Evaluating the Effects of Quenching Time and Normalizing on the Hardness of Steel

Sophia Richardson
Ocean Lakes High School
January 23, 2023

Author note
The author would like to thank Mr. Santos and the Ocean Lakes Technical Education Center for the use of
resources that made this study possible.
 Abstract

Since the consequences of weld failure are costly, metallurgists and engineers are constantly

finding new ways to improve the condition of metal before it is joined into a structure in the

field. The requirements of types of metal, their properties, and methods of treatment should be

known before the actual treatment is established. This prevents weld failures and produces the

most efficient process. Here we investigate the association between two post weld heat

treatments: quenching and normalizing on the hardness of plain carbon steel. It was found that

there were many different combinations in order to obtain the maximum hardness. The most

important being five seconds of quench time and twenty seconds of heat applied, as this gave the

hardest number on the scale in the smallest amount of time. This experiment is helpful to

understand to ensure that no matter what environmental factors there are, people can compensate

by adjusting quench time or temperature to obtain the specific requirement of hardness. Future

work can be done regarding this experiment in recarbonizing the metal after heat treatment and

including low and high carbon steel.

13
 Introduction

Since the 18th century, plain carbon steel has made its way through the industrial

revolution, civil wars, and eventually led to skyscrapers. This metal also makes up structures like

cars, ships, pipelines, roads, railroads, and bridges, but most importantly it provides a safe

environment in people’s day to day lives. In order to maintain and build these structures, the

main process used to join metals, more specifically steel, is welding. Welding is a process that

melts two metals to join and create stronger joints and buildings more efficiently than other

methods. Unfortunately, these pieces sometimes run into problems, like stresses in the metal or

fractures, leading to many downfalls.

Weld failure is the main problem this industry faces. Cracks and deformities in steel are

the underlying cause to bridges falling or underwater pipelines splitting in half. It all comes

down to the internal structure of the steel that causes these fractures. Plain carbon steel is an

alloy, the combination of iron and carbon. The carbon in carbon steel adds extra strength and has

the ability for a better range of heat treatments. Carbon also increases the hardness, which is a

metal's resistance to penetration. Hardness can be a good thing, protecting the weld configuration

from corrosion, rust, oil, etc, yet it could be bad, as an extremely hard metal leads to cracking

and buckling.3

Welding naturally creates small stresses in the internal structure of the joint. The amount

of heat applied moves the molecules quickly and further apart, resulting in thermal expansion

and an uneven grain structure when cooled. Thermal expansion means a larger surface area and

volume due to the intense heat.6 Residual stress is stress that is left over after cooling. When the

weld with its stress is placed onto another figure, say, a bridge, even more stress and weight is

applied, so the piece is more likely to fracture.4 A study done in 2012, investigated the Welding

13
Induced Residual Stresses.9 It explained how residual stress and distortion were caused by high

temperatures. The effects of distortion were: misalignment, buckling, cracking, fatigue, and

setbacks-like reworking and loss of time. The challenge for decreasing the residual stress is

finding the best techniques, as there are so many different situations, combinations, and materials

that could be tried.

One way that scientists have figured out how to diminish these stresses and improve the

internal quality is through a process called post weld heat treatment (PWHT). This process is

composed of many different techniques (annealing, normalizing, quenching, tempering, etc.).

Some properties that PWHT can improve are the hardness, ductility, and toughness. Ductility

measures how soft a material is, toughness measures the resistance of impact, and hardness is the

ability to resist penetration on the surface. These properties are all good to know since steel

structures need to have the maximum quality to withstand quick weather and humidity changes,

and loads over time.5 It is also important to understand the type of treatment being done, because

while it is beneficial, PWHT can be costly and may take up time if the wrong type of treatment is

selected. PWHT is imperfect in application, however it is commonly used since in most cases the

benefits outweigh the risks.

Quenching and normalizing were PWHTs used in this experiment. Quenching is heating

a metal piece to a certain degree and immersing it under water (quickly cooling it in a specified

media, e.g. water, oil, brine) for a certain amount of time. When quenched, the crystalline

microstructure changes and coalesces, resulting in a more brittle metal.2 Brittleness is the ability

to shatter, and usually the more brittle metal, the harder it is. The austenite region is a formation

in the face centered cubic (FCC) structure of steel, and the cooling rate in this region affects the

hardness of the base metal.5 In other words, this process quickly cools and hardens the metal due

13
to the formation of steel. Normalizing heats the metal up and air cools it at a slower rate than

quenching. Scientists found that normalizing helps with cutting and mechanical properties, since

the steel crystal microstructure grains are more refined due to the slower cooling.2 Normalizing is

proven to be tougher and less hard than quenching.

The aim of this experiment was to discover which type of treatment creates a harder

metal, and during the quenching trials, seeing how increasing the heat and time soaked in the

water produces the most convenient and economically efficient process. The hypothesis was that

the longest quench time and longest heat results in a harder metal, and normalizing will have the

lower hardness of the two PWHT. There were two planned analyses, which compared the

hardness scale from the normalizing trials and quenching average trials and compared the

hardness scale of the various quenching trials.

Materials and methods:

Instrumentation: This section gives information on the Rockwell Hardness Test and the Jet

Band Saw. The Hardness Test is a form of a non-destructive metallurgical test to determine the

hardness of metals by measuring how deep the indentation goes.7 This experiment used a

diamond indenter, with a black 150 kgf (kilogram-force). Appendix A 1 displays the test cycle

tolerances assigned for this method of testing, and a diagram of the load process. The

preliminary dwell time force is the force held on the piece before indentation, while dwell time is

how long the indenter was held on the test piece immediately after the major force is added.8 If

the major force was applied before the preliminary force time was up, then the data would be

inaccurate, as the preliminary force needs a certain amount of time to break through the surface

13
of the metal. Breaking through the surface is important because the outside surface contains dirt

and other substances that would affect the hardness.

This experiment focused on the preheat flame of the oxyacetylene torch. Oxyfuel is a

combination of oxygen and acetylene. This combination creates one of the hottest flames. An

oxy-fuel torch’s purpose is to cut metal which first uses the preheat flame to heat the metal up

and remove impurities, then a high-pressure oxygen stream would be applied.

A Jet band-saw was used to cut the materials. The saw blade sped the process up, taking

about thirty minutes total. This was chosen instead of using a cutting wheel, which would have

taken about an hour and a half. The band saw was chosen over the oxy fuel torch which also

takes more time to cut, and is not as smooth as the others.

Safety precautions: This section gives a brief outline of the safety procedures and Personal

Protective equipment (PPE) followed that prevented injury. Safety glasses were worn in the shop

at all times as well as a long sleeve cotton shirt, since they are harder to catch fire, and faster to

put out in case of a fire compared to polyester or a mix of the two. Gloves had to be worn when

using the saw and the oxyacetylene torch in order to decrease the risk of being burned and/or cut.

Ear protection had to be worn in the shop as well. All hair had to be pulled back to mitigate the

risk of getting scalped by a machine or caught on fire. Other protective measures included

ensuring there was no excessive working pressure acetylene or oxygen through the torch.

Flashbacks are the result of extra pressure in the torch, which are mini explosions that happen in

the gas chamber flowing through the valve that make popping noises when touched to metal. No

more than 5 pounds of working pressure for acetylene and 30 for the oxygen should be let into

the torch. If more than recommended amounts of gasses are exceeded, then explosions in the gas

cylinders could occur-resulting in injuries and possible death. Ways to prevent flashbacks and

13
explosions include setting the machine up properly and being aware of how close the metal part

of the torch is to the steel.

Preparation of materials: The scientist took a long piece of carbon steel approximately 60

inches long and a thickness of a quarter inch. and used a ruler and chalk to measure out 15

pieces of 3 inch length. The scientist then set the metal up on the saw and started the process of

cutting. The coolant had to be sprayed evenly across the steel in order to avoid the saw getting

stuck. After all 15 pieces were cut, there was some rust, dirt, and coolant on it, and if the torch

was lit on it, it would be harder to heat up and may affect the hardening process and results.

Therefore, the scientist cleaned them with warm water and paper towels, waiting for the water to

dry before testing. While 3 of these pieces were not used in the experiment, it was important to

have extras in case any problems in heating or quenching would arise. One of the extra pieces

was used for a trial to make sure the torch worked properly.

Testing: The experiment included three separate heating conditions/trials, and two types of heat

treatment in each condition. The heat conditions were that the heating time on the metal

increased from 10, 15, and 20 seconds. The time was the same on both sides of the metal. Each

condition had 4 pieces of metal: 3 received quenching and 1 received the normalizing treatment.

The 3 quenched metals for each condition had: 1, 5, or 9 seconds under the water. The

normalized heat-treated metals received no quenching and were left to air cool after either 10,

15, or 20 seconds of heat applied. Note: For all three conditions (or trials), there was a control of

heating the metal for an observed color of red-orange, then after this color was reached, the timer

was started for 10, 15, or 20 seconds on all condition trials.

Once all the pieces were cut evenly and labeled, wearing gloves and glasses, the scientist

took the torch and using the preheat flame, held it over the first metal piece until it got

13
red-orange. Then the timer started, holding the preheated flame in the center of the metal until 10

seconds was up. Next, the piece was flipped over with a clamp and the torch was held until

red-orange again and held it for 10 more seconds. This piece was set aside as this was the

normalizing piece (it air-cools slowly, receiving no quenching). Then another piece of metal

underwent the heating process for 10 seconds (condition 1), yet this piece was immediately

quenched for 1 second, pulled out, and set on the table. This process was repeated with the other

two pieces, still holding the torch for 10 seconds on each side, yet quenching immediately after

for 5 seconds, and the last piece for about 9 seconds. This was the first condition (or trial): four

pieces of metal held under heat for 10 seconds, three of these quenched for 1, 5, and 9 seconds,

and the last got no quench.

The next day, four other pieces of metal were heated, and the trial was repeated, yet

instead of holding the preheated flame over the metal for 10 seconds (after the steel was heated

to a red-orange color) it was held for 15 seconds in the center for all 4 metals. Again, there was

one piece of metal that got no quenching, and the three others were dunked under the water for 1,

5, or 9 seconds. This was condition 2.

The last condition (condition 3) was holding the torch for 20 seconds on both sides after

the observed red-orange flame. The treatments were kept the same: still quenching for 1, 5, or 9

seconds, and the last metal had no quench. The metal was labeled with a sharpie after they had

all cooled to avoid getting disorganized, with C=condition, Q=quench, and N=normalizing, the

numbers referring to seconds quenched or seconds heated.

Sampling Procedures: The data collection strategies for this experiment was the Rockwell

Hardness Test at Ocean Lakes in Mr. Sonier’s class. The Rockwell Hardness for steel is read on

the C-scale.1 The higher the number on the C scale, the harder that steel is. On the other hand, the

13
lower the number, the softer the metal. The preliminary (minor) force dwell time was 4 seconds,

and the major dwell time was 6 seconds. Each of the pieces had 5 hardness tests, and the

average hardness of each sample was recorded. In total there were 60 tests completed. The data

was collected on December 2nd and December 4th, 2023 in Mr. Sonier’s class. The intention was

to cut 12 pieces for testing, however 3 additional pieces were cut due to Mr. Santos, the scientists

welding instructors’ recommendation of cutting extra pieces for samples and in case of any

mistakes or sample trials.

Analysis and Results:

Appendix B shows the graphs used in this experiment. Q1, Q5, and Q9 refer to the quenching

time in seconds. N represents the normalizing post weld heat treatment method. The bar graph in

fig. 1 groups the post weld heat treatments into the heating conditions. The bar graph in fig. 2

separates the quench times and normalizing, and groups the heating conditions into these PWHT

methods. Fig. 3 represents a line graph comparing only the quench times and heating conditions.

The goal was to get max hardness by finding the optimal combination of quench time and

temperature. Because they appear to both influence hardness, there are different combinations to

achieve the maximal hardness. For example, optimal hardness could be achieved by: quenching

for 5 seconds with a heating time of 20 seconds, or a similar result could be attained by

quenching for 9 seconds for a heating time of 10 seconds. It seems quenching for 5 seconds had

the average greatest hardness, yet any quench longer than 5 seconds resulted in a lower hardness.

This is seen in fig. 2, where condition 2 was brought from 19 (Q5) down to 18 (Q9) hardness

scale, and condition 3 was decreased from a 23 (Q5) to a 20 (Q9). Also quenching the metal for

5 seconds after heat treatment of 15 seconds proved the hardest compared to quenching for 1 or 9

13
seconds. The bar graph in fig.1 shows this, as 5 seconds was 19 and the other two were 2.8 and

18.6. Additionally, looking at fig. 1 condition 3 (20 second heat treatment), Q5 had the hardest

scale of a 23 compared to -0.6 (Q1) and 20 (Q3) Condition 1 however, continued to increase its

hardness as the quench time increased, seen best in fig. 1, the hardness increasing from 7.4 to 8

to 21.8. Generally, the shorter the quench time resulted in a lower hardness. This can be seen

clearly in fig. 3, where all three heat conditions are at the lowest hardness when quenched for 1

second. As for normalizing, heating for 15 seconds (condition 2) resulted in the hardest scale for

normalizing the metal. This is seen in fig. 1, where normalizing after heat treatment of 15

seconds was a hardness of 2, and condition 1 and 3 had a normalizing hardness of -0.38 and

-15.4.

Discussion:
The purpose of this research was to find an association between heating and quenching, and

heating and normalizing, and evaluate the maximum hardness through these combinations.

The hypothesis was that the longest quench time and longest heat results in a harder metal, and

normalizing will be associated with a lower hardness of the two PWHTs. The data indicates that

the longest quench time (Q9) and longest heat time did not result in the hardest metal, but that

the combination of quenching for 5 seconds and having the longest heating time did have the

hardest metal. No amount of time quenching after would have made up for the hardness scale.

The results have shown that maintaining around 5 seconds of quench time was the primary factor

for maximum hardness in both post weld heat treatments. This shows that even when there are

different environmental factors, people can compensate by adjusting quench time or

temperature/time heated to obtain the specific requirement of hardness. This result applies only

to this type of steel however it is unknown if different types of metal would have different results

for these specific times. inferential statistics. One of the challenges was that there were three

13
variables-temperature, quench time, and normalizing. Figuring out how to graph three variables

instead of normally two took a while to make it in the clearest graph possible.

Another limitation is that the experiment didn't include recarbonization or grinding the metal

down after heating. There is a risk using PWHT when trying to strengthen the metal. When a

metal is extremely heated and not controlled well enough, the surface composition of the metal

(carbon) is released into the air. Carbon strengthens metal, so this diffusion makes the surface

metal weaker and therefore softer because of decreased carbon content.10 This can be seen in the

data that the material was softer than specified, as all the numbers are lower than previous

studies done. The hardness C-scale for steel is usually around 40-50, while this experiment's data

was around 20-30. Further design could include recarbonization, or grinding/sanding of the

metal. The experiment was successful since there was an observed relationship between the three

variables.

13
 Appendix A

Appendix B

Fig. 1.

13
 Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Picture 1

13
 References:

1
ASTM. (n.d.). ASTM E18-15 standard test methods for Rockwell hardness of ... - UISEK.
Standard Test Methods for Rockwell Hardness of Metallic Materials. Retrieved January 14,
2023, from https://repositorio.uisek.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/2680/3/ASTM_E18-15.pdf

2
Tran, A. (2013). Metallurgy. In D. R. Franceschetti (Ed.), Applied science (Vol. 3, pp.
1193–1200). Salem Press, a division of EBSCO Information Services.
3
BBC. (n.d.). Structure and bonding in metals - metals and alloys - AQA - GCSE combined
science revision - aqa trilogy - BBC bitesize. BBC News. Retrieved August 30, 2022, from
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/ztgy6yc/revision/1
4
What is residual stress? TWI. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2022, from
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/residual-stress#:~:text=Residual%20stress
es%20are%20those%20stresses,and%20distortion%20of%20an%20object.
5
Althouse, A. D., Turnquist, C. H., Bowditch, W. A., & Bowditch, K. E. (1992). Heat Treatment
of Metals. In Modern Welding (pp. 621–633). essay, Goodheart-Willcox Co., Inc.

6
Encyclopedia.com. (2023, January 14). ." Science of everyday things. . encyclopedia.com. 20
Dec. 2022 . Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved January 14, 2023, from
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/physics/thermal-expansion

7
Yorksaw. (2019, September 25). Rockwell hardness guide: What it is, how to measure, & more.
Rockwell Hardness Guide | What it is, How to Measure, and More. Retrieved December 10,
2023, from https://www.yorksaw.com/rockwell-hardness/

8
Thomas, A. (2023, January 6). The Rockwell hardness test. Fastener + Fixing Magazine.
Retrieved January 14, 2023, from
https://www.fastenerandfixing.com/fastener-testing/the-rockwell-hardness-test/#:~:text=Fastener
%20Testing&text=First%2C%20a%20preliminary%20test%20force,the%20effects%20of%
20surface%20finish.

13
9
Mollicone, P., Gray, T. G. F., & Camilleri1, D. (2012). Experimental investigation and finite
element analysis of welding ... Retrieved September 12, 2022, from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0309324712438653
10
Paulo. (2021, December 22). Measuring and preventing decarburization in steel. Retrieved
January 14, 2023, from
https://www.paulo.com/resources/measuring-preventing-decarburization-steel/

13