4.4 Article

Effect of Surface Hardening Technique and Case Depth on Rolling Contact Fatigue Behavior of Alloy Steels

期刊

TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 215-224

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10402004.2014.960957

关键词

Ferrous Alloys; Steel; Carburizing; Case Depth; Hardening; Hardness; Metallurgical Analysis; Optical Microscopy; Rolling Contact Fatigue

资金

  1. BRP US, Inc.
  2. Center for Surface Engineering and Tribology at Northwestern University
  3. China Scholarship Council [2011623074]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Metal Matrix Composites, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surface hardening techniques are widely used to improve the rolling contact fatigue (RCF) resistance of materials. This study investigated the RCF resistance of hardened, ground steel rods made from three different aircraft-quality alloy steels (AISI 8620, 9310, and 4140) and hardened using different techniques (atmosphere carburizing, vacuum carburizing, and induction hardening) at different case depths. The RCF life of the rods was determined using a three ball-on-rod rolling contact fatigue test machine. After testing, the microstructures of the rods were examined using metallographic techniques. The stress distributions and plastic deformation zones for the specimens under RCF were calculated using an elastoplastic model for plastically graded materials. Relationships between surface hardness, case depth, and RCF life were investigated. The longest lives were observed for the vacuum-carburized AISI 9310 specimens, and the shortest lives were observed for the induction-hardened AISI 4140 specimens. It is concluded that the most important factors in determining the RCF lives of high-cleanliness surface-hardened alloy steels are (1) the hardness in the region of highest octahedral shear stress (in this case, similar to 0.13 mm beneath the surface) and (2) the depth of high hardness (>613 HV), which determines the plastic deformation zone size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据