Advertisement

Specimen edge effects on bending fatigue of carburized steel

  • R. E. Cohen
  • D. K. Matlock
  • G. Krauss
Testing (continued)

Abstract

The effects of specimen geometry on the fatigue behavior of SAE 4320 steel carburized at 927 °C were evaluated with two sets of cantilever bend specimens, one set machined with square edges and one set machined with round edges. The specimens with square edges exhibited a 13% lower fatigue limit. In comparison to the rounded samples, the lower fatigue limit in the square-edged samples was attributed to the presence of a higher volume fraction of retained austenite in the sample corners and a lower surface residual compressive stress. As a result of the differences in residual stress, preferential crack initiation sites existed in the square-edged samples at a location approximately 200 to 900 ώm from the square edge. The implications of this study on laboratory analyses of the bending fatigue performance of carburized gear steels are discussed.

Keywords

Fatigue Austenite Residual Stress Fatigue Crack Specimen Geometry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R.E. Cohen, P.J. Haagensen, D.K. Matlock, and G. Krauss, “Assessment of Bending Fatigue Limits for Carburized Steel,“ SAE Technical Paper Series No. 910140, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K.D. Jones and G. Krauss, “Effects of High-Carbon Corners on Microstructure and Fatigue of Partial Pressure Carburized Steel,” inHeat Treatment ’ 79, The Metals Society, London, 1979, p 188–193.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.D. Jones and G. Krauss, “Microstructure and Fatigue of Partial Pressure Carburized SAE 8620 and EX 24 Steels,“J. Heat Treating, Vol 1 (No. 1), 1979, p 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.A. Erven, D.K. Matlock, and G. Krauss, “Effect of Sulfur on Bending Fatigue of Carburized Steel,”J. Heat Treating, Vol 9, 1991, p 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.L. Pacheco and G. Krauss, “Microstructure and High Bending Fatigue Strength in Carburized Steel,” inCarburizing: Processing and Performance, G. Krauss, Ed., ASM International, 1989, p 191–237.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Sieber, “Bending Fatigue Performance of Carburized Gear Steels,” SAE Technical Paper Series No. 920533, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Brugger and G. Kraus, “Influence of Ductility on the Behavior of Carburizing Steel During Static and Dynamic Bend Testing,”Archiv. Eisenhüttenwesen, Vol 32, 1961, p 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T.B. Cameron and D.E. Diesburg, “The Significance of the Impact Fracture Strength of a Carburized Steel,” inCase-Hardened Steels: Microstructural and Residual Stress Effects, D.E. Diesburg, Ed., The Metallurgical Society of AIME, 1984, p 17–32.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.A. DePaul, “Impact Fatigue Resistance of Carburized Gear Steels—Development of a Testing Machine and Evaluation of Initial Test Results,”Mater. Res. Stand., Mar, 1970, p 15–17, 54, 56–57.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.A. DePaul, “High Cycle and Impact Fatigue Behavior of Some Carburized Gear Steels,”Met. Eng. Quart., Nov, 1970, p 25–29.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.J. deBarbadillo, “The Effect of Impact Fatigue Prestressing on the High Cycle Fatigue Resistance of Carburized Gear Steels,” SAE Technical Paper Series No. 730142, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.E. Diesburg and G.T. Eldis, “Fracture Resistance of Various Carburized Steels,”Metall. Trans. A, Vol 9, Nov 1978, p 1561–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K.A. Erven, “The Effects of Sulfur and Titanium on Bending Fatigue Performance of Carburized Steels,” M.S. thesis No. T-3849, Colorado School of Mines, July 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C.J. Van Tyne and K.A. Erven, “Finite Element Modelling of Carburizing Using a Commercial Code,” in preparation. Presentation summarized in J.E. Morral and A.D. Romig, Jr., “Computer Programs for Modeling Diffusion-Controlled Processes,” JOM, Feb 1992, p 12–14.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.E. Peterson,Stress Concentration Factors, John Wiley & Sons, 1974, p 98.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Residual Stress Measurements by X-Ray Diffraction, SAE J784a, 2nd ed., 1971.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.W. Brewer, K.A. Erven, and G. Krauss, “Etching and Image Analysis of Prior Austenite Grain Boundaries in Hardened Steels,”Materials Characterization, Vol 27, 1991, p 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Krauss, “The Microstructure and Fracture of a Carburized Steel,”Metall. Trans. A, Vol 9, 1978, p 1527–1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    H.K. Obermeyer and G. Krauss, “Toughness and Intergranular Fracture of a Simulated Carburized Case in EX-24 Type Steel,”J. Heat Treating, Vol 1 (No. 3), 1980, p 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Ando and G. Krauss, “The Effect of Phosphorus Content on Grain Boundary Cementite Formation in AISI52100 Steel,”Metall. Trans. A, Vol 12, 1981, p 1283–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. J. Wulpi,How Components Fail, American Society for Metals, 1966.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.S. Hyde, R.E. Cohen, D.K. Matlock, and G. Krauss, “Bending Fatigue Crack Characterization and Fracture Toughness of Gas Carburized SAE 4320 Steel,” SAE Technical Paper Series No. 920534, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. E. Cohen
    • 1
  • D. K. Matlock
    • 1
  • G. Krauss
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Steel Processing and Products Research CenterColorado School of MinesGolden

Personalised recommendations