Surface Integrity Difference between Hard Turned and Ground Surfaces and Its Impact on Fatigue Life

F. Hashimoto1 (2), Y.B. Guo2, A.W. Warren2 The Timken Company, Canton, Ohio 44706, USA 2 Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
1

Abstract Surface integrity is the key for process selection of hard turning or grinding in industry. This study identifies the fundamental differences in the integrity of hard turned and ground surfaces and the subsequent impact on rolling contact fatigue life. The significant findings are: (a) mechanical deformation plays a larger role during hard turning than grinding, while the size effect in grinding induces higher surface hardness; and (b) a hard turned surface may have a more than 100% longer fatigue life than a ground one with an equivalent surface finish (Ra 0.07 m) due to the very different characteristics of surface integrity. Keywords: Surface, Fatigue, Hard Machining

1 INTRODUCTION Hard turning and grinding [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] are competitive finishing processes for the manufacture of precision mechanical components. However, their very different process characteristics make process selection a great challenge in industrial application. Fundamental process knowledge is the key for process selection and design. The different geometrical features of cutting edges and grains used in hard turning and grinding create different surface structures. For example, a turned surface shows much wider and more regular feed marks than those of a ground one. Grinding can achieve very smooth surfaces of less than 0.05 m Ra. Hard turning may achieve equivalent or better 2D surface roughness under certain cutting conditions. The peaks and valleys of the turned and ground surfaces also differ in depth and occurrence. Both surface types show negative skewness [8] which gives good lubricant retention capability. With the tool and grinding wheel wear, surface structure will be changed significantly and a 3D surface map will be necessary to evaluate its effect on component performance. However, very little research has been done in this regard. The most significant difference in residual stress by fresh hard turning and grinding is that hard turning may induce a relatively deep maximum compressive residual stress in the subsurface [4], while grinding produces maximum compressive residual stress at the surface. A worn tool or grinding wheel induces tensile residual stresses on the surface [9]. A compressive residual stress induced by hard turning and grinding was found to improve rolling contact fatigue (RCF) life [4,10]. Furthermore, deep compressive residual stresses are much more beneficial to bearing fatigue life than shallower stresses of greater magnitude. Recent studies [11,12] have shown that distinct residual stress patterns hardly affect either the magnitudes or the locations of peak stresses and strains in the subsurface. They do, however, have a significant influence on surface deformations. The slope and depth of a compressive residual stress profile are key factors for RCF damage. Nevertheless, it is very challenging to

isolate the effect of process induced residual stress profiles on fatigue. The combined effects of severe surface deformations, high local temperatures, and rapid quenching rates cause the machined surface to undergo both physical and metallurgical changes such as a sandwiched surface structure including white and dark layers [1]. Tensile residual stresses and increased hardness are often associated with a white layer. Increased surface hardness is often encountered at gentle machining conditions [13]. White layer properties such as hardness, retained austenite, residual stress, and chemical compositions are significantly different between hard turning and grinding [1,14,15,16]. For example, grinding tends to produces a much thicker white layer than turning [6,16]. Component performance such as RCF life [10] can be significantly reduced by the presence of a white layer by hard machining. Since white layer is a generic description of structure appearance under a microscope, the properties and effects of a white layer must be analyzed for a specific process and operational loading. However, whether hard turning or grinding at best practice produces similar surface integrity (surface structure, micro/nanohardness, microstructure, etc.) is not clear yet. Furthermore, the effect of a turned or ground surface free of the white layer on RCF life has not been clarified. Since process induced surface integrity is of great importance for component performance in service, the objective of this study is two-fold: (1) to reveal the basic differences of surface integrity by turning and grinding hardened AISI 52100 steel at best practice; and (2) identify the subsequent impacts of surface integrity on RCF life. 2 MACHINING TESTS Work samples of AISI 52100 steel were cut from a 76.2 mm diameter solid bar at 19.05 mm thickness. The test specimens were then machined to ensure parallelism and perpendicularity before heat treatment. Heat treatment consisted of austenizing at a temperature of 815C for 2 hours, followed by quenching in an oil bath for at 65C for

Annals of the CIRP Vol. 55/1/2006

15 minutes. Finally, tempering was conducted at 176C for 2 hours which produced a final hardness of 61-62 HRC. The test specimens were then machined by both turning and grinding processes as shown in Tables 1 and 2. The machining parameters were selected to fall within the gentle machining range so as to ensure that there would be no phase transformations on the machined surface. The face turning operation was conducted using a CNC BRIDGEPORT lathe which was able to maintain a constant cutting velocity as the cutting tool moved from the outer edge to the center of the workpiece. A fresh round CBN cutting tool insert was used for the facing operation and was rotated a certain degree after each sample was completed in order to use a fresh cutting edge in each cutting test. A face grinding operation was performed using a vitrified Al2O3 wheel which was dressed prior to machining and ample coolant was used to prevent excessive heat at the machined surface. After machining, test samples were cross sectioned with an abrasive cutter, mounted in epoxy, and polished with alumina polishing compound until a mirror finish was obtained. Surface integrity of the machined specimens was then characterized by surface finish, microstructure, and micro/nanohardness.
Work material Cutting tool Velocity Feed DoC Coolant type # of samples AISI 52100 Steel (62 HRC) CBN, GE BZN 8100 (0.015/15 chamfer & radius of 6.35 mm) 1.98 m/s 0.051 mm/rev 0.254 mm Dry turning 8

a result of the shallow depth of cut and small feed rates used in the turning process, the as turned surface roughness is better ( 30%) than that of the as ground surface. The surface roughness of the samples after polishing is within 15% of each other. The roughness Ra between 0.06 m ~ 0.07 m of the polished surfaces is smooth enough to eliminate or at least minimize the roughness effects on following micro/nanoindentation tests.

(a) as ground

0.1 mm

(b) as turned

0.1 mm

0.1 mm

0.1 mm

(c) ground & polished

(d) turned & polished

Figure 1: Optical image of the machined surface.

Sample Type Ground Turned Surface Roughness Ra (m) as machined as polished 0.181 0.071 0.138 0.061

Table 1: Hard turning conditions.

Work material Grinding wheel Wheel speed Table speed Cross feed Down feed (rough) # Passes (rough) Down feed (finish) # Passes (finish) Coolant type # of samples AISI 52100 Steel (62 HRC) Vitrified Al2O3 (dia. 254 mm) 24.0 m/s 15.2 m/min 1.1 mm/pass 12.7 m/pass 2 5.1 m/pass 1 Water soluble 8

Table 3: Surface roughness. 3.2 Subsurface microstructure To view subsurface microstructure of the specimens after machining, the samples were polished to an acceptable mirror finish and then etched with a 2% nital solution. Optical microscope images of the cross-sections of the test specimen are shown in Figure 2(a),(b). Hardened zone (4 m) Hardened zone (6 m)

Table 2: Grinding conditions. 3 SURFACE INTEGRITY CHARACTERIZATION 3.1 Surface structure Surface structure was characterized by both an optical microscope and by stylus measurement. Optical images of the as turned and as ground surfaces as well as the subsequently polished surfaces are shown in Figure 1(ad). The ground and feed marks are clearly seen on both surfaces and each is characterized by the corresponding machining method. The grinding wheel is composed of many random irregular bonded abrasives and therefore the machined surface has a random distribution of grinding marks. In contrast, hard turning is performed by a geometrically defined cutting edge and, therefore, the feed marks have a uniform spacing determined by the prescribed feed rate. Surface profile measurement was carried out using a stylus profilometer. The average surface roughness, Ra, is calculated for all cases and is summarized in Table 3. As Thermal affected zone (14 m) (a)

Thermal affected zone (8 m) (b)

Figure 2: Optical Images of subsurface microstructure. Both turned and ground surfaces are free of thermal damage, while grinding temperature has a much deeper excursion in the subsurface. It shows that the subsurface has two different zones characterized by a strain hardened zone in near surface and a thermally affected zone in the subsurface (not softened compared with bulk hardness as seen in the following section). It should be pointed out the strain hardened zone is not a white layer despite its appearance in comparison to the bulk material, and the thermally affected zone is not the dark layer encountered in hard turning. The different appearance of the two zones is just due to their different resistance to etching as a result of different grain deformation and size.

HK (25 gf)

3.3 Surface and subsurface microhardness Microhardness of the as machined and polished (0.07 m Ra) samples was measured with a Knoop indenter at a load of 25 gf. The microhardness of the ground surface is about 27% and 10% higher than those of the as turned and as polished surfaces respectively as shown in Table 4.
Surface Type Ground Turned Surface Hardness Microhardness, 25 gf Nanohardness, GPa Machined Polished Polished 1183 1148 8.8 929 1046 7.0

1300 1100 900 700 500 0

Measured on very top surface

First points measured in subsurface

Hard Turned 30 60 90 Ground 120 150

Table 4: Surface hardness. Subsurface measurements were performed as a 10 3 matrix with row and column spacing of 7 m and 20 m, respectively to avoid interference with each other. The subsurface microhardness is shown in Figure 3. The ground specimens had a higher hardness not only on the top surface but also throughout a depth of 100 m when compared to the turned ones. At depths greater than 100 m the hardness of both specimens become uniform. It was observed that the hardness was lowest at the first positions in near surface. The apparent softening is not due to thermal effects, but rather is caused by edge effect induced by the indent size. 3.4 Surface and subsurface nanohardness Since indent size in a hardness test is critical to evaluate material property at small scales, nanoindentation was performed to avoid the edge effect since the nanoindent size is substantially smaller than that of a microindent [16]. Nanohardness was measured using a Hysitron Triboindenter. The measurements were made with a diamond Berkovich indenter with a maximum load of 8 mN. Nanohardness of the machined surface was determined using a 3 3 matrix of indentations directly on the top surface. The average nanohardness was in Table 4 and the trend agrees with the measured microhardness data. Subsurface nanohardness in Figure 4 was determined using a 3 8 matrix of indentations. The surface nanohardness for the ground specimen is about 25 % higher than that of the turned one. It is clear that the apparent softening associated with edge effect observed in microindentation is not present in nanohardness test. The nanohardness for the as ground specimen remains slightly higher than that of the as turned one to a depth of about 30 m. The nanohardness profiles agree in trend with the measured microhardness data in Figure 3. However, the different depth of hardness variation may be influenced by the different interactions between material second phase particles and indenters. The basic mechanism for the more hardened ground surface/subsurface is most likely due to the size effect induced by severe strain gradient in grinding. The smaller down feed in grinding induces a severe strain gradient in near surface, while the relatively larger depth of cut in turning may substantially reduce the size effect. 4 ROLLING CONTACT FATIGUE (RCF) TESTS 4.1 RCF testing conditions RCF tests of the polished turned and ground samples were conducted at peak Hertz pressure of 4.5 GPa (above the shakedown limit) and spindle speed of 2600 rpm. After polishing, surface roughness of all the turned and ground samples is equivalent. Eight chrome steel ball bearings of diameter 5.56 mm were used. The samples and balls are

Depth below surface, um m

Figure 3: Microhardness in subsurface.

Nanohardness, GPa 10 8 6 4 2 0

Measured on very top surface.

First points measured in subsurface. Hard Turned Ground

5 10 15 20 25 30

m Depth below surface, um Figure 4: Nanohardness in subsurface. well lubricated during the fatigue tests. A load cell was used to real-time monitor the applied load. An acoustic emission (AE) sensor was mounted to the specimen to on-line monitor fatigue damage process. AE signals of counts, amplitude, RMS, and energy were then sent into a PC for signal processing. The pre-amplifier gain was set to 40 dB with a threshold of 45 dB. The monitoring continued until increased AE signals were detected because of surface pitting and spalling. Based on the fatigue testing design, the RCF life (# Cycles) can be calculated as
# Cycles = nN t 2

(1)

where n is the number of balls, N is the spindle speed, and t is the total testing time. 4.2 Life comparison of turned vs. ground surfaces Figures 5 and 6 show the sensitivity of AE amplitude to fatigue (spalling). The shoots of AE amplitude correspond to surface spalling. AE amplitude is the most sensitive signals among the other signals [10]. Subsurface fatigue cracks propagate along 30-45 with regard to the rolling direction. To evaluate the variation of fatigue life, three samples of each surface type were tested. The average RCF life and deviations are shown in Figure 7. It shows that the turned and polished surfaces have an average life 315.8 ( 76.8) million cycles, while the ground and polished surfaces have an average life 157.8 ( 21.3) million cycles. It demonstrates that a superfinished turned surface may have more than 100% fatigue life than a ground one with equivalent surface finish. The fundamental mechanisms that contribute to the fatigue difference are the distinct surface structure and properties generated in the processes. However, further isolating the effect of individual surface integrity factors such as residual stress on fatigue will be a future research subject.

Amplitude (dB) vs. time (sec)

100

Amplitude shoot

80

6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMI0447452. 7 REFERENCES [1] Tenshoff, H.K., Wobker, H.G., Brandt, D., 1995, Hard Turning-Influences on the Workpiece Properties, NAMRI/SME, 23: 215-220. [2] Elbestawi, M.A., Srivastava, A.K., El-Wardany, T.I., 1996, A Model for Chip Formation during Machining of Hardened Steel, 45/1:71-74. [3] Poulachon, G., Moisan, A., 1998, A Contribution to the Study of the Cutting Mechanisms during High Speed Machining of Hardened Steel, Ann. CIRP, 47/1:73-76. [4] Matsumoto, Y., Hashimoto, F., Lahoti, G., Surface Integrity Generated by Precision Hard Turning, Ann. CIRP, 48/1:59-62. [5] Shaw, M.C., Vyas, A., 1998, The Mechanism of Chip Formation when Hard Turning Steel, 47/1:7780. [6] Malkin, S., Guo, C., Wu, Y., Varghese, V., 1999, Temperature and Energy Partition for Grinding with Vitrified CBN Wheels, Ann. CIRP, 48/1:247-250. [7] Klocke, F., Kratz, H., 2005, Advanced Tool Ege Geometry for High Precision hard Turning, Ann. CIRP, 54/1:47-50. [8] Kundrak, J., Bana, V., 2003, Microgeometry of Bore th Holes after Hard Machining, 7 Int. Res. Confer., TMT 2003, Lioret de Mar, Barcelona, Spain. [9] Konig, W., Klinger, M., Link, R., 1990, Machining Hard Materials with Geometrically Defined Cutting Edges-Field of Applications and Limitations, Ann. CIRP, 39:61-64. [10] Schwach, D.W., Guo, Y.B., 2005, A Fundamental Study on the Impact of Surface Integrity by Hard Turning on Rolling Contact Fatigue, Trans. of NAMRI/SME, 33:541-548. [11] Guo, Y.B., Barkey, M.E., 2004, FE-Simulation of the Effects of Machining-induced Residual Stress Profile on Rolling Contact of Hard Machined Components, Int. J. of Mechanical Sciences, 46/3:371-388. [12] Guo, Y.B., Barkey, M.E., 2004, Modeling of Rolling Contact Fatigue for Hard Machined Components with Process-Induced Residual Stress, Int. J. of Fatigue, 26:605-613. [13] Guo, Y.B. and A.W. Warren, A.W., 2004, Microscale Mechanical Behavior of the Subsurface by Finishing Processes, ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 127:333-338. [14] Barry, J., Byrne, G., 2002, TEM Study on the Surface White Layer in Two Turned Hardened Steels. Mat. Sci. Eng., A325: 356-364. [15] Guo, Y.B., Janowski, G.M., 2004, Microstructural Characterization of White Layers by Hard Turning and Grinding, Trans. NAMRI/SME, 32:367-374. [16] Guo, Y.B., Sahni, J., 2004, A Comparative Study of the White Layer by Hard Turning versus Grinding, Int. J. Machine Tools and Manufacture, 44 :135-145.

60

Rolling direction

40

20

Subsurface cracks

0 0
200000

500000

800000

1000000

34.4

86.0

137.6

172 (106 cycles)

Time (sec)

Figure 5: AE signal and the fatigued ground sample.

Amplitude (dB) vs. time (sec)

100

Amplitude shoot Rolling direction

80

60

40

20

Subsurface cracks
Time (sec)
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000

86

172

258

6 344 (10 cycles)

Figure 6: AE signal and the fatigued turned sample.

RCF life (10^6 cycles) 400 300 200 100 0 Surface type

HT G

Figure 7: Life comparison of turned vs. ground samples. 5 SUMMARY The new findings of surface integrity and fatigue resistance for hard turned and ground surfaces can be summarized as follows: Hard turning can achieve very smooth surfaces (0.14 m Ra) being equivalent to grinding (0.18 m Ra). The turned surfaces have much wider and more regular feed marks than those of the ground ones. Mechanical deformation plays a larger role during turning, whereas surface temperatures penetrate deeper into the subsurface in grinding. The size effect is more prominent in grinding than turning, which is demonstrated by the higher hardness in the ground surface/subsurface. The apparent softening measured by microindentation is due to the surface edge rather than thermal effect. The effect of a turned or ground surface free of the white layer on fatigue life was clarified. A superfinished turned surface may have a fatigue life twice as long as a superfinished ground one with equivalent surface finish.