Carbon Equivalent and Multiplying Factor
for Hardenability of Steel
The correlation of the carbon equivalent and the multiplying factors
are clarified by a heat conduction analysis
ABSTRACT. The carbon equivalent and
the multiplying factor are indexes for
hardenability of steels. The carbon
equivalent is used generally in welding
and is related to the critical cooling time
for the full martensite structure in the
HAZ. The multiplying factor is used in
heat treatment of hardenable steels and
is related to the critical diameter for the
full martensite. A heat conduction in a
round bar has clarified that the ideal crit-
ical diameter should be expressed in a
product form of alloy elements as long
as the carbon equivalent is expressed in
a linear combination of elements. Coef-
ficients of the elements in the carbon
equivalent have been calculated from
their multiplying factors reported in the
literature in light of the result of a heat
conduction analysis. The coefficients of
M n , Cr, M o and Cu are in fairly good
agreement with the experimental results,
while the coefficients of Si and Ni are in
poor agreement.
Introduction
Dearclen and O'Neill (Ref. 1) first pro-
posed the carbon equivalent to assess
T. KASUYA and N. YURIOKA are with the
Joining Technical Development Bureau, Nip-
pon Steel Corp., Shintomi, Futtso, Chiba-ken,
Japan.
Paper presented at the 72nd annual AWS
meeting, held April 15-19, 1991, in Detroit,
Mich.
BY T. KASUYA AND N. YURIOKA
the hardness of steel's weld heat-affected
zone (HAZ). This carbon equivalent is
expressed as a linear combination of the
concentration of each alloy in a steel and
has long been used to assess steel's weld-
ability and its HAZ hardenability. Mean-
while, Crossmann, ef al. (Refs. 2, 3), in-
troduced the concept of expressing the
hardenability of heat-treatable steels in
terms of a multiplying factor, according
to which the effect of steel composition
on hardenability is given in a product
form.
Although the carbon equivalent is re-
lated to welding and the Grossmann fac-
tor is related to heat treatment, both fac-
tors describe steel hardenability. H o w -
ever, they differ in mathematical expres-
sion for assessing the effect of steel com-
position on hardenability: the carbon
KEY W O R D S
Hardenability
Steel
Carbon Equivalent
Multiplying Factor
Heat Conductance
Hardenability Index
Heat Flow
Ideal Quenching
Ideal Critical Diameter
WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 263-s
equivalent is a linear combination and
the Grossmann factor is a multiplying
combination.
The objective of the present study is
to assist welding metallurgists to better
understand the meaning of the carbon
equivalent by clarifying the relationship
between the carbon equivalent and the
Grossmann factor.
Hardenability Indexes
Carbon Equivalent
Dearden and O ' N e i l l (Ref. 1) used
Reeve weldability tests to examine the
relationship between steel's chemical
composition and its maximum HAZ
hardness.
They proposed the following carbon
equivalent to express HAZ hardness:
„ „ „ P Mn Mo Cr+V Ni
CE=C + — + + + +— ,„,
2 6 4 5 15 1
This carbon equivalent was revised
slightly to equal the IIW (International
Institute of Welding) carbon equivalent:
Mn Cu + Ni Cr + Mo+V
CE +
6 (2)
15 5
Welding engineers have used the IIW
carbon equivalent for assessing not only
HAZ hardness, but also steel's suscepti-
bility to hydrogen-assisted cracking or
cold cracking. Moreover, metallurgists
in steel industries have used the carbon
equivalent in designing the chemical
composition of high-strength steels.
Hardenability denotes how readily a
martensitic structure is obtained in a
heat-treated steel matrix or in a steel
HAZ. Therefore, the steel strength and
the HAZ hardness are not necessarily re-
lated to hardenability. For example, an
alloyed steel with low carbon produces
low HAZ hardness mainly because of its
low carbon content, although it shows
a wider HAZ due to its higher harden-
ability.
Maynier, ef al. (Ref. 4), showed that
the critical cooling rate for obtaining a
full martensitic structure can be ex-
pressed as a linear combination of alloy
elements. The equation of the critical
rate is shown in Equation A7 in A p -
pendix B. The critical cooling rate for a
fully martensitic structure is obviously a
representative of hardenability. There-
fore, Maynier's carbon equivalent is one
of the hardenability indexes. However,
his formula is not related to welding but
to heat treatment of hardenable steels.
Since HAZ hardness, especially max-
Fig. 1 — Heaf conduc-
tion for ideal quench-
ing. A — Cylindrical
coordinates; B — tem-
perature profile of
ideal quenching.
(a) C y l i n d r i c a l
(b) T e m p e r a t u r e P r o f i l e o f Ideal Q u e n c h i n g
264-s I JUNE 1 9 9 3
imum H A Z hardness, is an important
factor for steel weldability, many formu-
las have been proposed (Refs. 5-14) to
describe it as a function of a steel's
chemical composition and welding con-
ditions. Most formulas assume a cool-
ing time between 800°C (1 472°F) and
500°C (932°F), t 8 / 5 , as a requisite weld-
ing condition, because t8//5 denotes the
duration from the start to the end of
phase transformation of most ferritic
steels.
One formula (Ref. 14) of the HAZ
hardness estimation includes an equa-
tion that makes it possible to predict the
longest cooling time, t 8 / 5 necessary to
provide H A Z with a full martensitic
structure. This critical cooling time, T m
(s) is given as:
In T =10.6 C£„ -4.8
_ Si_ Mn_ Cu_ Ni
/MSD£A + steels. D| is determined as the maximum
2 4 + 6 +~15" + Ti
Cr Mo
+— + \-AH
8 4
Coordinates
4?
x>
(Liquid)
CEHARDEN ' S o n e type of carbon
equivalent and also one of the harden-
ability indexes. It is similar to the IIW
carbon equivalent, although C E H A R D E N
includes a AH term to describe the ef-
fect of unspecified elements and impu-
rities such as boron, sulfur, oxygen, and
nitrogen (Ref. 15). In particular, even a
very low level of boron significantly in-
fluences HAZ hardenability. Its effect in
low-nitrogen steels is as follows:
AW = 0, when B < Ippm
AH = 0.03, when B = 2 ppm
AH = 0.06, when B = 3 ppm
AH = 0.09, when B > 4 ppm (5)
Multiplying Factor
131 Grossmann, ef al. (Refs. 2, 3), intro-
duced an ideal critical diameter, D, to
describe hardenability of heat-treatable
diameter of a cylindrical bar that shows
a 5 0 % martensitic structure at its center
(4) under the ideal quench condition.
Grossmann, etal. (Ref. 3), described the
effect of alloying elements as the follow-
ing multiplying factor:
^l LJinJcJsiJMirJcufcrJM (6)
where, D 1 0 is a coefficient determined
by an austenite grain size.
The multiplying factor of each ele-
ment is simply expressed as
f =('v": ft
for carbon
for elements oilier tlian carbon (7)
Jx \l-rA,X
where, fx is a multiplying factor of ele-
ment X, A x is a coefficient, and X is the
weight percentage of element X.
Although the Grossmann factor deals
with 50% martensite specimens, Hodge,
ef al. (Ref. 1 6), found that a critical d i -
ameter for a full martensitic structure is
proportional to that for a 5 0 % marten-
site structure. Therefore, the critical d i -
ameter for a full martensitic structure is
given by the same multiplying factor as
Grossmann's.
Relationship between the Carbon
Equivalent and Critical Diameter
The carbon equivalent of hardenabil-
ity such as C E H A R D E N is directly related
to the cooling time or cooling rate at
w h i c h a 100% martensitic structure is
obtained. Meanwhile, D, is a critical d i -
ameter for obtaining a 50 or 1 0 0 %
martensitic structure at the center of a
cylindrical specimen. As the diameter
of a specimen increases, the cooling
time at the center increases or the cool-
ing rate decreases. Therefore, there is a
possibility that an analysis of heat flow
 clarifies the mathematical relation be- Meanwhile, the logarithm of t 8 / 5 is: From Equations 18 and 1 9, the fol-
tween the two indexes. lowing relation is obtained:
ln(tt/5) = ln{t5a>~tm) (15)
Heat Flow of Ideal Quench ,dln(D,) =
t 8 / 5 in Equation 15 becomes T M only dx (20)
If the temperature of a liquid medium when the radius of a quenched bar is
used to quench a cylindrical bar is as- half of the ideal diameter (Equation 14). Integration of Equation 20 with re-
sumed to be zero, the heat conduction In this case, t 8 / 5 is the longest cooling spect to X gives
equation for two-dimensional cylindri- time to obtain full martensite. The em-
cal coordinates (Fig. 1) is pirical relation of Equation 3 implies that
ln(T M ) is a function of many variables
HD,) = fx + G (21)
99 d26 1 de (C, Si, M n , P, S, etc.). Hence, ln(T M ) can where, G is a function of elements other
— = xi — r +
dt { dr r dr (8) be expressed in the manner of the Tay- than X.
lor series. The Taylor series of a multi- Equation 20 is valid for any element,
where K = thermal diffusivity, 6 : •• t e m - variable function is given as follows: therefore
perature, and t = time.
/(.v, x2...xn) = /(fl,.a,,„a n ) + (.v, - a,)
Because of its symmetry with respect ln(Dl) = B„ + ^C + ^Si + ^Mn + -- (22)
to angle \|/, temperature 9 is a function c
of radius r and time t alone. When a bar
df{ava2.
• + ix,
M where, B 0 is a constant.
dx. From Equation 22,
is heated up to 0 p before quench, then
the initial condition is df(al.a2...all)
dXn D, = exp(B0)- M / ^ C J • eJ^-Sij
0</-<c. (,=0) (9)
d J) p\ ^Mn
If a cylindrical bar is ideally quenched, dx, dx,
the surface temperature of the bar in-
stantly becomes zero. Hence, the )'" f(ava2...a„) where Dm = exp(B„). fc = exp^C^j. (23)
+ -V„ 16)
boundary condition becomes dx.
Equation 23 is virtually equal to the
When ln(t 8 / 5 ) in Equation 1 5 is expressed multiplying factor of Equation 6. Equa-
(9 = 0. r = a (-jo)
in the Taylor series, the second and tion 23 has been derived from the con-
The solution that satisfies Equations 8, higher order terms and cross-terms from
9 and 10 is given as follows: dition that ln(T M ) is expressed as a lin-
Equations 3 and 4 can be neglected. ear combination of the concentration of

e = 2e„X
./„
M J\.i„
exp\ - J , f -
Therefore,

ln(Tu[C. Si. Mn • • •])

each alloy, i.e., carbon equivalent.
Hence, it is concluded that D| should be
expressed by multiplying factors as long
= /n(r„[C 0 , 57,,. Mn,,. •--]) +BC(C-C„) as the carbon equivalent is expressed as
a linear combination of each element.
where, j n is a n-th root of the following +Bm(Si - Si0) + Bm(Mn - Mnu) + (17) Furthermore, the critical cooling time
Eigen value equation:
where, B x (e.g., B c , B si , B M n ' •••) is a first- T M is given from Equation 1 7,
70(.r) = 0, J0 is 0 - order Bessel function (12) order coefficient of element X (e.g., C,
Si, Mn )
At the center (r = 0), Equation 11 becomes • H^HS.
dln(TM){
B, \C=Ct1. Si=SL. Mn=Mn0 ln{T,„) = B0'+Bc
dx (18)
i ( ., «
9 = 2«.Z7 -2®- \Mn + •
;. M.L (13) The f o l l o w i n g correlation between Br
the critical cooling time and critical d i -
where B0'= ln(Tm[C0,Si0,Mn0,—])
where J1 is a first-order Bessel function. ameter is given in Appendix A:
By substituting 800° and 500°C into 9 (24)
in Equation 13, respectively, cooling
times to 800°C , t 8 0 0 , and to 500°C , t 5 0 0 , dln{T„) _dln{D,\ The second term in the right side in
from 9 p at the center of a quenched bar dx dx (19) Equation 24, {C+(B S i /B 0 )Si+(B M n /B c )
can be calculated. Mn+ }, is considered to be the carbon
A study is presently being conducted
for cases in which a full martensite or a
5 0 % martensite is obtained at the cen-
ter of cylindrical bar specimens. Hence,
Table 2 - - Multiplying Factors of Alloy Elements
EL
(14)
2 Element Ref. 19 Ref. 20 Ref. 21 | a | Ref. 22la» Ref. 23(a'

Si 1+0.64Si 1+0.67Si 1+0.55Si 1+1.25Si 1+0.85Si

Mn 1+4.1Mn 1-E4.8Mn 1 + 1.2Mn — 1+3.3Mn
Table 1 — Carbon Coefficients in the Taylor Cr H-2.33Q 1+2.160 1+1.73Cr — 1+2.3Cr
Series Ni 14-0.52Ni 1+0.74Ni 14-0.42Ni 1+0.3Ni 1+0.36Ni
Mo 1+3.14MO 1+2.53MO 1 + 1.78MO 1+5.0MO 1+3.2Mo
B c (a) CEHARDEN CEHARDEN Ref. 4
Cu 1+0.27Cu — 1+0.45Cu — —
{a) Determined by the authors using the graphic data.
8.3 10.6 8.4 9.8

(a) Calculated by Equation 26.

W E L D I N G RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 265-s

 equivalent for hardenability, C E H A R D E N .
Calculation of the Carbon Equivalent
from Multiplying Factors
A carbon coefficient in the carbon
equivalent is a unit from the concept of
carbon equivalency. From Equation 24,
a coefficient of an element X other than
carbon, C x , when ln(T M ) is expanded
around X = X 0 in the Taylor series, is
given as B x / B c . In order to calculate a
coefficient of element X in the carbon
equivalent, it is necessary to expand
ln(T M )in the Taylor series. The compo-
sition range for the expansion should
be w i t h i n the compositions by w h i c h
C E H A R D E N in Equation 3 was found, so
that the second and higher order terms
and cross terms in the Taylor series can
be neglected. This study has used the
following approximate mean values of
the contents previously examined (Ref.
1 4 ) a s X 0 ( X 0 = C 0 , Si 0 , M n 0 )
C„ = 0.12%, Si„ = 0.6%. Mn„ = 1.0%.
Cti„ = 0.4%, Ni„ = 2.5%, Mo„ = 0.5%.
Cr0 = 0 . 5 %
Then, from Equations 7 and 20, B c is
given as follows:
M<^)\ |\c=c,
l 1
= ^ = 8.3
C - " Cu
B c is a coefficient of the carbon
equivalent when ln(T M ) is expressed by
a form of carbon equivalent such as
CEHARDEN- Then, B c is compared w i t h
the experimental results shown in Equa-
tions 3, A8 and A12. The results shown
in Table 1 are in fairly good agreement.
Using Equation 26, C x is calculated as
follows:
B, B, dln(D,
C,
&3 dx 4.15
A ite grains provide fewer ferrite nucle-
4.2(1 + A,X 0 )
Multiplying factors have been exper-
imentally determined by many re-
searchers (Refs. 19-23) and reported as
equations (Equation 7) or figures. When
multiplying factors were graphically re-
ported, the authors determined the fac-
Table 3 — Coefficients in the Carbon Equivalent from Multiplying Factors and Experiments
Experimental Results
Elemenr CEHARDEN CEHARDEN
Si 1/24 1/38
Mn 1/6 1/4.8
Cr 1/8 1/6.5
Ni 1/12 1/10.7
Mo 1/4 1/4
Cu 1/15 1/16.5
266-s JUNE 1993
tors in the form of Equation 7. The mul-
tiplying factors used for the calculation
are listed in Table 2. Using these multi-
plying factors, coefficients for the car-
bon equivalent were determined by
Equations 25 - 27. The results are shown
in Table 3. To compare the experimen-
tally determined carbon equivalents,
their coefficients are also listed in Table
3. CE HARDEN in Table 3 is the carbon
equivalent on a 5 0 % martensite basis.
The carbon equivalent in Ref. 4 and CE-
HARDEN' have been calculated from the
original results, as shown in Appendix
B. Table 3 shows that the M n , Cr , Mo
and Cu coefficients are in fairly good
agreement, w h i l e the Si and Ni coeffi-
cients differ significantly.
A coefficient of element x in the car-
bon equivalent, C x (= B x /B c )is signifi-
cantly dependent on X 0 at w h i c h the
Taylor expansion is made. Furthermore,
X 0 must be selected so that the higher
order terms can be neglected in the Tay-
lor series. This study has tentatively used
the values from the previous experiment
(Ref. 14) as X 0 . The authors, however,
(2S) believe that further discussion of X 0 in
Equation 22 will be necessary.
Metallurgical Aspects
of Coefficients
(26) The main factors that affect the harden-
ability of steel are:
1) Austenite grain size.
2) Elements that interact with carbon.
3) Elements that reduce the austen-
ite-ferrite transformation temperature.
4) Elements that segregate into the
austenite grain boundary.
5) Inclusions that act as an intragran-
ular ferrite nucleation site.
During cooling after welding or heat
treatment, proeutectoid ferrite is likely
to nucleate at prior austenite grain
boundaries. It follows that larger austen-
(27) ation sites, resulting in higher harden-
ability. D| considers the effect of the
austenite grain size, but the carbon
equivalent for HAZ hardenability does
not. In the case of heat treatment, the
austenization temperature often differs
from experiment to experiment. Since
the austenization temperature is one of
Calculations from Multiplying Factors
Ref. 4 Ref. 19 Ref. 20
— 1/9.1 1/8.8
1/4.1 1/5.2 1/5.1
1/8.5 1/3.9 1/4.0
1/7.9 I lo.h 1/16.2
1/6.5 1/3.4 1/3.8
— 1/17.2 — 1/11.0
the most important parameters for the
austenite grain size, D| considers the
grain size effect.
In the case of welding, austenization
temperature is considered to be the peak
temperature at the vicinity of the fusion
zone where maximum HAZ hardness is
obtained. The peak temperature is al-
most equal to the melting temperature
of a steel, i.e., the austenization temper-
ature scarcely varies in welding of steels.
Furthermore, the following experimen-
tal fact is important in assessing the sig-
nificance of the austenite grain size in
welding. High heat input in welding in-
creases the retention time for the aust-
enization, resulting in coarser austenite
grain sizes. However, HAZ hardness
never rises w i t h increasing heat input
(Ref.14). Higher heat input increases the
cooling time and always reduces HAZ
hardness. This implies that the welding
cooling time is a more important factor
to HAZ hardenability than the austenite
grain size. These facts are a presumable
reason why C E H A R D E N and CE|| W do not
take into account the austenite grain size
effect.
As transformation from austenite to
ferrite proceeds, carbon must diffuse
from ferrite to austenite. Cr, Mo and Mn
retard carbon diffusion to suppress fer-
rite transformation, resulting in the for-
mation of a lower temperature transfor-
mation product, that is, martensite. M n ,
Ni and Cu reduce the transformation
temperature to promote martensite for-
mation. As a result, M n , Mo, Cr, Ni and
Cu in that order influence hardenability
as shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Boron tends to segregate at prior
austenite grain boundaries to suppress
ferrite nucleation from the boundaries,
and thus significant increases in hard-
enability result. The boron effect has
been considered in the multiplying fac-
tor reported by Grossmann (Ref. 23), in
which D| suddenly increased 1.4 times
over the original value when boron be-
came effective. This trend is similar to
the abrupt increase in AH of Equation 5
due to a few ppm of boron. Boron is
likely to be combined w i t h nitrogen,
w h i c h serves to negate the effect of
boron. Therefore, the boron effect is in-
directly affected by the amount of nitro-
Ref. 21 Ref. 22 Ref. 23
1/10.2 1/5.9 1/7.5
1/7.7 — 1/5.5
1/4.5 — 1/3.9
1/20.5 1/24.5 1/22.2
1/4.5 1/2.9 1/3.4
— —
gen (Ref.1 5) as w e l l as A l , Ti a n d Z r , e l -
ements that have a high affinity for n i -
trogen. T h e fact that A H of Equation 5
is n o t a l i n e a r f u n c t i o n o f b o r o n m e a n s
that the assumption o f linear carbon
e q u i v a l e n t used i n this study is n o t v a l i d ,
as l o n g as b o r o n is c o n c e r n e d . T h e r e -
fore, to c o m p a r e A H o f Equation 5 w i t h
the m u l t i p l y i n g factor of b o r o n , further
investigation is necessary.
S o m e i n c l u s i o n s , s u c h as M n S , c o m -
p l e x s u l f i d e s a n d s o m e o x i d e s (Refs. 1 7 ,
1 8 ) , a c t as i n t r a g r a n u l a r f e r r i t e n u c l e -
a t i o n sites, r e s u l t i n g in d e c r e a s e d h a r d -
e n a b i l i t y . T h e r e f o r e , it is c o n s i d e r e d
reasonable that the coefficient of sul-
f u r in t h e m u l t i p l y i n g f a c t o r is n e g a t i v e
and that A H d u e to sulfur and oxygen
in C E H A R D E N ' s a ' s o n e g a t i v e (Ref. 1 7 ) .
C E H A R D E N ' S ' ' n f a c t < not a linear f u n c -
t i o n w i t h regard t o c a r b o n w h e n m o r e
t h a n 0 . 3 % c a r b o n is p r e s e n t (Ref.1 4 ) .
This means that t h e second a n d higher
o r d e r t e r m s o f c a r b o n i n E q u a t i o n 16
c a n n o t be neglected w i t h i n a range o f
C > 0 . 3 % . This is p a r t l y because t h e m u l -
t i p l y i n g f a c t o r f o r c a r b o n is d i f f e r e n t i n
mathematical form from those of the
o t h e r e l e m e n t s , as seen in Equation 7.
Conclusion
The relationship between the t w o dif-
ferent hardenability indexes, carbon
e q u i v a l e n t a n d ideal c r i t i c a l d i a m e t e r ,
has been investigated b y a heat c o n d u c -
t i o n analysis. This investigation supports
the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s :
1) H e a t c o n d u c t i o n analysis has ver-
ified that t h e ideal critical diameter
s h o u l d b e expressed by m u l t i p l y i n g fac-
tors as l o n g as t h e c a r b o n e q u i v a l e n t is
e x p r e s s e d as a l i n e a r c o m b i n a t i o n o f
each e l e m e n t .
2) T h e c o e f f i c i e n t o f each e l e m e n t in
the c a r b o n e q u i v a l e n t is c a l c u l a t e d f r o m
a m u l t i p l y i n g f a c t o r t h r o u g h a s i m p l e re-
l a t i o n as s h o w n in Equation 2 7 .
3) C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r M n , C r , M o a n d
Cu i n t h e c a r b o n e q u i v a l e n t c a l c u l a t e d
f r o m m u l t i p l y i n g factors r e p o r t e d in t h e
literature have been f o u n d to match
fairly w e l l those acquired through ex-
periments. H o w e v e r , the coefficients for
Si a n d N i d i d n o t m a t c h e x p e r i m e n t a l
results.
Acknowledgments
T h e authors w o u l d l i k e t o express sin-
cere gratitude to D r . Takamura, emeri-
tus p r o f e s s o r o f K y o t o U n i v e r s i t y ; a n d
Dr. M . O k u m u r a , senior researcher at
N i p p o n Steel C o r p . , for t h e i r h e l p f u l dis-
cussions.
References
1. Dearden, J., and O ' N e i l l , H. 1 940. A
guide to the selection and w e l d i n g of l o w - developed Ti-oxide-bearing steel having high
alloy structural steels. Trans. Inst. Weld. 3: HAZ toughness. ASTM STP 1042:266-284.
203-214. 19. Hollomon, J. H., and laffe, L. D. 1946.
2. Grossmann, M. A . 1938. Hardenabil- The hardenability concept. Trans. AIME 167:
ity as it affects heat treated part. Metal 601-616.
Progress 4: 373. 20. Craft, W „ and Lamont, |. L. 1944. Ef-
3. Grossmann, M. A., Asimov, M . , and fect of some elements on hardenability. Trans.
Urban, S. F. 1939. Hardenability, its relation AIME 158: 157-167.
to quenching and some quantitative data. 2 1 . Kramer, I. R., Siegel, S., and Brooks,
Hardenability of Alloy Steels, ASM Interna- J. G. 1946. Factors for the calculation of hard-
tional, Materials Park, Ohio, pp. 124-197. enability. Trans. AIME 1 67: 670-697.
4. Maynier, P., Jaungman, B., and Dollet, 22. Hodge, J. M . , and Orehoski, M . A.
J. 1978. Creusot-Loire system for the predic- 1946. Hardenability effects in relation to the
tion of the mechanical properties of low-alloy percentage of martensite. Trans. AIME 167:
steel products. Hardenability Concepts with 502-512.
Application to Steel, D.V. Doane and ). S. 23. Grossmann, M. A. 1942. Hardenabil-
Kirkaldy, ed., Warrendale, Pa., Metallurgical ity calculated from chemical composition.
Society of AIME, pp. 518-545. Trans. AIME 150:227-255.
5. Arata, Y., Nishiguti, K., O h j i , T., Koh-
sai, N., andTomei, M. 1972. Weldability con-
cept of hardness prediction. IIW Doc. IV-263- Appendix A
72.
6. Lorenz, K., and Duren, C. 1982. C-
Derivation of Equation 19
equivalent for evaluation of w e l d a b i l i t y of
large-diameter pipe steels. IIW Doc. IX-B-1 1 -
82. The cooling time until temperature
7. Beckert, M . , and H o l z , R. 1973. A n - reaches 5 0 0 ° C , t 5 0 0 , is g i v e n b y s u b s t i -
wendung des Kohlenstoffasequivalent und t u t i n g 5 0 0 ° C i n t o Equation 1 3 as f o l l o w s :
Vorausstimmung des Harte in der Warmee-
influszsone von Schweiftungen. 500 = 2 e „ X exp(-J, K«nn/<r
Schweiistechnik 23(8): 344-346. 7„ /,(/. (A1)
8. Yurioka, H., Ohshita, S., and Tamehiro,
N. 1 9 8 1 . Study on carbon equivalents to as-
sess cold cracking tendency and hardness in is a f u n c t i o n o f t h e radius, w h i c h is n o w
steel welding. Proc. Conf. Pipeline Welding a s s u m e d t o b e D / 2 . S i n c e D| is a f u n c -
in the '80s. Melbourne, Australian W e l d i n g
t i o n o f e a c h e l e m e n t , t 5 0 o is also a f u n c -
Research Association.
t i o n o f e a c h e l e m e n t . By d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g
9. Terasaki, T., Akiyama, T., and Serino,
M . 1984. Chemical compositions and w e l d - b o t h sides of Equation A 1 w i t h regard t o
ing procedure to avoid cold cracking. Proc. e l e m e n t X, Equation A 1 b e c o m e s :
Int. Conf. Joining of Metals, Nelsingor, Den-
mark, (12): 3 8 1 .
J.U. cr dx
10. Cottrel, C. L. M . 1984. Hardness
equivalent may lead to a more critical mea-
"pf-A'Wjoo/a"
sure of w e l d a b i l i t y . Metal Construction
0 = 26
16(12): 740-744.
da
1 1 . Boothby, P. 1985. Predicting hard- 2jn2
hm
ness in steel HAZs. Metal Construction dx
17(6):363-366. w..
exp(-j„-)ta,m/a-
12. Suzuki, N. 1985. A new formula for (A2)
estimating H A Z maximum hardness in
welded steel. IIW-Doc. IX-1 351-1385.
Therefore,
13. Terasaki, T., Nomura, T., and Kitada,
T. 1988. Proposal of predictive equation for
maximum hardness in the heat-affected zone.
Quarterly Journal Japan Welding Society dim
2hm da\y j„
6(1):1 39-143.
dx a dx ) ~ ^ 7, [jn
14. Yurioka, N., O k u m u r a , M . , Kasuya,
T „ and Cotton, H. J. U. 1987. Prediction of (A3)
exp(-j,2Ktmt/a2) =0
HAZ hardness of transformable steels. Metal
Construction 19(4): 217R to 223R.
1 5. Yurioka, N. 1990. Weldability of mod- W h e n t h e t e m p e r a t u r e is 8 0 0 ° C , a s i m i -
ern high-strength steels. Advances in Weld-
lar e q u a t i o n is o b t a i n e d .
ing Metallurgy, American W e l d i n g Society,
Miami, Fla., pp. 5 1 - 6 4
16. Hodge, J. M . , and Orehoski, M. A. du,
1946. Relation between hardenability and 'hm_-2t-ML "da
a
V h
percentage of martensite in some low-alloy dx " a <?.vj£ ./,(./„)
steels. Trans. AIME 167: 627-642.
exp{-j2Ktm)/a2) =0 ( M )
17. O k u m u r a , M . , Yurioka, N., and Ka-
suya, T. 1987. Effect of cleanliness of steel
on its weldability. IIW-Doc. IX-1459-87, or From Equations A 3 a n d A 4 ,
1988. Quarterly J. of Japan Welding Soc. 6
(11:144-150.
18. Yamamoto, K., Matsuda, S., Haze, T.,
Chijiiwa, R., and Mimura, N. 1989. A newly
dx a dx' dx a dx (A5)
WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 267-s
From Equation A5, where
I -1- -* ^^HARDE,\'
„_ „ Mn Ni Cr Mo T-T,. •exp\
dlnjtw) _dln(t,m -tm)
CE = C + + +— + (A9) +3.1 CE,„-2.03)
dx dx 4.1 7.9 8.5 6.5 2.03) (A12)
1 2 da ,
CE in Equation A9 is considered to be a
—
'500 hoo a carbon equivalent for hardenability on From Equations A11 and A12, the
2 dD, dln(D,) a full martensite basis. carbon equivalent for 50% martensite is
-9
given as follows:
D, dx dx (A6)
Carbon equivalent on a
,_ Si Mn Cu Ni
50% martensite basis
When t 8 / 5 is the critical time for a full 6.5 10.7
martensite, t 8/5 can be substituted by T M
Carbon equivalent for a 50% marten- Cr Mo AH
in Equation 3. Then Equation A6 is equal
to Equation 19.
sitic structure, C E H A R D E N . in Table 3 is + + 1.6 (A13)
calculated from Ref. 14. The critical 6.5 4
cooling time for 50% martensite, T 5 0 , is
given as:
Appendix B

Carbon Equivalents
T50=(T„,-Th) (A10)
in the Literature
T m is the critical cooling time for a 100%
Carbon equivalent from Ref. 4 martensite and T^ is for 0% martensite.
T m and T b are:
From Ref. 4, the critical cooling rate
during 800° to 500°C for full martensite, Tm = exp{l0.6 CEmgDEfl-4.sy}
V, (°C/h) is:
T„ = exp(6.2CEm-0.14)
(4.24C+l.05Mn + 0.54Ni
iog(vl)=9.m Si Mn Cu_ Ni_
{+0.5Cr + 0.66/Wo + 0.00183 • Pa )
24
1
6
is +~n
(A7)
Pa: austenization parameter Cr Mo -AH
Substituting V, = 3600 • 300/(t 8 / 5 ) +
into Equation A7, 8 _4 Mn Cu Ni Cr Mo
CE„ • C + + — —+— +
bi(tM) = 9.81 • CE+0.00421 • Pa - 8.70 3.6 20 9 5 4
(All)
Then
(A8)

The
Welding Journal
is
Recyclable

268-s I JUNE 1993