Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

2003-01-1307

Bending Fatigue Life Analysis of Carburized Components Using Strain Life and Fracture Mechanics Approaches
Hong Lin, Gregory A. Fett and Robert R. Binoniemi
Dana Corporation

Reprinted From: Innovations in Steel Sheet & Bar Products (SP-1764)

2003 SAE World Congress Detroit, Michigan March 3-6, 2003

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. For permission and licensing requests contact: SAE Permissions 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA Email: permissions@sae.org Fax: 724-772-4028 Tel: 724-772-4891

For multiple print copies contact: SAE Customer Service Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Fax: 724-776-1615 Email: CustomerService@sae.org ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 2003 SAE International Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE. Printed in USA

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

2003-01-1307

Bending Fatigue Life Analysis of Carburized Components Using Strain Life and Fracture Mechanics Approaches
Hong Lin, Gregory A. Fett and Robert R. Binoniemi
Dana Corporation

Copyright 2003 SAE International

ABSTRACT
Axle primary gearing is normally carburized for high and balanced resistance to contact fatigue, wear, bending fatigue, and impact loading. The focus of this work is on bending fatigue which is a key design consideration of automotive and commercial vehicle axle gearing. Since a carburized component is basically a composite material with steep gradients in carbon content, hardness, tensile strength and microstructure from surface to the middle of the cross section combined with non-linear residual stress, its bending fatigue life prediction is a complex and challenging task. Many factors affect the bending fatigue performance of axle gearing, such as gear design, gear manufacturing, loading history during service, residual stress distribution, steel grade, and heat treatment. In this paper, the general methodology for bending fatigue life prediction of a carburized component is investigated. Carburized steel composites are treated as two homogeneous materials: case and core. Materials properties are evaluated separately with simulated case and simulated core samples. Two fatigue life analysis approaches are applied for bending fatigue life analysis: the strain-life approach and the crack growth fracture mechanics approach. The fundamental materials fatigue properties needed include strain controlled axial fatigue test data, crack growth rates and fracture toughness. Residual stress distributions are characterized and their effect on bending fatigue life is included in both fatigue life analysis approaches. Bending fatigue tests are conducted on carburized UNotch bar samples, and the test results are compared with the life prediction results. Several important factors in bending fatigue life analysis of carburized components are discussed and included in the life prediction, such as bending stress gradient, mean stress, initial defect size, and residual stress. Finally the pros and cons of the two fatigue life analysis approaches are compared and summarized.

INTRODUCTION
Carburizing is widely applied to gears, bearings and other highly stressed machine parts to improve both surface contact fatigue and wear performance. Besides the surface durability performance, bending fatigue is a key design consideration for carburized steel components, especially gear teeth. As a result, bending fatigue of carburized steels and components has been investigated continuously over the last 25 years [1-15]. Early pioneer works (1) and (2) focused on the monotonic, cyclic stress-strain and strain life behavior of simulated case and simulated core of 4027 and 8620 steels by following the strain life fatigue analysis approach. The simulated case exhibited nearly complete elastic behavior with less than 1% total strain at fracture point. The simulated core exhibited cyclic softening behavior, while the simulated case shown cyclic hardening behavior. In terms of fatigue behavior both works concluded that simulated case materials were superior in high cycle regime because of their higher strength, and the simulated core materials offered higher fatigue resistance in low cycle regime. The crossover point for the strain life curves of the case and core was at about 100,000 reversals (50,000 cycles). These two comprehensive works have established the fundamental understanding of the axial fatigue behavior of carburizied case and core materials, although no attempt was made to use the axial fatigue data for predicting bending fatigue life of carburized components. The fracture mechanics approach was also used quite widely for bending fatigue analysis of carburized components and steels (3-7). In (3) the effect of residual stress at and near surface on fatigue life was modeled by using the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) theory. The influence of residual stress on fatigue life was quantified by analyzing the change in stress intensity due to residual stress. Fracture toughness K1c

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

tests of various simulated case steels were conducted in (4). In this excellent work (4), factors influencing K1c of case steels were investigated thoroughly, including alloying elements, retained austenite, and carbon content. More research was done during the 1990s specifically on bending fatigue of carburized spur gear teeth using the fracture mechanics approach (5-7). A unique and original analysis approach was developed in (5). A carburized gear tooth was treated as a composite material with continuous variation of carbon content and hardness. Fatigue crack growth rates and fracture toughness of the carburized steel composite was described as a function of hardness. Residual stress was also estimated from hardness distribution. Gear bending fatigue life was then calculated and gear teeth bending strength was evaluated using the LEFM theory. In (7) gear tooth bending fatigue life has been analyzed using a fracture mechanics based software package CRACKS (16). The effect of steel grade and residual stress on bending fatigue life of gear teeth has been evaluated computationally. The predicted fatigue life was correlated with single tooth bending fatigue test data well. Besides the strain-life and the fracture mechanics approaches, notched bar and single tooth bending fatigue testing have been used extensively for evaluation of gear bending fatigue performance (8, 9). In (8), extensive experimental work was performed with notched bar samples under bending load. Several factors were evaluated, such as steel chemistry, core hardness, case depth and loading rate. Dowling and his co-authors (9) also used notched bars to study the effect of carburizing process, alloying, surface oxidation and near surface residual stress on bending fatigue behavior. The Advanced Steel Processing and Products Research Center (ASPPRC) at The Colorado School of Mines has been conducting research on bending fatigue of carburized gear steels since the 1980s (10-15). Fatigue performance of carburized steels was characterized by StressLife (S-N) curves from testing the modified Brugger cantilever beam type of samples. The focus of their research, however, was on the effect of alloying, heat treatment and microstructure on bending fatigue performance. The majority of ASPPRCs research did not involve bending fatigue life analysis or life prediction probably due to their focus on steel and processing.

As reviewed in the above sections, although extensive research has been conducted very few works were focusing on the life analysis or life prediction, especially with the strain life approach. Therefore, the main objective of this work is to investigate the general methodology of bending fatigue life prediction, especially with the strain life approach. Furthermore, this work is motivated by the following three factors: 1) The demand for higher power density, lower weight, faster speed to market and longer warranty increases tremendously in recent years. As a result, the computational fatigue design approach is being adopted by the automotive industry to reduce design cycle time and testing effort. 2) Finite Element Analysis based fatigue life prediction software, such as FE-Fatigue (18) and FE/Safe (19) has become available in recent years. But the methodology for bending fatigue life prediction of carburized components has not been clearly developed yet. 3) Recently, American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) has organized a cooperative research program to develop axial strain controlled fatigue properties of carbon steels and carburized alloy steels for automotive industry. A cyclic stress strain curve and strain life fatigue properties database is being developed (17) which includes some common gear steel grades such as 8620, 4320 and 4620. The database not only makes bending fatigue life prediction possible, but it also provides the challenge of how to use the data and the associated strain life approach to predict bending fatigue life of carburized components. This research has three specific technical objectives: 1. To predict bending fatigue life of carburized steel U-notch bar samples using the strain life approach with axial strain-controlled fatigue test data, 2. To predict bending fatigue life of the carburized U-notch bar samples using the fracture mechanics approach, 3. To compare the strain-life methodology and the fracture mechanics methodology specifically on predicting bending fatigue behavior of carburized components.

700

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

U-NOTCH BARS BENDING FATIGUE DATA MATERIAL

The U-notch bar samples were cut from stems of axle pinions before heat treatment. The grain flow is along the longitudinal direction of the sample. The material is SAE 8620 steel. Chemistry composition is analyzed per ASTM E415-99, and given in the table below (weight %): Table 1. Chemistry composition of Sample A2 and B3 (SAE 8620 Steel)
SAE 8620 Specifications .18 / .23 .70 / .90 .025 MAX. .030 MAX. .15 / .35 .40 / .70 .40 / .60 .15 / .35 .35 MAX. .015 / .050

C Mn P S Si Ni Cr Mo Cu Al

A2 .22 .86 .013 .015 .24 .46 .54 .18 .11 .019

B3 .21 .86 .013 .015 .23 .46 .53 .18 .11 .019

Figure 1. Typical CASE microstructure, nital etch, marker length is 0.0508 mm (0.002 inch), IGO layer at the surface is also shown.

Samples were gas carburized, quenched and then tempered. Effective case depth is 1.24 mm (0.049 inch). Case hardness is 62 HRc, core hardness is 42 HRc. Grain size in the case is No. 9.25 per ASTM E112 which corresponds to average grain diameter of 14.6 microns.

MICROSTRUCTURE Case microstructure is high carbon tempered martensite and retained austenite, as shown in Figure. 1. Core microstructure is primarily low carbon tempered martensite, as shown in Figure 2. All samples also had an intergranular oxidation (IGO) layer at the surface approximately 13 to 15 microns deep (0.0005 to 0.0006 inch), as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Typical CORE microstructure, nital etch, marker length is 0.0508 mm (0.002 inch).

701

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

Table 3. Retained austenite data for sample A1 and B4. Sample A1 Depth (mm) 0.0 0.025 0.050 0.076 0.152 0.229 0.305 0.381 Figure 3. Backscatter electron image of typical IGO at the surface, depth is approximately 13 15 microns, nital etch. Average RA (%) 11.50 18.40 22.00 25.70 31.90 20.40 23.80 18.60 21.53 Sample B4 RA (%) 0.60 4.80 8.10 9.30 12.00 12.50 12.10 12.60 9.0

The shot peen operation increased compressive residual stress significantly and reduced retained austenite content.

RESIDUAL STRESS (RS) AND RETAINED AUSTENITE DATA Group A samples are the carburized, quenched and tempered baseline samples. Group B samples were heat treated together with the Group A samples, then shot peened. The near surface residual stress distributions were measured for both Group A and Group B samples. The results are given in Table 2 below.

U-NOTCH BAR GEOMETRY AND FATIGUE TEST DATA

The U-Notch bar sample has a square cross section of 12.7 mm by 12.7 mm (0.5 inch by 0.5 inch), length 64 mm (2.5 inch), notch depth is 1.9 mm (0.075 inch), notch radius is 2.29 mm (0.090 inch). Three point bending fatigue tests were conducted under load control. Minimum stress was kept constant at 220 MPa for all tests. Thus R (R= minimum stress / maximum stress) ratio was from 0.13 to 0.25. Failure criterion was displacement change since the test is under load control. At high load and low cycle regime, fatigue life included both crack nucleation and crack growth life while at low load and high cycle regime, fatigue life was mainly crack nucleation life and possibly small crack growth life. Notch root stress versus applied load relation was established by using linear elastic finite element analysis. Fatigue test results of Group A and Group B samples are given in the Tables 4 and 5 below. Table 4. Group A Samples Baseline Fatigue Test data Max Min Stress (MPa) 1710 220 1500 220 1289 220 1072 220 855 220 Fatigue Life (cycles) 2199, 2975, 3251, 4242 4620, 7131, 7797, 8191 16612, 17554, 23643, 23976 52656, 177962, two tests run out at 2 million cycles 4 run out tests at 2 million cycles

Table 2. Residual stress data of as carburized sample A1 and shot peened sample B4 Sample A1 Depth (mm) 0.0 0.025 0.050 0.076 0.152 0.229 0.305 0.381 Average RS (MPa) -267 -174 -226 -263 -278 -243 -285 -318 -257 Sample B4 RS (MPa) -523 -841 -1022 -1344 -1322 -1152 -854 -572 -954

Retained austenite (RA) content was also measured for sample A1 and B4, which is given in Table 3 below.

702

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

Table 5. Fatigue test data of Group B samples (shot peened) Max Min Stress (MPa) 1710 220 1500 220 1289 220 1072 220 855 220 Fatigue Life (cycles) 10024 170536 2 million, run out 2 million, run out 4 run out at 2 million

The strain life relation is described by /2 = f /E (2Nf)b + f (2Nf)c Eqn. 2

where /2 is the strain amplitude, /2 is the stress amplitude, Nf is the cycles at failure point. Other material constants in the two equations are defined and given in Table 6 above. LIFE PREDICTION PROCEDURE To predict the U-Notch bar bending fatigue life with the axial strain life data, several factors must be accounted for: Residual stress due to carburizing and/or shot peening Mean stress or R ratio Bending stress and/or notch stress gradient Gradient in case microstructure material, strength and

LIFE PREDICTION WITH STRAIN LIFE APPROACH

In this section, the fatigue life of U-Notch bars is predicted by using the strain life (local strain) approach with the 8620 carburized case material fully reversed (R=-1) axial strain life fatigue data developed by AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute) (17). 8620 THROUGH CARBURIZED CASE STRAIN LIFE BASELINE DATA The strain life data used in this work is from the AISI Bar Steel Fatigue Committee, Steel Strain Life Database, 8620 through carburized case, iteration 38. Material data is given in the Table 6 below. Table 6. 8620 through carburized Case, fully reversed axial strain life materials properties. Elastic Modulus E Yield strength UTS Elongation Hardness Cyclic strength coefficient K Cyclic strain hardening exponent n Fatigue strength coefficient f Fatigue strength exponent b Fatigue ductility coefficient f Fatigue ductility exponent c 202 GPa 920 MPa 1202 MPa 1.0 % 59 HRc 3493 MPa 0.196 1283 MPa -0.071 0.142% -0.111

In this work, we consider the surface layer material at the notch root with length = 12.7 mm (the thickness of the U-Nocth bar sample) and depth=0.050 mm (0.002 inch) as the stressed material volume which, we assume, is under the maximum applied stress and constant residual stress. Also the material volume itself is uniform in hardness and microstructure. When this stressed material volume fails based on the strain life material data, we consider the U-Notch sample fails, i.e. this is a crack nucleation life approach. Any possible remaining life may be analyzed by using the crack growth approach. By using this assumption, bending and/or notch stress gradient, residual stress gradient and case material hardness gradient is accounted, i.e. assumed to be constant with the material volume. In this work the choice of the depth of this material volume is rather arbitrary. However, it should be related to the smallest finite element size in FEA or the smallest detectable crack size in nondestructive testing. For Group A samples, the average residual stress from sample surface to 0.050 mm is 222 MPa, while for group B samples, the average residual stress is 795 MPa. The compressive residual stress is then added to the applied stresses. As a result, both maximum and minimum applied stress will be reduced. Then the elastic stress and strain (after residual stress correction) is converted into true stress and true strain using the cyclic stress strain relation Eqn. 1 and the Neuber relationship:

The cyclic stress strain relation is described by /2 = /2/E + ( /2/K )1/n Eqn. 1

703

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

Elastic stress x elastic strain = true stress x true strain Eaxmple: Group A Data #1 Applied stress range: 1710 220 MPa, After residual stress 222 MPa correction, stress range becomes 1488 -2 MPa At the high elastic stress strain point: stress: 1488 MPa, strain: 0.7366%=1488/202000, note that strain = stress / E, where E=202 GPa After Neuber correction, true stress and strain is 1160 MPa and 0.936%, respectively. At the minimum stress and strain point, minimum stress = -2 MPa, the corresponding strain is to be calculated from the hysteresis equation: = /E + 2( /2/K )1/n With = 1162 MPa, then is calculated to be 0.596%. Therefore the local true stress and strain corresponding to the applied elastic stress range 1710 220 MPa is /2 = 0.298%, max = 1160 MPa, m=580 MPa where max : peak stress, m: mean stress Finally, fatigue life can be calculated with the strain life constants given in Table 6 and two mean stress correction equations (20, 21): SWT (Smith, Watson and Topper) Eqn. (20) : /2 max = f2 /E (2Nf)2b + f f (2Nf)b+ c Morrow Eqn. : /2 = (f - m ) /E (2Nf)b + f (2Nf)c With the Morrow Eqn. Fatigue life is 250 cycles, while with the SWT Eqn. N=650 cycles. The entire procedure is then repeated for each applied stress level with both Group A and Group B samples. The complete fatigue life prediction results are given in the Tables 7 and 8, and plotted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 below: Figure 1. Group A U-notch bar test data and life predictions by Morrow and SWT life equations. The data points with fatigue life of two millions cycles are run out tests. Table 7. Life predictions by strain life approach, Group A as carburized samples. Applied Stress (MPa) 1710 220 1500 220 1289 220 1072 220 855 220 Life by Morrow (cycles) 250 1500 15000 350000 3250000 Life by SWT (cycles) 650 2300 11500 120000 1362000

704

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

Table 8. Life predictions by strain life approach, Group B samples, carburized and shot peened Applied Stress (MPa) 1710 220 1500 220 1289 220 1072 220 Life by Morrow (cycles) 1500 25000 176800 10 million run out Life by SWT (cycles) 1000 12500 198000 10 million run out

K = ( a) Where K: stress intensity factor : geometry factor : applied stress or residual stress a: crack length Crack growth rate: da/dN = f (R, K) where N: cycles R: minimum K / maximum K K: stress intensity factor range f : a function includes curve fitting constants. Crack growth rate vs. K relation is determined experimentally through crack growth rate testing. Crack growth life is calculated by integrating the crack growth rates relation from an initial crack size until failure is reached, which is often defined by Kmax = Kc, where Kc is the fracture toughness of the material. The CRACKS program calculates the stress intensity factor K from applied stress and residual stress based on the weight function method and the geometry of a single semi-elliptical surface crack in a rectangular cross section. Non-linear stress distribution along the thickness direction can be modeled, but along the width stress is assumed to be constant. For the U-Notch bar samples, the following input data is used. U-notch sample cross section width is 12.7 mm, thickness is 10.8 mm. Applied stress along sample thickness direction is assumed to be linear, while the measured near surface non linear residual stress distribution is used. Initial crack is assumed to be a semi-elliptical surface crack. In the case, crack depth = 0.0006 inch=15 microns, crack length = 0.0024 inch = 61 microns. The crack depth is from the intergranular oxidation layer depth at the sample surface. In the core, a semi-circular crack is assumed, crack radius = case depth = 0.049 inch = 1.24 mm. Initial crack size in the case has significant effect on the case fatigue life, especially in the high cycle regime. This issue will be discussed in more detail in the discussion section. The 8620 carburized case and core crack growth and fracture toughness properties are used in the input data in order to calculate crack growth life and determine final fracture, as shown in Table 9. No crack growth condition (infinite life) is determined when the stress intensity range is smaller than the crack growth threshold value determined from crack growth testing. The corresponding stress range can be regarded as the endurance limit which therefore depends on the initial crack size, crack growth threshold value of the material and residual stress.
705

Figure 2. Group B shot peened U-Notch bar test data, life predictions by using Morrow and SWT life equations. The data points with fatigue life of two millions cycles were run out tests.

LIFE PREDICTION WITH FRACTURE MECHANICS APPROACH

In this section, the fatigue life of the U-Notch bar samples is predicted with the CRACKS program (16) which is based on the linear elastic fracture mechanics theory. The fracture mechanics approach for crack growth life prediction is based on the assumption that the majority of the fatigue life is crack growth life and crack nucleation life is negligible. Since the gas carburized U-Notch samples do have a surface IGO layer up to about 15 20 microns deep, the assumption of initial flaws and significant crack growth life may be justified. The general formulations calculations are as follows: for crack growth life

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

Table 9. 8620 through carburized case and pseudo carburized core, fracture and fatigue properties 8620 steel Hardness (HRc) Kc (MPa m1/2 ) Kth (MPa m1/2) @R=0.05 Case 61 20 3.6 Core 40 107 4.6

DISCUSSIONS
RESIDUAL STRESS (RS) EFFECT ON FATIGUE LIFE U-Notch bar bending fatigue test data for Group A and B samples has shown that shot peen induced compressive residual stress improved low cycle fatigue life by a factor of three to twenty (10,000 cycles vs. 3000 cycles at 1710 220 MPa, 170000 cycles vs. 7000 cycles at 1500 220 MPa). It also improved endurance limit by about 50% (1270 MPa vs. 860 MPa). Both strain life and fracture mechanics approaches can model the effect of residual stress on bending fatigue life. In this work only the average RS of the near surface layer (up to the depth of the assumed material volume) is considered in the strain life approach while the entire measured RS distribution is considered with the fracture mechanics approach. The following table shows the comparison of the endurance limit predicted by the two approaches. Table 12. Comparison of endurance limit (maximum Stress in MPa, minimum stress = 220 MPa, 10 million cycles) Group A samples (As Carburized) Test Data Strain Life Fracture Mech 860 810 (6% lower) 900 (5% higher) Group B Samples (Shot Peened) 1270 1080 (15% lower) 1370 (8% higher)

Table 10. Life prediction by CRACKS, Group A as carburized samples Max Min Stress (MPa) 1724 220 1517 220 1310 220 965 220 900 220 Case life 2172 3851 7317 32115 No crack growth Core Life 1313 2396 4436 14058 Total Life (cycles) 3485 6247 11753 46173 1E7 (run out )

Table 11. Life prediction by CRACKS, Group B shot peened samples Max Min Stress (MPa) 1724 220 1517 220 1448 220 1379 220 Case life 19690 48063 69760 No crack growth Core Life 1789 3040 3628 Total Life (cycles) 21479 51103 73388 1E7 run out

As the results in Table 12 show, both strain life and fracture mechanics approaches predict endurance limits of the U-Notch bars very well. The predictions by the strain life approach are on the conservative side while the predictions by the fracture mechanics approach are on the non-conservative side. CRACK NUCLEATION LIFE VS. CRACK GROWTH LIFE In theory, strain life approach calculates crack nucleation life while fracture mechanics calculates crack growth life. From Fig. 1, it is observed that the life calculation results by using the strain life approach is rather conservative when life N is less than 10,000 cycles which indicates that crack growth life is more significant in low cycle regime (N < 10,000 cycles) for the Group A samples. Fig. 2 shows that up to 1 million cycles, strain life

Figure 3. Life predictions by using fracture mechanics approach. The data points with fatigue life of two millions cycles were run out tests.

706

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

approach is still conservative. This indicates that crack growth life is more significant for the Group B samples with the shot peened residual stress. In (22), similar conclusion was made based on an acoustic emission criterion, i.e. at high load crack growth phase dominates and at low load crack initiation phase dominates. However, residual stress effect was not considered in (22). The definition of crack nucleation size, or the related issue of differentiating crack nucleation life and crack growth life, has been an issue of debate for many years. The current understanding is that the crack nucleation size is somewhere between 0.1 to 0.5 mm. However, with the progress of nondestructive testing technologies such as acoustic emission and ultrasonic, and with the wide recognition of small crack growth (23), smaller cracks can be detected and crack growth life, especially small crack growth life, may become more and more important in life analysis and durability design of passenger and commercial vehicle components. SMALL CRACK AND TRANSITION CRACK SIZE In this work, the initial crack depth in the case is obtained from the IGO layer depth of 15 microns. Crack length is assumed to be 61 microns which is four times that of the crack depth. To verify that such an initial crack is still amendable to an LEFM characterization, the transition crack size a0 is calculated (24). From (24), a0 = 1/ (Kth / e)2 Where Kth: crack growth threshold of the steel e: endurance limit from smooth sample tests From 8620 case data: Kth=3.6 MPa.m1/2 at R=0.05. e=600 MPa at R=0.05, which is calculated from the endurance limit range 800 MPa at R=-1, the AISI smooth sample axial fatigue tests, and the Goodman mean stress correction. As a result, a0 = 1/ (3.6 / 600)2 = 11.5 microns. The initial crack in the case with length = 61 microns, and depth = 15 microns is larger than the transition crack size. MATERIALS FATIGUE LIFE BASELINE DATA In the strain life approach, strain controlled and fully reversed axial fatigue life data and cyclic stress strain data were used as the materials baseline fatigue data to compute the U-notch bar bending fatigue life. In the fracture mechanics approach, fracture toughness and crack growth rate da/dN vs. K data from compact tension long crack samples was used as materials fatigue data. The three set of samples: U-notch bars,

axial fatigue smooth samples and the long crack compact tension samples were not heat treated in the same batch. Thus case microstructure and behavior from the three batches may be slightly different, which may introduce some differences in the life prediction results. Ideally three sets of samples shall be cut from the same batch of steel bars and then heat treated in the same batch. But this is very difficult to achieve, because the through carburized case material for the strain life and crack growth rate tests require much longer heat treatment cycle time in order to get a fairly homogenous case in terms of both carbon content and hardness. STRAIN LIFE VS. FRACTURE MECHANICS In summary the strain life approach uses the following: 1) It uses strain controlled and fully reversed axial fatigue test data, i.e. cyclic stress strain curve and strain life curves, generated from testing smooth samples. 2) It calculates crack nucleation life. In the AISI testing program, the failure criterion is defined as 50% peak load drop, which represents mainly crack nucleation life for the 8620 through carburized case steel. 3) It considers a small material volume at sample surface, 0.050 mm depth in this work, then assumes that the material volume is homogenous and under constant applied stress and constant residual stress. As a result, core steel properties and core fatigue are not considered in fatigue life analysis. In other words, failure is assumed to occur on the sample surface. But generally, the strain life analysis procedure can be applied for the core with the information of applied stress, residual stress, and fatigue properties of the core. However, since the applied bending stress is much lower in the core, maximum shear stress may be the primary parameter for core fatigue (25). 4) Mean stress effect is accounted for by using either the Morrow Equation or the SWT equation. The data in this work shows that both equations give reasonably good mean stress corrections. The life analysis results in this work show that the strain life approach generally gives conservative life results, especially at low cycle regime, which is understandable since this approach calculates crack nucleation life. It predicts endurance limit very well. Fracture mechanics (crack growth) approach uses the following: 1) It is based on linear elastic fracture mechanics theory, i.e. stress intensity factor K as crack tip field characterization parameter, and Paris type crack growth law. It can calculate K from nonlinear applied stress and non linear residual stress distribution with the surface

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

crack in a rectangular cross section two dimensional model. 2) Fracture mechanics approach assumes that an initial defect exists. The size of the initial defect can be determined either from metallurgical examination or from the equivalent initial flaw size methodology. In this work, the depth of the initial crack in the surface of the case is from the depth of the surface IGO layer 15 microns. The length of the initial surface crack in the case is assumed to be four times of the depth: 61 microns. It is not simple to determine the length of the initial surface crack because many cracks exist in the IGO layer and some of them will grow and coalesce under fatigue load. This initial crack may be considered a microscopic small crack since the crack depth 15 microns is approximately the same as the average prior austenite grain diameter of the case steel (ASTM E112 grain size 9.25). 3) It uses long crack growth rate tests and fracture toughness test results as materials fatigue response data. Microscopic small crack effect is not considered in this work. Moreover, case and core are assumed as homogeneous materials. Thus gradients in hardness and microstructure in the case or the case core transition zone are not modeled. The life prediction results in this work show that fracture mechanics approach predicts low cycle fatigue life and endurance limit fairly well. But it is difficult to calculate intermediate and high cycle fatigue life, i.e. from 80,000 cycles to 10 million cycles and beyond, probably because crack nucleation life is more dominant in these life regimes. In summary, the fracture mechanics approach (the CRACKS software) has special merit in the modeling of nonlinear applied stress and residual stress distributions. However, the assumption about initial defects and the calculation of small crack growth life will be the key challenges in using this approach. In this work, the crack depth is from the surface IGO layer depth while the crack length is assumed based on the equivalent initial flaw size methodology, i.e. assuming a crack length which gives good correlation with test data and keeping this length constant. FATIGUE LIFE ANALYSIS VS. TESTING Bending fatigue of carburized components has been an engineering design consideration and a technical challenge for many years. Traditionally it was dealt with the testing approach, such as testing of U-notch bar samples, testing of cantilever beam samples, single gear tooth and gearbox dynamometer testing. The testing approach is generally considered reliable and the overall effect of many factors affecting bending fatigue performance can be evaluated together. On the other hand, however, the testing approach tends to be time consuming and costly. In addition, it is difficult to evaluate the effect of any individual factor on bending fatigue performance.

During the 1990s, fatigue life analysis approach by using fatigue design software was established. Several fatigue design software have been introduced and computational fatigue design in early product design stage has become possible (18, 19). The analysis approach cannot replace the testing approach entirely, but it may accelerate the design process, reduce late design changes and improve reliability, with the support of the testing approach and test data. The main objective of this work is to investigate and explore the general methodology of conducting bending fatigue analysis for carburized components especially with the strain life approach.

CONCLUSION
Both strain life and fracture mechanics approaches are used to predict the bending fatigue life of carburized UNotch bar samples. Both approaches give fairly good life predictions even though certain assumptions exist. Strain life approach gives conservative life results at low cycle regime. But it predicts endurance limit very well. Fracture mechanics approach predicts low cycle fatigue life and endurance limit reasonably well, but it is difficult to calculate or predict high cycle fatigue life from 80,000 cycles and beyond.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Dana Corporation, Traction Technologies Torque Management Group, Heavy Vehicle Technology and Systems Group, and Advanced Technology Resource Group. Authors would like to thank Dana Corporation for support of this work and permission for publication of the results. AISI Bar Fatigue Committee is acknowledged for permission to use the test data of 8620 carburized case.

REFERENCE
1. Landgraf R.W. and Richman R. H., 1975, Fatigue Behavior of Carburized Steels, ASTM STP 569, Fatigue of Composite Materials, pp. 130-144. 2. Waraniak J. M. and Socie D. F., 1981, Cyclic Deformation and Fatigue Behavior of Carburized Steels, Wear and Fracture prevention, ASM, Metals Park, OH, pp. 237-259. 3. Kim C., Diesburg D.E., and Eldis G.T., 1982, Effect of Residual Stress on Fatigue Fracture of Case-Hardened SteelsAn Analytical Model, ASTM STP 776, Residual Stress Effect in Fatigue, pp. 224-234. 4. Sharma V. K., Walter G.H., Breen D.H., 1989, Factors Influencing Fracture Toughness of High Carbon Martensitic Steels, Gear Technology, Jan/Feb, pp. 7-18.

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 06:17:40 AM

5. Kato M., Deng G., Inoue K., Takatsu N., 1993, Evaluation of Strength of Carburized Spur Gear Teeth Based on Fracture Mechanics, JSME, Series C, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 233-239. 6. Blarasin A., Guagliano M., Vergani L., 1997, Fatigue Crack Growth Prediction in Specimens Similar to Spur Gear Teeth, Fatigue Fracture Engng. Mater. Structure, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 1171-1182. 7. Lin H., Bujold M., 1999, Truck Transmission Gears Fatigue Design and Life Simulations Using Fracture Mechanics, FATIGUE99, pp. 2635-2640. 8. Fett G., 1988, Bending Properties of Caburizing Steels, Advanced Materials and Processing, 4, pp. 4345. 9. Dowling W.E., Donlon W.T., Copple W.B., Darragh C.V., 1999, The Influence of Heat Treat Process and Alloy on the Surface Microstructure and Fatigue Strength of Carburized Alloy Steel, SAE Paper 1999-010600. 10. Krauss G., 1996, Bending Fatigue of Carburized Steels, ASM Handbook Vol. 19, Fatigue and Fracture, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, pp. 680-690. 11. Cohen R.E., Krauss G., Matlock D.K., 1993, Bending Fatigue Performance of Carburized 4320 Steel, SAE Paper 930963 12. Wise J.P., 2000, Bending Fatigue of Carburized Steels: a Statistical Analysis of Process and Microstructural Parameters, SAE Paper 2000-01-0611 13. Medlin D., Krauss G., Matlock D.K., et al., 1995, Comparison of Single Tooth and Cantilever Beam

Bending Fatigue Testing of Carburized Steel, SAE Paper 950212 14. Hyde R.S., Krauss G., Matlock D.K., 1994, The Effect of Reheat Treaments on Fatigue and Fracture of Carburized Steels, SAE Paper 940788. 15. Erven K.A., Matlock D.A., Krauss G., 1991, Effects of Sulur on Bending Fatigue of Carburized Steels, J. Heat Treating, Vol. 9, o. 1, pp. 27-35. 16. CRACKS98, 1998, University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio, USA 17. AISI, 2000, Bar Steel Fatigue Database, Southfield, MI, USA. 18. FE-Fatigue Software, 2000, nCode International, Inc. Southfield, MI, USA 19. FE/Safe Software, Safe Technologies, Sheffield, UK 20. Smith R.N., Watson P., Topper T.H., 1970, A StressStrain Parameter for the Fatigue of Metals, J. Materials, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 767-778. 21. Morrow J., 1965, Cyclic Plastic Strain Energy and Fatigue of Metals, ASTM STP 378, pp. 45-87. 22. Singh A., 2002, The nature of initiation and Propagation S-N curves at and below the endurance limit. Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, Vol. 25, No1., pp. 79-90. 23. Suresh S. and Ritchie R.O., 1984, Propagation of Short Fatigue Cracks. Int. Metal Reviews 29, pp. 445476. 24. Suresh S., 1991, Fatigue of Materials, Cambridge University Press, 1st edition, page 297. 25. Mackaldener M., Olsson M., 2000, Interior Fatigue Fracture of Gear Teeth, Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct, 23, pp. 283-292.