This article continues the ongoing discussion on Equipment Selection for Induction Hardening by Dr. Valery Rudnev, FASM, IFHTSE Fellow. Six previous installments in Dr. Rudnev’s series on equipment selection addressed selected aspects of scan hardening and continuous/progressive hardening systems. This post is the third in a discussion on equipment selection for one of four popular induction hardening techniques focusing on single-shot hardening systems.

Previous articles in the series on equipment selection for single-shot hardening are here (part 1) and here (part 2). To see the earlier articles in the Induction Hardening series at Heat Treat Today as well as other news about Dr. Rudnev, click here. 

Single-Shot Inductors for Non-Cylinder Parts

Single-shot inductors can be successfully used for hardening not only components of classical cylinder geometries but other geometries as well. This includes workpieces of general conical shapes, such as elliptic, parabolic, hyperbolic geometries—and the list can grow. As an example, Figure 1 shows induction surface-hardened ball joints (ball studs) and the single-shot inductors used to harden them. Ball studs are used in automotive, off-road, and agricultural machinery and can be different in shape and size (Compare images on the left in Figure 1 with images on the right.), requiring noticeably different hardness patterns.

In any attempt to scan harden workpieces with appreciable diameter changes, the scan coil must have a sufficient gap to clear the largest diameter. When scanning the section(s) of the workpiece with smaller diameters, an inductor-to-shaft air gap might be very large, resulting in low electrical efficiency and potentially exhibiting difficulties in load matching as well as in controlling the austenitizing pattern along the length of the part producing "cold" and "hot" spots. Additional difficulties may appear in controlling the hardness pattern in regions (e.g., near geometrical irregularities) where good control is most needed.

Thus, the substantially different workpiece-to-inductor electromagnetic coupling variations might not permit using classical multiturn solenoid coils or scan inductors. In contrast, single-shot inductors allow not only better electromagnetic coupling along the entire length of heat treated components (Figure 2) but also better address the geometrical irregularities of heat treated workpieces, producing the required hardness patterns at minimum process times with superior metallurgical quality.

As stated in Part 1 of this series, in contrast to scan hardening, a single-shot inductor can be contoured along the length of the part properly addressing the geometrical complexity of the workpiece. Furthermore, the use of flux concentrators helps drive the current into the desired areas and allows producing a well-defined hardness profile with minimum distortion. The trade-off here is that more finesse is required in the design stage to produce the properly profiled single-shot inductor at the lowest possible cost.¹ Errors are costly since these inductors are each custom made for a given part or application and modifications can be quite costly. Thus, computer modeling is a helpful assistant as an attempt to keep the development cost down and shorten the "learning curve".

Proper hardening of such components as output shafts, flanged shafts, planet carriers, yoke shafts, sun shafts, intermediate shafts, driveshafts, turbine shafts, and some others may require extensive copper profiling, making a single-shot hardening inductor a complex electromagnetic device.

Certain geometrical features such as flanges, diameter changes, bearing shoulders, grooves, undercuts, splines, etc., may distort the mag­netic field generated by an inductor, which, in turn, can cause tem­perature deviations, making it challenging to achieve certain hardness patterns.

For components containing fillets, it is often necessary to increase the heat intensity in the fillet region owing to the geometrical specifics. Also, the larger mass of metal in the proximity of the heated fillet and behind the region to be hardened produces a substantial thermal “cold sink” effect.¹ This draws heat from the fillet due to thermal conduction, which must be compensated for by generating additional heating energy in the fillet area.

Needed energy surplus can be achieved by narrowing the current-carrying face of the crossover segment of the single-shot inductor (Figure 3). Here is a simplified illustration of an impact of a copper profiling of the inductor’s heating face: if the current-carrying portion of the inductor heating face is reduced by 50 percent, there is a corresponding increase in current density. This will be accompanied by an increase of the eddy current density induced within the respective region. According to the Joule effect, doubling the induced eddy current density increases the induced power density roughly by a factor of four. Also, attaching a magnetic flux concentrator to certain areas of the hardening inductor further enhances the localized heat intensity.

When using a single-shot inductor, it is particularly important that the workpiece is properly located in the heating position because seemingly minor dislocations may noticeably affect the heat treat pattern and metallurgical quality of hardened parts.

Traditionally designed single-shot inductors may exhibit high process sensitivity that is associated with the electromagnetic proximity effect.¹ A change in positioning of the workpiece inside the single-shot inductor attributed to excessive bearing wear of the centers, improper machining of the centers and fixtures, incorrect part loading, and other factors may produce a correspondent appreciable variation in the hardness pattern (particularly within the fillet region, undercut areas, and the part’s end zone). A reduced hardness case depth and the formation of unwanted microstructural products associated with incomplete phase transformation may be the result of that. Magnitude and distribution of transient and residual stresses might also be altered. Thus, attention should be paid to part’s reliable positioning during heating and quenching cycles.

As can be concluded, there are good reasons for using single-shot hardening, scan hardening, or continuous/progressing hardening approaches in induction hardening applications. The decision must be well thought out based on many factors such as geometry specifics, product quality, production rate, design proficiency, limitations of available equipment, reliability requirements, cost considerations, and some other factors.

The next installment of this series, “Dr. Valery Rudnev on .  . . ”, will continue the discussion on design features of induction single-shot hardening systems.

References

1. V.Rudnev, D.Loveless, R.Cook, Handbook of Induction Heating, 2nd Edition, CRC Press, 2017.
2. V.Rudnev, "Dr. Valery Rudnev on . . . Equipment Selection for Induction Hardening: Single-Shot Hardening, Part 1", Heat Treat Today, July 9, 2019.
3. V.Rudnev, A.Goodwin, S.Fillip, W.West, J.Schwab, S.St.Pierre, "Keys to long-lasting hardening inductors: Experience, materials, and precision", Adv. Mater. Processes, October 2015, pp. 48–52.