OJBECTIVE

The aim of this experiment is to study the

cooling rate effects on the microstructure as well
as hardness properties of 0.45% Carbon Steel.
RESULTS
Microstructures of carbon steels vary with
cooling rates. The different microstructures for
four different medium carbon steel specimens
having composition of 0.45% carbon with
different cooling rates can be observed below.
Specimen D1, Furnace Cooled

Specimen D2, Air Cooled

Pearli
te

Ferrite

Pearli
te

Ferrite

Specimen D3, Fan Cooled

Pearli
te

Specimen D4, Water Quenched

Ferrit
Martens
ite

Rockwell Hardness and Converted Vickers

Hardness Number (HV) of Specimens
Spe Hardnes Hardnes Hardnes Hardnes Av
cim

era

Vic

en Reading Reading Reading Reading ge

Ro Vic Ro Vic Ro Vic Ro Vic ker

ck ker ck ker ck ker ck ker

wel
l

s'

Har

wel
l

s'

wel

Har

s'

Har

wel
l

s'

s'

Har

Har dne

Har
dne
ss

dne
ss,

HV
1

Har
dne
ss

dne

Har

ss,

dne

HV

ss

dne
ss,

HV
3

Har
dne
ss

dne
ss,

HV ss,
4

D1,
Fur

HR

nac

88.

Co

ole

HV

18 186

5.8 .99
3

21

21

75

75

D2,

HR

Air

Co

94.

ole

D3,

6.8 3.8

HR 22 219
3

Fan

Co

95.

ole

D4,
Wa

HR

ter

Qu

64.

enc

hed

2.9 .95
41

81 769

4.2 .57
86

Cooling Rates of Specimens

Cooling rate is given by T/t, where T =
temperature in C and t = time taken for cooling
to occur in seconds.

T = 1000C - 25C = 975C

4

Speci
men

Tim

Cooling

(C) e (s) rate (C/s)

D1, Furnace Cooled

D2, Air Cooled
D3, Fan Cooled
D4, Water Quenched
Graph of Average Vickers Hardness (HVavg)
Vs Cooling Rate (T/t)

DISCUSSION
1. Cooling Rate Hardness Relation

As observed in the above graph of Vickers

Hardness Vs Cooling Rate, a higher cooling
rate results in a greater hardness value of the
specimen.

2.Cooling Rate Microstructure Relation

Diagram 1

The different cooling rates of the specimen

cause different formation of microstructures.
As the hypereutectoid steel cools from
1000C in the austenite phase as shown
in Diagram 1 above, the temperature of the
steel crosses the upper critical temperature
into the + region. The transformation
of austenite to pearlite begins by formation
of cementite nuclei at austenite grain
boundaries. Carbon diffuses from the
surrounding austenite to the cementite,
depleting the austenite and transforms to
ferrite. The rejection of carbon from the
ferrite region causes the formation of

additional nuclei of cementite and the

process continues, resulting in the formation
of alternating cementite and ferrite. Here,
proeutectoid forms until it reaches the
eutectoid isotherm at 723C of which the
remaining austenite transforms into
eutectoid pearlite.

Diagram 2
In diagram 2, the Continuous Cooling
Transformation Diagram, Curve X represents
a rate of cooling during a normalizing (air
cooling) process. Transformation of unstable
austenite beings at K and ends at N, with
fine pearlite produced. A faster cooling rate
will expose the steel longer between the 2
curves and more unstable austenite will be

transformed to pearlite. In addition, faster

cooling rate produces finer pearlite grains.
However, if the cooling rate is very rapid as
represented by Curve Y above, the unstable
austenite will persist until it reaches the
critical temperature Ms at O where it directly
transforms to martensite.
It should be noted that although the above
diagram is mainly for Eutectoid steels,
similar concepts can be applied for the
hypoeutectoid steel used in this experiment.
The differences being the position of the
curves as well as the critical cooling rates
required for the formation of martensite.

As observed in the experiment, Specimen

D1 went through the slowest cooling rate,
resulting in lesser and coarser pearlite grains
as compared to D2 and D3. Specimen D4
was cooled at a very rapid rate, resulting in
the formation of martensite instead.

3.Microstructure Hardness Relation

From the results of the experiment, it can be

seen that the furnace cooled specimen has

the lowest hardness value, followed by air

cooled, fan cooled and water quenched.
As ferrite grains are pure iron with BCC
structure, its orderly metallic bonding is not
distorted by compounds such as cementite
found in pearlite and the structure is not
distorted as compared to body-centered
tetragonal lattice found in martensite. The
absence of distortion causes dislocation to
occur easily, which means that a lesser
amount of stress is required for deformation
to occur. This means that ferrite is the
softest as compared to pearlite and
martensite. This can be observed in D1,

whereby it has the most ferrite grains and

least pearlite grains as compared to the other
specimens.
Due to the presence of cementite in pearlite,
it distorts the orderly crystal lattice and this
inhibits the occurrence of dislocation. As
finer grains of pearlite have more phase
boundaries as compared to coarse grains, this
further inhibits dislocation motion, making
fine grained microstructures stronger and
harder. This is apparent in the comparison
between D2 and D3, where D3 has more
and finer pearlite grains.

In specimen D4, it consist of Martensite,

which is a single-phase, supersaturated
solution of carbon in ferrite with carbon
atoms located interstitially in a bodycentered tetragonal lattice. The excessive
supersaturation distorts the normal BCC
structure to body-centered tetragonal,
resulting in changes to its mechanical
properties such as an increase in strength,
hardness and decrease in ductility.
Furthermore, the BCT structure has
relatively few slip systems, reducing the
occurrence of dislocation.

From the above comparison, it can be

observed that ferrite is the softest, followed
by coarse pearlite, fine pearlite and lastly
martensite.

CONCLUSION
This experiment well illustrates the effect of
cooling rates on the microstructures as well as
hardness of a specimen. By changing the cooling
rates of carbon steel, we can control and alter
the microstructure of the material. This in turn
gives us the desired mechanical properties for
the materials specific purpose.