The process and priciples of quenching

Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
2,361
As promised I decided to start a new, hopefully educational, thread just dealing with the intricacies in complex mechanism involved in quenching steel. I have recommended the book “Quenching and Martempering” by ASM, but until those interested can get their own copy I will touch on some of what is in that book for starters.

Why do we quench? This may sound like a stupid question due to what we perceive as the obvious answer, but it is not that simple. Aside for other reason for cooling, I will assume we are hoping to harden the steel with this operation. Hardening the steel is a little subjective, as any state at all harder than the previous is technically hardened. So if we heat fully annealed steel and then cool it in air to form very fine pearlite the steel will indeed be harder than before. If we cool the same heated steel in a medium that will keep it from 500F-800F for extended periods, upper or lower bainite would in fact be harder that the previous condition. The same steel quenched to from martensite will be the hardest yet, but severity of quench below 500F could increase strain and result in even more levels of hardness. Then we need to discuss types of hardness, an air cooled piece of steel with subsequent cold work will exhibit high levels of strain hardening, which will resist bending, but not scratching and cutting. Mixed microstructures and carbide distributions will have great scratch hardness by may move significantly under penetrative hardness readings.

So before we can decide what quenching is even all about, we need to determine what hardening is all about for us. For simplicities sake, and since the highest levels of strength and abrasion resistance, in the absence of carbides, come from the most homogenous martensitic conditions, I will confine the scope of my discussion to achieving the most martensite formation, without undo brittleness, as possible. Do we all agree there?

Making martensite can actually be simplified down to not making anything else. With the starting point of austenite, cooling steel will want to form phase more stable than that at a give n temperature. The greatest challenge is pearlite, from 1,000F down to perhaps 900F pearlite will very rapidly form from the parent austenite, thus the most critical function of quenching simple steels is cooling as rapidly as possible through this range. The next phase that can form in the range from 900F to 500F with higher carbon steels would be the upper and lower morphologies of bainite. Some may choose lower bainite as their goal but to keep the topic manageable I will not get into austempering. All these other phases at least partially involve diffusive processes, the one we seek must avoid diffusion of the carbon in order to achieve the condition necessary for its formation. Thus if we want to make martensite the goal is to cool austenite at such a rate so as to outpace any diffusive activities that could rob us the carbon necessary for the strain of martensitic transformation.

With a steel such as 10XX series, there is not drag form alloying to slow down diffusion and we must cool entirely through the pearlite range in less than one second. This speed will obviously be heavily effected by the thickness of the steel, so the thicker or blade the faster the quench needs to be. Thus in choosing a quenchant our first reaction will be to go with the fastest cooling rate possible however this is where things begin to get complicated and such an oversimplified view will cause serious problems. As one approaches 500F and below the need for speed grows less critical and can take a back seat to another concern- over stressing the steel as it undergoes the incredible strain of the martensite transformation. Here continuous cooling is important in order to maintain that transformation but cooling at the same rate or faster, than that needed to avoid pearlite could result in distortion or cracking. So the ideal quenchant for most steels will cool very fast in the initial phases and then at a slower rate in the final 400 degrees. If this were not the case then brine would simply the best all around quenchant, and yet it is not.

The phases of a liquid quench: When hot steel in introduced into most liquids used for quenching there will be at least four distinct phases on its reaction to the steel being cooled to ambient- Vapor formation, Vapor blanketing, Vapor discharge, and final conductive cooling.

Vapor formation occurs as soon as the hot steel superheats the liquid to instantly exceed its vapor temperature, with water it will be 212F, with many oils it will be between 375F and 450F. This is almost unavoidable with almost any liquid with a vapor point below the temperature of the steel.

Vapor blanketing is what happens when the steel superheats enough liquid to create a constant and solid blanket of insulating gas which can all but stop the conductive cooling effects of the quenchant. Unfortunately this effect occurs in the same range when it is most critical to cool the steel in order to avoid pearlite. To add to this the vapor jacket will tend to perpetuate itself by its insulative effects on the steel. Thus not only is one of the most critical attributes of a good quenchant a very low vapor jacket, anything that can be done to destabilize or reduce that jacket is highly important in a successful quench.

Vapor discharge is the most violent and rapid cooling step of the process. This is when the vapor jacket collapses and the liquid begins to make direct contact with the hot steel, resulting in violent boiling and even some small gaseous explosions. Put a hot piece is steel into water and there will be an initial hiss from the vapor jacket formation, followed by a violent vibrating rumble as the water “bites the steel” in the vapor blanket collapse. This phase also self perpetuates as the boiling action increases convective forces of the quenchant as it self agitates. The more evenly this jacket dissipation occurs the better the chances of avoiding distortion and uneven hardening.

Direct conductive cooling can finally occur once the temperature has lowered enough to avoid heavy vapor formation and the liquid itself is making direct contact with the steel and carrying the heat away with conduction aided by convection of the heated liquid. Due to both of these factors working unhindered this has a natural tendency to be much faster that may be desired.

Many people have experiences problems with water quenching blade steels, let us examine how water, the oldest of quench mediums, behaves in these stages. First it forms vapor at a much lower temperature than oils and in voluminous amounts, so it will readily create a very insulative jacket of steam surrounding the steel, the vapor discharge will be most violent and very uneven, resulting in much greater distortion and varied rates of cooling. Once the vapor jacket is entirely gone the rate of cooling will be very fast to ambient, increasing the problems that were started in the previous step and often subjecting those uneven forces to enough stress to result in fracturing. Adding brine to water does not do much for us in the way of the actual conductivity of the quenchant, but what it does do is destabilize the vapor jacket to the point that the cooling can begin much sooner and much more evenly.

Oil can have greater or lesser degrees of vapor jacket problems depending on the vapor point of the oil. In general oils offer less vapor interference but a lower thermal extraction rate, due to limitations in conductivity and convection. Less viscous oils have a greater ability to convect and thus move heat ways from the steel and this is one of main reasons slightly heating a quench oil can increase its cooling ability. Perhaps the greatest advantage of oils is the gentle transition from the vapor jacket phase and the slower direct cooling phase, resulting in less distortion or cracking during martensite formation.

To be continued…
 
Last edited:
Very informative ...I remember when i first started and those posts made my head hurt, I can finally digest them now, I think.. :o

One of these days we're going to print and bind all these posts and we'll have a book whether you like it or not :p
 
Thanks for the beginning of what will be another excellent treatise Kevin.

Your discussion of vapor jackets, etc brings forth a couple of questions.

- Do you have any information as to why Lye was used traditionally (ie. pre-OSHA) as a quenchant?
- Ignoring the fact that the vapor stage induced would be VERY bad for one's health, from a strictly scientific standpoint, would mercury be an effective and very fast quenchant due to its wide liquid phase? I mean, it's a very short liquid phase for a metal, but compared to oils and water....

-d

P.S. No, I'm not suggesting that anybody go quench a blade in mercury! Are you kidding? I'm just playing scientific "what if?". DON'T DO IT!
 
In a typical salt or brine quench the salt acts to violently break up the vapor blanket. NaOH will do the same. In production brine is corrosive to equipment . Optimum NaOH solution is 3 % NaOH.
BTW if distilled water is used for the quenchant the vapor blanket will be very persistant. Quenching into molten salt is sometimes done and this quenchant doesn't form a vapor blanket.
 
Two common methods of testing the speed of a quenchant are the hot wire tests and the magnetic or nickel ball tests. In the hot wire tests a nichrome wire is immersed in the quenchant and then electric current is applied to heat the wire and measured. The cooler the liquid can keep the wire the more current it can handle. Due to the high temperatures involved this test tends to measure performance at the high end of the quenching operation. The magnetic or nickel ball test uses a 7/8” nickel sphere heated to 1625F and then immersed in the quenchant while subjected to a magnetic field. The time required to cool the sphere to the Currie temperature of nickel, or 670F, is then measured and the quenchant is assigned a corresponding speed in seconds.

An old standard in rating quench severity was “H”- Values in which the quenchant was compared with water, kind of like specific gravity in that an H-value of 1 is equal to water. With no agitation, oil has an H-Value of .2 to .3 while brine has an H-Value of 2. To demonstrate the profound effect that agitation can have, strong to violent agitation of oil can increase its H-Value from .8 to 1.

Water: Many of the characteristics of water were already described in my first post, but ASM seems to recommend water at 50F to 75F for quenching with the most uniform results. When one considers that the greatest issue with water is its vapor jacket it is easy to see how heating it can decrease its effectiveness as a quench. The effects of agitation are most profound with water, once again due to its effect on the pronounced vapor jacket. Water is rather prone to the effects of contamination and certain contaminants can increase the vapor issues while others can decrease the jacketing which brings us to…

Brine Due to the effect that the addition of salt to water has upon the vapor jacket brine has a faster and more even quenching effect than plain water. The number recommended by ASM for the most effective brine quench is a 9% solution of sodium chloride to water. the disadvantages of brine are the corrosive effects on the steel, and the corrosive effects of the vapors in surrounding equipment, there is also maintenance concerns to keep the solution on proper concentration from evaporation. This is also the main reason that water polymer emulsions often used by industry does not work so well for knifemakers due to the continual monitoring and maintenance involved in keeping the solutions balanced.

Medium speed and slower quenching oils have a longer lasting vapor jacket and thus a much slower quench speed than water but also have a much lower risk of distortion. Fast quenching oils on the other hand been designed to have a much shorter vapor jacket phase with an extended period of jacket breakdown where cooling is the most rapid. These oils have initial quench speeds approaching that of water while maintaining the same gentle final cooling phase of oil, thus giving the benefits of both and making them most attractive for those up us working with shallow hardening steel.
 
... No, I'm not suggesting that anybody go quench a blade in mercury! Are you kidding? I'm just playing scientific "what if?". DON'T DO IT!

Indeed, as lead used to be used commonly as a quenchant as well but has fallen out of use in modern industry for obvious reason. I also do not believe Hg would work well at all due to its low boiling point, I can't quote it off hand but I believe that is way poor people in 3rd world countries use it to separate and collect gold particles since it can then be heated with a torch to vaporize the Hg an leave just the gold. There are also old metals application techniques that involved the same principles.
 
Saw a program about gold a couple of weeks ago and down in South America they were using lead to separate gold out. They were all sick and knew it was mecury poisoning, one guy said, "the gold is killing me but I must feed the family."

Didn't Richtig quench in lead for bainite?

Thank you again Kevin.... you prove time and time again to show what's good about our craft.
 
FWIW, the boiling point is 375C. That was part of what I though might help to reduce the vapor jacket as compared to oils or water which have lower boiling temps....

-d

Indeed, as lead used to be used commonly as a quenchant as well but has fallen out of use in modern industry for obvious reason. I also do not believe Hg would work well at all due to its low boiling point, I can't quote it off hand but I believe that is way poor people in 3rd world countries use it to separate and collect gold particles since it can then be heated with a torch to vaporize the Hg an leave just the gold. There are also old metals application techniques that involved the same principles.
 
Very nice info, Kevin. Thank you.
I had a thought though.. why would pre-heating the oil make any difference if the 1500 degree blade is instantly heating the surrounding oil the very moment it touches it to well beyond 120F whether the oil is pre-heated or not? It seems like it just wouldn't make much of a difference in speed of vapor formation or discharge.
 
Dustin, I think what Kevin is saying is that pre-heating the oil reduces its viscosity (resistance to flow) and thereby helps it distribute heat more quickly.

If I understand this right, the vapor effects are pretty close to the hot blade. The physical characteristics of the quenchant surrounding that "envelope" of vapor effects aren't going to change instantly. Ever shove a hot knife into a stick of butter? The whole stick doesn't melt at the same rate.

Lowering the overall viscosity of the entire mass of quenchant in the tank, by raising its temperature, will increase its overall ability to absorb the heat of the hot blade. I think.

If I'm wrong or talking out of turn, feel free to smack me upside the head. :o In any case, this is fascinating stuff and I feel privileged to read it.
 
Last edited:
Kevin, thank you for the informative post. I have addressed you again on the other thread. I am sorry to have caused you to spend the available portions of your weekend preparing this. I am sorry your weekend was stressful in ways those of us not involved in lifesaving cannot comprehend.
I hope you understand that I don't have a dog in the fight regarding quenchants, only questions, obviously so sophmoric in nature as to have caused you to believe I have ulterior motives.
This means of communications has failed us. I will once again become a spectator and keep my feedback minimal.
My book order was cancelled, someone else from here must have bought it before I placed my order. I will keep looking.
Thank you.
Alden
 
James -
You are sort of on the right track.
Increasing the temperature of the oil does not increase its ability to absorb heat directly. What it does is increase the convection (by decreasing the viscosity) and that allows the heat to be removed quicker and more efficiently.

Lets take a herd of elephants the you want to get to the water hole. They are on a hill and need to get down to the valley to get a drink ( lower the temperature of the steel) .It takes a long time because they move slowly and they are tightly packed - they are our high viscosity oil and have a slow cooling rate.
Now take a heard of zebras, they are the same size herd, and on the same hill, but get to the water hole in less time because they move faster and they are less tightly packed together - they are our water quenchant, less viscous and much faster rate. If the goal is to get to the water hole the fastest, then the zebras win. However, the fact that the zebras run all helter-skelter cause some to injure themselves ( cracks), and some of the group splits away from the main herd ( severe warps), and some rush headlong into the water hole and drown ( catastrophic failure - breaks).
The elephants stay together, and amble along at the same rate, which is a bit too slow. However , if you space the elephants apart a little bit, they move faster as they start downhill ( become less viscous), and then slow down at the bottom as they amble along to the water hole. - This is the heating of a properly designed quenchant, making it less viscous, and allowing it to work faster, and then slowing down for a smooth finish.

Now at this point Kevin is pulling out his last two or three hairs and yelling at his computer screen - "NOOOOO, not Elephants and Zebras !!!", so I'll let that analogy stop.

Stacy
 
James -
You are sort of on the right track.
Increasing the temperature of the oil does not increase its ability to absorb heat directly. What it does is increase the convection (by decreasing the viscosity) and that allows the heat to be removed quicker and more efficiently.

Lets take a herd of elephants the you want to get to the water hole. They are on a hill and need to get down to the valley to get a drink ( lower the temperature of the steel) .It takes a long time because they move slowly and they are tightly packed - they are our high viscosity oil and have a slow cooling rate.
Now take a heard of zebras, they are the same size herd, and on the same hill, but get to the water hole in less time because they move faster and they are less tightly packed together - they are our water quenchant, less viscous and much faster rate. If the goal is to get to the water hole the fastest, then the zebras win. However, the fact that the zebras run all helter-skelter cause some to injure themselves ( cracks), and some of the group splits away from the main herd ( severe warps), and some rush headlong into the water hole and drown ( catastrophic failure - breaks).
The elephants stay together, and amble along at the same rate, which is a bit too slow. However , if you space the elephants apart a little bit, they move faster as they start downhill ( become less viscous), and then slow down at the bottom as they amble along to the water hole. - This is the heating of a properly designed quenchant, making it less viscous, and allowing it to work faster, and then slowing down for a smooth finish.

Now at this point Kevin is pulling out his last two or three hairs and yelling at his computer screen - "NOOOOO, not Elephants and Zebras !!!", so I'll let that analogy stop.

Stacy

Stacy, How 'bout a Sasquatch analogy? Specifically, Indian George and Aldo Bruno?:D
 
Convection is where it is at, heating the entire mass of oil to reduce viscosity by say 10 SUS will allow its entire volume to participate in the heat extraction. Oil at the blade surface will take on enormous heat but if it can convect away into the outer volume of cooler oil it can be dissipated. It is like a liquid conveyor belt hauling heat away from the blade. Lower viscosity allows that conveyor to run faster, and on a longer path, sluggish viscosity makes much shorter and slower moving conveyor.

This is also why the volume one uses for quenching is important, the more liquid you can involve in that heat transport the more heat it can handle and the better it can move it way from that blade. Of course there is a point where 50 gallons is silly for a couple of knife blades but I would suggest buying in 5 gallon minimums for our work.

This is why agitation is so important with oils as it provides artificial convection, and if you have a large enough volume to agitate well, quenching effectiveness can be greatly increased. Holding the blade stationary in still oil will result in a vapor jacket as well as a layer of hot insulating oil that will help maintain the vapor jacket and rely solely on the viscosity of the oil to move things away. One can also easily see how after a certain level of viscosity the convection stops and the agitation cannot be accomplished at all, this is just part of my reasons for offering information on well engineered quenchants over some of the suggestions that seem to incorporate none of these principles.
 
If I were using this information to design a quench tank, that held 5 gal of fast oil, would the optimum shape of the tank be a rectangle, that was narrow, maybe five inches wide, with a length of twenty four inches or so and a depth that would encompass the five gallons of oil.
This would allow the smith to insert the heated blade at one end of the rectangle and then move the blade through the oil, towards the other end in one steady movement.
Wouldn't this result in the vapor jacket dissipating quicker therefor maintaining a steadier rate of cooling through the pearlite range?
Would this not be a better approach than inserting the heated blade at one point in the tank and moving it back and forth through the same area of heated oil.
Fred
 
Kevin, thank you for the informative post. I have addressed you again on the other thread. I am sorry to have caused you to spend the available portions of your weekend preparing this. I am sorry your weekend was stressful in ways those of us not involved in lifesaving cannot comprehend.
I hope you understand that I don't have a dog in the fight regarding quenchants, only questions, obviously so sophmoric in nature as to have caused you to believe I have ulterior motives.
This means of communications has failed us. I will once again become a spectator and keep my feedback minimal.
My book order was cancelled, someone else from here must have bought it before I placed my order. I will keep looking.
Thank you.
Alden

As I said in the other thread, no problem Alden. In this thread I hope to put forth objective facts about quenches and I am confident that once all the intricacies are uncovered for people to understand where I and others are coming from it may be clearer as to why some quenchants will work great while others really need little investigation to understand that they go against all the basic needs of really successful quenching. I don't believe you have any actual ulterior motives, but I think you have a reason to want to believe that certain quench mediums will work regardless. Our mental acrobatics to change each other beliefs were getting us nowhere, so I decided to leave what we want reality to be in the other thread and just deal with the underlying facts about what happens when hot blades go into liquid.
 
If I were using this information to design a quench tank, that held 5 gal of fast oil, would the optimum shape of the tank be a rectangle, that was narrow, maybe five inches wide, with a length of twenty four inches or so and a depth that would encompass the five gallons of oil.
This would allow the smith to insert the heated blade at one end of the rectangle and then move the blade through the oil, towards the other end in one steady movement.
Wouldn't this result in the vapor jacket dissipating quicker therefor maintaining a steadier rate of cooling through the pearlite range?
Would this not be a better approach than inserting the heated blade at one point in the tank and moving it back and forth through the same area of heated oil.
Fred

That sounds good to me. My idea of a great quench tank consists if either a vertical tube (point down quenching) or a horizontal trough long enough to accommodate any blade with plumbing and a high volume pump that would rapidly move the oil from one end to the other along the length of the blade. Short of this your suggestion is the next best, long, fast and steady movements of the blade lengthwise through the oil. Some smiths fear any agitation due to increased risk of distortion, however this is the results of improper agitation, just staying still and allowing the uneven formation and collapse of the vapor jacket is much more likely to warp a blade than proper movement. What proper agitation would be is actually just common sense, move the blade through the oil in a way that allows the oil to flow most evenly over all the surfaces. Think of it as a wind tunnel and you want aerodynamics. You wouldn't ever push one flat against the oil or other motions that would introduce one part of the blade to more fresh oil than the other.
 
"I really love this blade- it quenched perfectly! Now if only I could get all my blades to do that!"

Will the tenth blade you quench in the a liquid be the same as the first? Any liquid just setting around in the atmosphere is bound to change, but if you add the continuous plunging of superheated steel into it it is going to be nearly impossible to maintain the exact same chemical balances. One of the most crucial attributes for a quenchant in a manufacturing process is its stability and there are volumes written about this factor alone. We may say that as knifemakers we don't have to worry about this consideration like industry does yet I don't know a knifemaker who hasn't nailed a heat treat and then agonized on how he could then keep on doing it just like that. And when we get differences in the outcome the variables in the bladesmiths shop are so limitless that having at least a quenchant that was the same every time is a luxury more beneficial to us than even much of industry.

Years ago I had an old Amoco product that I quenched into which I had "altered" and it gave me the most fantastic natural thunderhead hamons on 1095. I had some customers who loved it and one in particular that it was the selling point. The stuff got old and I tried to make a new batch but to no avail. I don't know what is was in that original stinky black mess but it worked and the others didn't. When I lost that chemistry, I lost a couple customers, but there was no way I could have maintained it or made more since I had no consistency or chemistry numbers on it. Of course I soon chaged my focus and the new oils I got elimiated the natural hamon altogether due to more complete hardening, but the point or the story remains the same.

As even the best oils oxidize they lose quenching effectiveness, and they also start forming sludges and varnish like films on the hot steel. For these reasons the guys who's job it is to spend hours in a lab to design better quenchants consider stability and resistance to oxidation or thermal breakdown very important. If we feel this is a benefit we need to ask if our quenchant choice has these considerations built into it.

While water based quenchants don't oxidize or chemically break down, as previously mentioned the ratios of water to additives will change so much due to evaporation that they can be even worse to maintain. Many a water quencher will tell you exactly how much of a difference the source of the water can be due to any dissolved minerals present.
 
Kevin, what would you consider to be a better set-up, a circulation pump or some type of agitation [such as viberation]? My quench tanks are steel cylinders w/ about 3.5 gal. capacity so either way would be feasable.

Also, would the benefits of circulation be more critical w/ p50 than AAA because of the speeds we try to achive, or would the slower oil benefit equally??

Great info!! Thank you for the amount of time you spend sharing your knowledge!!
 
hi guys i have a small book that i used when i was in heat treatment school
when i was in the navy its called nbs monograph 88
heat treatment and properties of iron and steel.
It has all the stuff that kevin was talking about plus more
Steve B
 
Back
Top