time values presented in Tab. 5. They have been calcu-
lated as the average of the values obtained in different tests.

6 Copyright

c 2015 by ASME
TABLE 4. Im→a,th THRESHOLDS FOR TWO DIFFERENT TESTS.
Test Im→a,th Ac1
1 1.83 · 10−2 s 719 ◦C
2 1.58 · 10−2 s 705 ◦C
TABLE 5. PARAMETERS SUMMARY.
I p→a,th 5.18 · 10−6 s
Ac1 = Ar1 (p → a) 716 ◦C
Im→t,max 5.18 · 10−3 s
Im→t,min 2.23 · 10−3 s
Ac1 = Ar1 (m → a) 712 ◦C
Tt,start 395 ◦C
Tt, f inish 520 ◦C
The maximum extent of the quenched or tempered area is
thus obtained by means of the solution of equations in a pattern
of points. The heat transfer simulation of any component allows
determination of the heat cycle in every point and consequently
the value of every transformation time. This map of values is
compared to the threshold data saved in the material database,
returning a positive or negative response which indicates if the
transformation occurs or not.
CONCLUSION
The present work suggests a new method for determining
treated areas obtained via laser hardening, including both the de-
sired, quenched area and the undesired, tempered area. Analyti-
cal and experimental tools have been presented in order to mea-
sure all required values for defining of the borders of these areas.
Values were derived using a Arrhenius-like equation, represent-
ing the required transformation time for a well-defined heating
cycle. The threshold values, in particular, may be completely
generalized, as they are representative of the limiting heat cycle
necessary to transform the initial microstructure into other ones.
During a laser heat treatment simulation, the specific heat cycle
of all points could be inserted in the described equations and the
results compared to the threshold values. These comparisons re-
turned the area belonging to each point: quenched, tempered or
outside the areas of interest. Therefore, the hypothesis of the de-
scribed approach allowed the definition of a database of values
that depend only on the selected quenched and tempered steel.
REFERENCES
[1] Ashby, M., and Easterling, K., 1984. “The transformation
hardening of steel surfaces by laser beams: I Hypo-eutectoid
steels”. Acta Metallurgica, 32(11), pp. 1935–1937.
[2] Ohmura, E., Inoue, K., and Haruta, K., 1989. “Computer
simulation on structural changes of hypoeutectoid steel in
laser transformation hardening process”. JSME interna-
tional journal. Ser. 1, Solid mechanics, strength of materials,
32(1), pp. 45–53.
[3] Skvarenina, S., and Shin, Y. C., 2006. “Predictive modeling
and experimental results for laser hardening of AISI 1536
steel with complex geometric features by a high power diode
laser”. Surface and Coatings Technology, 201(6), Dec.,
pp. 2256–2269.
[4] Bailey, N. S., Tan, W., and Shin, Y. C., 2009. “Predictive
modeling and experimental results for residual stresses in
laser hardening of AISI 4140 steel by a high power diode
laser”. Surface and Coatings Technology, 203(14), Apr.,
pp. 2003–2012.
[5] Orazi, L., Fortunato, A., Cuccolini, G., and Tani, G., 2010.
“An efficient model for laser surface hardening of hypo-
eutectoid steels”. Applied Surface Science, 256(6), Jan.,
pp. 1913–1919.
[6] Fortunato, A., Orazi, L., and Tani, G., 2011. “A New
Computationally Efficient Model for Tempering in Multi-
track Laser Hardening in Medium Carbon Steels”. Jour-
nal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 133(2),
pp. 021003–1–7.
[7] Fortunato, A., Ascari, A., Liverani, E., Orazi, L., and Cuc-
colini, G., 2013. “A comprehensive model for laser harden-
ing of carbon steels”. Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, Transactions of the ASME.
[8] Pawłowski, B., 2012. “Dilatometric examination of contin-
uously heated austenite formation in hypoeutectoid steels”.
Journal of Achievement in Materials and Manufacuting En-
gineering.
[9] Garcia de Andres, C., Caballero, F., Capdevila, C., and Al-
varez, L., 2002. “Application of dilatometric analysis to the
study of solid–solid phase transformations in steels”. Mate-
rials Characterization.

7 Copyright
c 2015 by ASME

View publication stats