Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Fluidized Bed Quenching Performance and Its Application for Heat Treating Aluminum Alloys
J. Keist Arizotah, LLC, Plymouth, MN, 55447 USA S. Chaudhury and D. Apelian Metals Processing Institute, WPI, Worcester, MA, 01609 USA
Abstract
In the heat treatment of aluminum alloys, fluidized bed quenching is an attractive alternative to liquid quenching processes since the part does not develop a vapor barrier during quenching. This lack of a vapor barrier significantly reduces residual stresses and part distortion that often plagues liquid based quenching techniques. The heat transfer rate of the quenching process, however, is lower than can be obtained by liquid based quenchants. The lower heat transfer rate may rule out fluidized bed quenching for some applications due to part geometry or alloy quench sensitivity. This paper proposes a method to determine the applicability of fluidized bed quenching for a given part. In this research, two castings of a given geometry and alloy were analyzed for the feasibility of fluidized bed quenching. The heat transfer characteristics of a fluidized bed quenching system were measured and the quench sensitivities of the alloys were approximated. Computer modeling was then utilized to determine the applicability of fluidized bed quenching for the heat treatment of these castings.
Figure 1: Picture of two cast wheels taken during immersion into the fluidized bed. Solution heat treating (T6 and T7 tempers) of heat treatable aluminum alloy castings is conducted to enhance strength, impact resistance, and toughness. Solution heat treating consists of three main steps: solution, quenching, and aging. During solution, the part is heated to a temperature just below the eutectic temperature for the alloy. At solution temperature, the strengthening phases are dissolved into the aluminum matrix. After a sufficient soaking time at solution temperature, the part is quenched to lock in the strengthening elements into solution within the aluminum matrix. Subsequent aging allows the strengthening elements to precipitate out as small, fine phases that strengthen the aluminum matrix. A critical step in solution heat treating is the quenching process. The rate of quenching determines the percentage of the strengthening elements that remain in solution after quenching. A rapid quench will force a higher percentage of strengthening elements to remain in solution. A slow quench, however, will allow the strengthening elements to precipitate
225
Introduction
Fluidized bed technology has a history of over 100 years. An American patent in 1879 first pointed out the excellent temperature uniformity of roasting minerals under fluidized conditions [1]. The fluidized bed consists of a medium of fine hard particles (i.e. sand) that is partially suspended by a fluidizing gas. The partial suspension of the medium allows the particles to easily slide past each other resulting in the fluidizing bed acting remarkably similar to a fluid. The fluid like nature of the fluidized bed allows for easy insertion, conveyance, and extraction of parts for heat treating. Figure 1 shows two cast wheels partially submerged in a fluidized bed. Fluidized bed technology has found wide use in the heat treatment of steels, but its use for heat treating other metals has been limited. Recently, however, there has been considerable interest in utilizing fluidized bed technology for the solution heat treatment of aluminum alloys [2,3].
out of solution as large and blocky precipitates and these precipitates contribute minimally to strengthening the alloy. Quenching a part too slowly will effectively reduce the peak strength that can be achieved after aging. To quench aluminum parts quickly, the industry has traditionally used water based quenchants as a quenching medium. Water based quenchants exhibit excellent heat transfer rates and are capable of quenching large parts (greater than 20 kg) within seconds. A drawback of water based quenchants, however, is the possibility of developing large stresses during quenching that can result in high residual stresses, part distortion, and cracking. Large stresses build up within the part because of large thermal gradients that develop within the part during quenching. These large thermal gradients are the result of vapor barriers that form around the part during the initial quenching stage as the part is first immersed into the quenchant. For castings that are susceptible to distortion and cracking, quenching is often conducted by forced air. Utilizing forced air assures that minimal thermal gradients will develop during the quenching process thus reducing the susceptibility to distortion and cracking. The drawback, however, is the low heat transfer rate of forced air which results in a slow cooling rate for the part. Forced air quenching may not be a feasible option for many quench sensitive alloys. As an alternative, fluidized bed quenching offers an attractive middle ground between forced air and water based quenchants. As shown in Fig. 2, the heat transfer coefficient that can be obtained by the fluidized bed lies between forced air convection and water [1]. Secondly, in contrast to water based quenchants, the particles of the fluidized bed remains in direct contact with the surface of the part throughout the entire quenching process. Since a vapor barrier does not form, minimal thermal gradients develop within the part minimizing stresses. Compared to quenching in water, it was shown that quenching in the fluidized bed reduced residual stresses by nearly 70% in an A356.2 PM casting [4].
The main drawback of fluidized bed quenching is the lower heat transfer rates as compared to water based quenchants. As with forced air quenching, fluidized bed quenching may not be feasible for some quench sensitive alloys. For example, Chaudhury and Apelian observed a significant decrease in tensile properties for Al-Si-Mg type aluminum alloy D357 sample quenched in the fluidized bed as compared to samples quenched in water. In contrast, Al-Si-Mg-Cu alloys are less quench sensitive than Al-Si-Mg alloys and the authors did not observe a decrease in tensile properties for aluminum alloy 354 or Sr modified aluminum alloy 319 with fluidized bed quenching as compared to water quenching [5]. Utilizing the fluidized bed technology for quenching aluminum alloys is relatively new and the applicability for various alloy systems or size of castings is largely unknown. This paper helps lays out how the applicability of fluidized bed quenching can be easily determined for quenching castings depending on the quench sensitivity of the alloy and the dimensions of the casting. The heat transfer characteristics were measured for a fluidized bed system that consisted of staurolite sand fluidized by ambient air. The quench sensitivity of aluminum alloy 319 and 356 type alloys was approximated by simulated TTT diagrams for these alloys. Finally, finite element analysis (FEA) was utilized to determine the applicability of two castings (356 PM cast nail gun housing and a 319 sand cast engine block).
h = (1 f b )
k eo c ps
where: f b is the volume fraction of the air pockets within the fluidized bed k eo is the effective thermal conductivity of fluidized bed
Figure 2: Comparative heat transfer coefficients in W/mK for water, fluidized bed, and forced air quenching.
226
mc p hA
(Eq. 4)
From the cooling curve obtained by quenching a sample in the fluidized bed, , can be obtained by finding the best fit curve for the temperature data using the following equation:
T p (t ) = T + (T p (0) T )e
(Eq. 5)
The global heat transfer coefficient, h, can then be determined by rearranging Eq. 4 where
h=
mc p
(Eq. 6)
Q(t ) = hA(T T p (t ) )
and
(Eq. 1)
Q(t ) = mc p
where:
dT p dt
(Eq. 2)
Measurement of Heat Transfer To obtain the global heat transfer coefficient for the fluidized bed, temperature data from a cast flat plate was obtained during quenching. The flat plate was a permanent mold cast of aluminum alloy A356.2. The plate dimensions were 28 cm in length, 20 cm in width, and 2.5 cm in thickness. Heat treating was conducted in a batch fluidized bed line shown in Fig. 3. The batch line consisted of a solution, quenching, and aging beds. The dimension of the work chamber for the beds was 70 by 90 cm with a depth of 120 cm. The fluidized beds consisted of staurolite sand that was fluidized by ambient air at room temperature.
Q(t ) is the heat flow rate h is the global heat transfer coefficient A is the surface area of the part T is the bulk fluidized bed temperature Tp (t ) is the part temperature as a function of time, t m is the mass of the part c p is the specific heat of the part
Combing the two energy balance equations and solving for the differential equation yields
T p (t ) = T + (T p (0) T )e
where
hAt mc p
(Eq. 3)
Figure 3: Batch fluidized bed line consisting of three fluidized beds for solution, quenching, and aging. The casting was heated to a solution soaking temperature of 548C (1020F) and allowed to soak for 30 minutes. The casting was then transferred to the fluidizing bed quenching system and immersed within 10 seconds. The temperature of the quenching system was monitored by a K-type thermocouple and was maintained at 21C (70F). The castings were orientated vertically as shown in Fig. 4 to allow for optimum contact of the quenching medium on both sides of the plate casting. Temperature within the casting was
227
To simplify the exponent in Eq. 3, the terms of the exponent were grouped together into a time constant, . The definition of is:
monitored with five K-type thermocouples that were embedded along with width of the casting . The K-type thermocouple measured 1.5 mm in diameter (0.062 in); data was acquired every second from each thermocouple.
The calculated time constant, , from the best fit curve was 79.7 seconds. At the calculated time constant, the average temperature of the part was at 190C (374F) corresponding to 63.2% of the temperature drop from 540C (1000F) to 30C (86F). Assuming a density of 2.65 g/cm and a specific heat of 963 J/kgK for the aluminum alloy, the global heat transfer coefficient for the system was calculated (Eq. 6) to be 340 W/mK (60 Btu/fthF).
Figure 4: Plate orientation and five thermocouple locations for measurement of the global heat transfer coefficient.
Figure 5: Average cooling curve of the flat plate casting in the fluidized bed along with the calculated best fit curve and the difference between best fit data and lab data. The average quenching curve was obtained for the 1-inch flat plate by averaging all the temperature data from the thermocouples. A best fit curve utilizing Eq. 5 was fitted to the laboratory data. Fig. 5 shows the resulting average cooling curve with the best fit curve along with the difference between the two curves. The best fit curve followed the temperature data within +/- 6C (+/- 11F).
228
Figure 6: TTT diagram of aluminum alloy 319 (Al-3.4Cu1.0Fe-0.1Mg-6.0Si-0.25Ti) for 0.2 wt% of phases transformed.
Figure 8: Finite element result showing the temperature distribution of a nail gun housing after 50 seconds of quenching in the fluidized bed. Temperatures are in degrees Celsius. Figure 9 shows the temperature profile of a simplified 8 cylinder engine block after 240 seconds quenched in the fluidized bed. This time corresponds to the crit that was calculated from the TTT diagram for 319. At crit, the temperature should be at or below 170C (338F) to assure an adequate quench. In this case, the entire casting was
Figure 7: TTT diagram of aluminum alloy 356 (Al-0.1Cu0.12Fe-0.35Mg-7.0Si-0.2Ti) for 0.2 wt% of phases transformed.
229
sufficiently below 170C and therefore should be expected to achieve full tensile properties after aging.
A critical time constant, crit, was proposed as a method to approximate the quench sensitivity of an alloy. Using the point load quenching model, a part will undergo an adequate quenching rate if the time constant is at or below the critical time constant. From the finite element analysis, fluidized bed quenching a nail gun housing of aluminum alloy A356.2 exhibited excessively slow cooling rates in some sections. Aluminum alloy A356.2 (Al-Mg-Si alloy) is a quench sensitive alloy and the applicability of fluidized bed quenching for castings of these alloys should be carefully analyzed. In contrast to the nail gun housing, the finite element analysis predicted more than adequate cooling rates for all sections of a large 8-cylinder engine block of aluminum alloy 319 (Al-Cu-Mg-Si alloy). For low quench sensitivity alloys such as 319, the fluidized bed quenching process may offer a viable alternative for castings of various sizes and shapes.
Figure 9: Finite element result showing the temperature distribution in a cut-away of a simplified 8-cylinder engine block after 240 seconds of quenching in the fluidized bed. Temperatures are in degrees Celsius.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Dave Dingmann (formerly with Arizotah, LLC) and for his work with the finite element modeling that was conducted for this research. In addition, Arizotah, LLC, would like to acknowledge the NIST Advanced Technology Program for its support in the advancement of the fluidized bed technology. Special thanks to Jean-Louis Staudenmann, NIST-ATP program manager, for his support and guidance.
Discussion
In this paper, a simple method is proposed to determine the applicability of fluidized bed quenching for a particular part that depends on part geometry and alloy. This method, however, should only be used as a first cut for determining the feasibility of fluidized bed quenching for a particular process. The global heat transfer coefficient calculated by assuming a point load is only applicable for parts of simple geometry. For complex parts with internal passages, it would be expected that heat transfer rates would be significantly lower from internal surfaces. With FEA analysis, however, one can change the heat transfer coefficient at various surfaces around the part. The local heat transfer coefficient can still be calculated using the method described in this paper by designing test pieces that more closely represent actual parts.
References
1. R. Reynoldson, Heat Treatment in Fluidized Bed Furnaces, pp 33-52, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio (1993) S. Chaudhury and D. Apelian, Fluidized Bed Heat Treatment of Cast Al Alloys, in the proceedings of the John Campbell Symposium, TMS Annual Meeting, California, USA, p 283 (2005) S. Chaudhury and D. Apelian, Effect of Rapid Heating on Solutionizing Characteristics of Al-Si-Mg Alloy Using a Fluidized Bed, Metallurgical and Materials Trans. A, 37A, 763-778 (2006) J. Keist, D. Dingmann, and C. Bergman, Fluidized Bed Quenching: Reducing Residual Stresses and Distortion, In the Proceedings of the 23rd Heat Treating Society Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 263270 (2005) S. Chaudhury and D. Apelian, Effects of Fluidized Bed Quenching on Heat Treating Characteristics of Cast Al-Si-Mg and Al-Si-Mg-Cu Alloys, Inter. J. of Cast Metals Research, 19(6), 361-369 (2006) S. Saxena, Advanced Heat Transfer, p 97 (1989)
2.
Conclusions
A point load may be used to obtain a simple model for the quenching of aluminum parts in the fluidized bed. From this model, the global heat transfer coefficient for the fluidized bed system can be easily calculated by applying a best fit curve of the model to the cooling curve of a sample. From the cooling analysis of an aluminum sample casting, the global heat transfer coefficient for a fluidized bed system using ambient air as the fluidizing gas and staurolite sand as the solid particles was 340 W/mK (60 Btu/fthF). 3.
4.
5.
6.
230