Effect of triple quench

Hi Kevin,
Is the grain size determined on the way up in heat and not on cooling? If I understand that right, does the quench cooling thermal cycling introduce unwanted stress?

Thanks much for any comment, Craig

An excellent question since it get right tot hear tof the matter. Let's say we have a piece of 1084 steel that is fully lammelar annealed and is comprised entirely grains of pearlite...
pearlite.jpg


In this image you will see lines or ridges that look like finger prints. those lines and ridges are alternating iron bands of iron and iron carbide that have separated out to form pearlite. On heating, once you pass the lower critical temperature the carbon in the pearlite will start to move and go into solution in the iron portion of the pearlite...
5160u1.jpg


Here you can see the dark pearlite in the lower left and the remnants of it above that is partially in solution. This image is from a sample that I took just to non-magnetic where the transformation was incomplete in order to get a picture of the process. Notice how the little bands have turned to little strings of beads as they dissolve and the large field of lighter colored background that is a new structure forming because of it.

This process will begin at singular points of high energy, just like ice will form first around the edges of a pond or around a stick breaking the surface (or as Dr. Verhoeven would say, like bubbles in a soft drink coming from the same surface defect inside the glass). Thus the corners of the grain boundaries make a great starting point, as well as undissolved carbides and other bits. It is at these choice points that fresh baby austenite grains will begin to form.

Once formed the steel will be of a duplex structure, partially new austenite and partially old pearlite, but with more heat the process will continue and the austenite will replace the pearlite as it grows. The new austenite grains will grow until they meet each other and use up all the pearlite. Imagine a circle that only has three little grains growing until they meet each other, the final grains will be much larger due to the amount of space each will have to themselves. Now if you increase the number of baby grains to 10 when all the pearlite is gone those ten grains will have to be much smaller to occupy the same area- this is how grain refinement works!

However if you keep heating until every little carbide is dissolved the grain boundaries of the new austenite will become unstable and start to collapse and two grains will become one larger grain… this is grain growth! But if you stop short of this and then cool those little austenite grains yet another process will begin once again at those points of high energy when the carbon comes back out of solution to form all new pearlite grains.

So, on any heating and cooling cycle no less than three separate phases with their grains, are involved- the initial structure, the new austenite grains, and the final crystalline version of the phase obtained on cooling. When you consider that just heating and cooling steel in any fashion results in two new sets of crystals every time, you can see how simply controlling the rates of heating that cooling can give you a whole lot of power in determining the internal makeup of the steel.

The baby grains forming in those points of high energy is called “nucleation”, and it is the rate of nucleation that determines the amount of grain refinement. Martensite has higher strain energy thus it can drop the grain size in one heat what may take two with pearlite. Heating and cooling rates can also effect how things come in and out of solution. Serious carbides like those made with vanadium or chromium will act as sticks in the pond and greatly increase the rates of nucleation.

Hope this helps.
 
The further away from the grain that you stand,… the smaller it looks. :)
 
Very true, I can turn ASTM size 3 into size 6 with just a click of my microscopes objective head, and that is ten times faster than even quenching it!;).
 
Either I am getting a whole lot smarter, which is not likely, or your presentation, of this complex subject, is simply well presented.

I for one appreciate this.

Thank you sir, Fred
 
Yes thanks for an explanation that really works for me. This thread shows why some of the mysticism comes to be and what really happens and how once understood it can be better applied. A bit like the magic of black powder, it amazed the masses, but ones explained by the facts of its physics, those who truly understand better harnessed and improved.
 
I thought the results i posted made it very clear,even without a microscope,that triple quenching (which is thermal cycling) was an effective way to reduce grain size.Sorry,but i try NOT to keep up on the latest b.s coming out of peoples mouths about carbide banding making barstock into a crucible steel and the like.Id much rather be foring or reading.I promise not to use the words of the mystics if you promise to put your metllurgy into examples that are applicable to the average guy without all of verhoevens books.Deal?:)
 
I thought the results i posted made it very clear,even without a microscope,that triple quenching (which is thermal cycling) was an effective way to reduce grain size.Sorry,but i try NOT to keep up on the latest b.s coming out of peoples mouths about carbide banding making barstock into a crucible steel and the like.Id much rather be foring or reading.I promise not to use the words of the mystics if you promise to put your metllurgy into examples that are applicable to the average guy without all of verhoevens books.Deal?:)

I feel I may have offended when no offense was intended, if you are simply exploring the avenues of grain refinement through thermal cycling then I feel bad about that for we are together in this, if however your position is solidly in the world of "triple quenching", it would only have been matter of time before I or somebody else more pragmatic offended. Your deal is acceptable as Verhoeven can get quite deep (his most commonly quoted work on forums is by far the lighter reading), however I rarely cite Verhoeven, I only went there in this instance to appeal to you after your references to his work.

Let me share exactly why I took the time to include an in-depth description of the process and included graphics. Even an attempt at such a description in any terms, layman to technical, would be incredibly refreshing and novel from the usual sources of marketing on the topic; sources who seem to have a vested interest in heaping mystery and confusing gibberish* onto it instead in order to maintain their position as pioneers in an otherwise rather old and mundane area.

*And no this certainly does not include Verhoeven, Pendray or Clark who could easily explain it as quickly as I have, and once again, neither does it include you mstephen, if you are of like mind.
 
Last edited:
If it gets too demystified,… you might not be able to beat the cool factor back in or the nerd factor out,… especially with 52100.

… What would you guys ever do without me? ;)
 
Thanks Kevin for generously offering your time. I appreciate the thread, all the pictures and the exchange of ideas.

Sheepishly, can I ask, if it's a reasonable strategy to keep the steel above martensite start temp when attempting quench thermal cycling?

Thanks again, Craig
 
"Of course I don't believe in it. But I understand that it brings you luck whether you believe in it or not." -Bohr
 
It was already demystified,... Kevin just triple demystified it. ;)

triple quenching the myths?



I want to thank both the OP and Kevin. I don't and haven't done triple quenching, mostly because when I was exposed to it I immediately searched online and through threads and found that most of the "holy triple quench" references were from sites that promote edge packing, the sacred steel grain lines of the forge versus the grinder, etc. And Kevin has touched this topic before.

So it's VERY useful for me to see the actual results of the triple quench in grain refinement. I'll stick to normalizing, but it's good to know, yknow?

Kevin- is there a particular case where you'd use a rapid thermal cycling process instead of standard normalization?
 
Kevin,responding to my original post wich was obviously intended to show the effect on grain refinement (i posted some pics,i dont know if you saw them)with "before anybody becomes to awstruck by multiple quenchings ability to refine grain" is childish in my opinion.It does not matter if one method is more correct to you or not,and even though normalizing is simply another method of grain refinement, i still dont see your point in even posting at all.Id much rather have heard from others experiences in this area.
 
*sigh*, I'm the only one here who is supposed to repeatedly eat feet in front of kevin.

Mstephen- slow down a bit. This is a silly thread to get spun up over to the point where you end up leaving in a huff or something- and it's headed that direction.

You posted photos with the magic words and no real explanation. Kevin responded in a way you may not feel was appropriate in the isolated instance of your post- but! there's a history on the various forae of people doing the happy magick dance over triple quenching (and why triple? why not quadruple? Isn't 4 a sacred number out here in the west?) In the broader context, he was trying to nip something in the bud that you may not have been aware of.

He VERY SPECIFICALLY didn't accuse you of the witch doctor act, but mentioned that traditional normalizing has its own set of advantages and similar results (sort of).

Now, as it happens, i think calling a bug a bug is fine- avoiding calling rapid quenched thermal cycling triple quenching just because of the connotations applied to the term by others seems silly to me. And maybe kevin is sometimes oversensitive to buzzwords, but he has reason.

Can we get back to the actual topic now, without offense?
 
Last edited:
Thanks Kevin for generously offering your time. I appreciate the thread, all the pictures and the exchange of ideas.

Sheepishly, can I ask, if it's a reasonable strategy to keep the steel above martensite start temp when attempting quench thermal cycling?

Thanks again, Craig

A very important point to cover! If you want to recrystallize things you need to form another phase from the austenite. If you quench to above Ms you will only reheat the same old austenite grains on the reheat. Going below Ms will result in a new crystal arrangement and progress, just as cooling to 1000F and allowing pearlite to form will do the same. The images I showed of L6 and 1084 grain sizes were the results of those very circumstances. Both pieces of steel were overheated to the state you see in the images label #1 and then reheated and cooled until they lost color. The 1084 shows an immediate grain refinement from this treatment in images two and three because it formed another phase and a new set of crystals at around 1000F. However the L6 shows no grain refinement at all, in fact the grains seem a little coarser. This is because L6 is a deeper hardening steel that finds it hard to make pearlite, so all that happened was reheating of the same old austenite. The final image of the L6 is where I allowed the steel to cool to around 750F and dip into the upper bainite region, it was from here that grain refinement was instantaneous on reheating.

So if all you do is air cool you don’t need to let it assume room temp with almost any steel we normally work with, however if you get into quenching you need to know which phases you have avoided and what the next one is you need to go to. The best way to sort a lot of this out is with the magnet. A magnet is much more useful in this instance that is can be in heating to austenitize the steel. As soon as another phase beside austenite forms the magnet will attract it and you will now you have some new crystals to work with.
 
...Kevin- is there a particular case where you'd use a rapid thermal cycling process instead of standard normalization?

Sure, I use it all the time, just as mstephen has pointed out in his method, to refine grain in the normalization process. The term “thermal cycling” is the most accurate way of describing it since actual normalizing is done at much higher heat for homogenizing effects, also normalizing by definition cannot really involve quenching. I don’t usually mess with it on finished blades since I like to keep stress to a minimum and like to nail the hardening procedure and be done with it, but on rough forgings, thicker sections and damascus pieces I will utilize a quench into a medium oil to refine grain and help put the carbon exactly where I want it before ending the forging session. I first take all of my forgings up as evenly as possible to around 1650F and allow to slowly air cool for a nice even normalization. Next I heat to 1500F and put the carbon into solution and it is on this operation that I will quench since it will help keep things put through fast cooling. The Final heat will be on the very low end of the range to initiate some nucleation and give a very good stress relief. I do however work mostly with O1 and L6 so this leaves things very agreeable to the subsequent spheroidizing. 10XX series steels can also go this way for me because I have the equipment to spheroidize them regardless, but a person with just a forge may want to end with a quench and then spheroidize by heating to dull red but still magnetic several times.

The spheroidal anneal is what leaves the grain size entirely alone and what ever size you set it at. Lamellar annealing (heating to critical and burying in ashes or vermiculite) requires rescrystallization and thus resets the grain size.

The other point I failed to touch on in my previous posts was pro-eutectoid products, don’t let the big word get to you it only means iron or carbide components left over when you make pearlite. You see any extra carbon (more than .8%) or any extra iron (less than .8%) can be put into solution in normalizing but if cooled slowly will come back out of solution where to may not want it, adjusting your cooling rates at critical times can prevent this and give you more control that most knifemakers dream of. For instance, if you take 1095 and heat it to critical and then stuff it in you hot gas forge that has been turned off before calling it a day, that extra .15% carbon will go right for the grain boundaries and stay there. This will result in a brittle blade no matter how you heat treat it later. But if you quenched that same blade through the range where this can happen it is avoided entirely. This is just one of the oversights that I believe are probably responsible for all the fantastic results many get with multiple quenches. You see most folks getting those results have a bad habit of automatically assuming that latest knife is some sort of super blade, instead of asking the more reasonable question of what was wrong with all of its predecessors. This is the danger of the “I don’t need to know how it happens I just know that it does!” mindset. Unless you know the underlying cause and effects you have no way of knowing if you actually made progress or simply corrected a common yet unrecognized problem.
 
You posted photos with the magic words and no real explanation. Kevin responded in a way you may not feel was appropriate in the isolated instance of your post- but! there's a history on the various forae of people doing the happy magick dance over triple quenching (and why triple? why not quadruple? Isn't 4 a sacred number out here in the west?) In the broader context, he was trying to nip something in the bud that you may not have been aware of.

That is very perceptive of you Koyote, so much so that I am forced to say that you saw right through me, and understand the occasional need to balance things out with other information.

Now, as it happens, i think calling a bug a bug is fine- avoiding calling rapid quenched thermal cycling triple quenching just because of the connotations applied to the term by others seems silly to me. And maybe kevin is sometimes oversensitive to buzzwords, but he has reason.

Oversensitive is something I may have to own up to here but I do indeed have reason, that reason is that using it to describe sound and standard heat treating practices lends undeserved credibility to claims that stretch the very limits of credibility. Face it, this may be the first time that a thread with "triple quenching" in the title didn't have the same old agenda and I may have came on too strong. But as mstephen pointed out, if I began using the terms alloy banding and wootz interchangebly, I hope somebody would here would call me on it.

Can we get back to the actual topic now, without offense?

Yes you can, this was in fact mstephen's thread and if it were not for the fact that I stayed on topic I all but hijacked it from him. I really should now back off and allow him to get the other experiences he was looking for. However I now have an idea that a certain magazine may be the place to find those, but give it time and a poetic post of koolaide is likely to appear;).
 
Thanks for taking the time Kevin, and sorry you had to leave Mark.

Take care, Craig
 
Thanks for the explanations. I struggled to understand with my little english. I did have some very hard time of reading it all again and again. But I couldnt solve one paragraph:

So if all you do is air cool you don’t need to let it assume room temp with almost any steel we normally work with, however if you get into quenching you need to know which phases you have avoided and what the next one is you need to go to. The best way to sort a lot of this out is with the magnet. A magnet is much more useful in this instance that is can be in heating to austenitize the steel. As soon as another phase beside austenite forms the magnet will attract it and you will now you have some new crystals to work with.

What for the magnet used ? To check the irons critical point or something else? Mr Kevin, I know you have spent too much time to explain it all but can you or someone understood it explain a bit for me please?

Thanks
Emre
 
Back
Top