Metals: Optimizing Gear Performance by Alloy Modification of Carburizing Steels

metals
Article
Optimizing Gear Performance by Alloy Modification
of Carburizing Steels
Thomas Tobie 1 , Frank Hippenstiel 2 and Hardy Mohrbacher 3, *
1 FZG—Gear Research Centre, Technical University of Munich, 85748 München, Germany;
tobie@fzg.mw.tum.de
2 BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH, 57076 Siegen, Germany; frank.hippenstiel@bgh.de
3 NiobelCon bvba, Department of Materials MTM—KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
* Correspondence: hm@niobelcon.net; Tel.: +32-3-484-5260
Received: 30 August 2017; Accepted: 26 September 2017; Published: 6 October 2017
Abstract: Both the tooth root and tooth flank load carrying capacity are characteristic parameters
that decisively influence gear size, as well as gearbox design. The principal requirements towards all
modern gearboxes are to comply with the steadily-increasing power density and to simultaneously
offer a high reliability of their components. With increasing gear size, the load stresses at greater
material depth increase. Thus, the material and particularly the strength properties also at greater
material depth gain more importance. The present paper initially gives an overview of the main
failure modes of case carburized gears resulting from material fatigue. Furthermore, the underlying
load and stress mechanisms, under particular contemplation of the gear size, will be discussed, as
these considerations principally define the required material properties. Subsequently, the principles
of newly developed, as well as modified alloy concepts for optimized gear steels with high load
carrying capacity are presented. In the experimental work, the load carrying capacity of the tooth root
and tooth flank was determined using a pulsator, as well as an FZG back-to-back test rig. The results
demonstrate the suitability of these innovative alloy concepts.
Keywords: gear steel; gear failure; tooth root fatigue strength; pitting resistance; quench distortion;
microalloying; hardenability; toughness; grain coarsening
1. Introduction
Gears and gearboxes are used for a wide range of applications. For example, high power wind
turbines usually have a gearbox transforming the low speed rotor shaft rotation into the higher
rotational speed required by the generator. Approximately 85 percent of today’s windmills are
equipped with a gearbox. Usually, such gearboxes are designed as one- or two-stage planetary
transmissions. These gearboxes have been gradually increasing in size over recent years due to the
up-scaling of individual turbine sizes. In combination with this performance growth, the economic
and qualitative optimizations of the entire manufacturing chain are of high importance. The gears in
wind turbines are sometimes exposed to extremely high loads at the gear flanks and in the tooth root
of the gear teeth, for example during sudden changes of wind speed or hard stops. Many failures and
breakdowns of wind turbines, accordingly, originated in the gearbox, leading to significant outages
and replacement costs. The powertrain of a windmill accounts for approximately 25 percent of the
total equipment cost. In the mining industry, gears and gearboxes can be found in a variety of different
applications along the entire process chain such as conveyor drives for extraction, gearboxes for mill
drive systems in the processing stage or gearboxes for the stacker reclaimer and special trucks for the
transportation process. Most of the gears in these applications also have to transmit high torque, are
often subjected to demanding operating conditions and have to achieve long service life. Consequently,
large-sized gears can be found in many of these products.
Metals 2017, 7, 415; doi:10.3390/met7100415 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2017, 7, 415 2 of 20
The general requirements for high performance gear components are a hard case providing
adequate fatigue strength, as well as wear resistance and a tough core preventing brittle failure under
high impact loads [1]. Accordingly, various alloy concepts, thermo-mechanical and thermo-chemical
treatments have been developed to achieve this property combination. Commonly, gears are therefore
case carburized. The heat treatment process of case carburizing is complex, requiring a high
level of technical knowledge, as well as a profound understanding of the material characteristics.
Alloy concepts for medium- and large-sized gear applications significantly vary in different markets
due to historical drivers (e.g., automotive, machine building, military), practical experiences, as well
as the local preference for certain alloying elements (Table 1).
Table 1. Major carburizing steel grades for medium- and large-sized gears in various
geographical markets.
Alloy Addition in wt %
Steel Grade Standard
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Ni Region
min. 0.17 - 1.10 - - 1.00
20MnCr5 EN 10084 (1.7147) - -
max. 0.22 0.40 1.40 0.035 0.035 1.30 Western
min. 0.15 - 0.50 - - 1.50 0.25 1.40 Europe
18CrNiMo7-6 EN 10084 (1.6587)
max. 0.21 0.40 0.90 0.025 0.035 1.80 0.35 1.70
min. 0.14 - 0.40 - - 1.40 1.40 France,
15CrNi6 EN 10084 (1.5919) -
max. 0.19 0.40 0.60 0.035 0.035 1.70 1.70 Germany
min. 0.14 - 0.60 - - 0.80 0.15 1.20
17NiCrMo6-5 EN 10084 (1.6566) Italy, France
max. 0.20 0.40 0.90 0.025 0.035 1.10 0.25 1.50
min. 0.18 0.15 0.70 - - 0.40 0.15 0.40
SAE 8620 SAE J1249
max. 0.23 0.35 0.90 0.030 0.040 0.60 0.25 0.70 North
min. 0.08 0.15 0.45 - - 1.00 0.08 3.00 America
SAE 9310 SAE J1249
max. 0.13 0.35 0.65 0.025 0.040 1.40 0.15 3.50
min. 0.17 0.17 0.80 - - 1.00 0.00 -
20CrMnTi GB T 3077-1999
max. 0.23 0.37 1.10 0.035 0.035 1.30 0.15 0.30
China
min. 0.17 0.17 0.90 - - 1.10 0.20 -
20CrMnMo GB T 3077-1999
max. 0.23 0.37 1.20 0.025 0.035 1.40 0.30 0.30
min. 0.18 0.15 0.60 - - 0.90 0.15
SCM420 JIS - Japan
max. 0.23 0.35 0.85 0.030 0.030 1.20 0.30
Carburizing steels must comply with the following key requirements with regard to component
properties and durability:
• Chemical composition/hardenability;
• Homogeneity/microscopic and macroscopic cleanness;
• Mechanical properties (tensile strength, fatigue strength and toughness);
• Wear resistance, contact fatigue strength, bending strength and vibration resistance;
• High and uniform dimensional stability [2].
DIN EN 10084 and ISO 683-11 [3,4] specify the technical delivery conditions for carburizing steel
grades. Besides the classification and designation of the steel grades, also the production processes,
requirements (e.g., hardenability ranges), as well as the testing and inspection procedures are specified.
In addition to these general standards, many end users have issued proprietary delivery specifications,
which describe particular demands (e.g., austenite grain size) in more detail. This is a result of the many
possible processing routes for the production of carburized components. Depending on the component
requirements, different sequences of annealing, hardening and machining are pursued (Figure 1). For
instance, when a high dimensional stability of the component is needed, pre-hardening is performed
before and stress relieving after machining. It is hence essential to take the entire process chain into
consideration when optimizing the material. For the design of large-scale gearboxes, steel grades are
commonly selected according to the requirements specified in DIN 3990/ISO 6336, Part 5 [5,6]. Figure 2
Metals 2017, 7, 415 3 of 20
indicates as an example the anticipated tooth root endurance strength of various steel alloys and heat
treatment concepts.
Metals 2017, 7, 415 Within the strength fields, in general, three quality levels—ML, MQ, ME acc.
3 of 20
Metals 2017, 7, 415 3 of 20
to [5,6]—can be distinguished: grade ML stands for the minimum requirement; grade MQ represents
in general, three quality levels ‐ML, MQ, ME acc. to [5,6]‐ can be distinguished: grade ML stands for
requirements that can be met by experienced manufacturers at moderate cost; grade ME represents
in general, three quality levels ‐ML, MQ, ME acc. to [5,6]‐ can be distinguished: grade ML stands for
the minimum requirement; grade MQ represents requirements that can be met by experienced
the minimum
requirements that mustrequirement;
be aimedgrade
at whenMQ higher
represents requirements
allowable stresses that can be met
are desirable by experienced
(Figure 2). It is obvious
manufacturers at moderate cost; grade ME represents requirements that must be aimed at when
manufacturers
that the highest strength values are achievable for case carburized gears of quality grade ME. at
at moderate cost; grade ME represents requirements that must be aimed Thewhen
diagram
higher allowable stresses are desirable (Figure 2). It is obvious that the highest strength values are
higher allowable stresses are desirable (Figure 2). It is obvious that the highest strength values are
relates an easily measurable property like, in this case, surface hardness to a complex system property
achievable for case carburized gears of quality grade ME. The diagram relates an easily measurable
achievable for case carburized gears of quality grade ME. The diagram relates an easily measurable
such property
as the tooth root
like, endurance
in this strength.
case, surface The fact
hardness that
to a for a given
complex system surface hardness,
property such as athe
rather wide
tooth root range
property like, in this case, surface hardness to a complex system property such as the tooth root
of tooth root endurance
endurance strength. strength
The fact levels can
that for be obtained
a given surface suggests
hardness, that alloywide
a rather composition,
range of microstructure
tooth root
endurance strength. The fact that for a given surface hardness, a rather wide range of tooth root
endurance strength
and thermo-chemical levels can
treatment have be an
obtained
extremelysuggests that alloy
high impact composition,
on the actual gearmicrostructure
performance. and Another
endurance strength levels can be obtained suggests that alloy composition, microstructure and
systemthermo‐chemical treatment have an extremely high impact on the actual gear performance. Another
property of high importance for gear durability is the resistance to gear flank failures like pitting,
thermo‐chemical treatment have an extremely high impact on the actual gear performance. Another
system property of high importance for gear durability is the resistance to gear flank failures like
micropitting, as well as tooth flank fracture. High contact pressure, the status of lubrication, material
system property of high importance for gear durability is the resistance to gear flank failures like
pitting, micropitting, as well as tooth flank fracture. High contact pressure, the status of lubrication,
properties, microstructure and chemical composition influence these system properties. Furthermore,
pitting, micropitting, as well as tooth flank fracture. High contact pressure, the status of lubrication,
material properties, microstructure and chemical composition influence these system properties.
material toproperties,
with respect the flank load microstructure and chemical
carrying capacity, composition
case carburized influence
materials of these system quality
the highest properties.
level ME
Furthermore, with respect to the flank load carrying capacity, case carburized materials of the highest
Furthermore, with respect to the flank load carrying capacity, case carburized materials of the highest
typically show the highest achievable strength values.
quality level ME typically show the highest achievable strength values.
quality level ME typically show the highest achievable strength values.

Figure 1. Typical processing routes for the manufacturing of case‐hardened components.
Figure 1. Typical processing routes for the manufacturing of case-hardened components.
Figure 1. Typical processing routes for the manufacturing of case‐hardened components.

Figure 2. Tooth root load carrying capacity; allowable bending stress numbers according to
Figure 2. Tooth root load carrying capacity; allowable bending stress numbers according to
Figure 2. Tooth root load carrying capacity; allowable bending stress numbers according to ISO 6336-5
ISO 6336‐5 and the indication of quality levels (ML, MQ, ME) [6].
ISO 6336‐5 and the indication of quality levels (ML, MQ, ME) [6].
and the indication of quality levels (ML, MQ, ME) [6].
For both vehicle and industrial transmissions, further optimization of gear steel towards better
For both vehicle and industrial transmissions, further optimization of gear steel towards better
performance under demanding conditions is necessary. This is amongst others motivated by
For both vehicle
performance and
under industrialconditions
demanding transmissions, further optimization
is necessary. of gear
This is amongst steel
others towardsby
motivated better
reducing fuel consumption and emissions, as well as a higher load bearing capacity at the surface, in
reducing fuel consumption and emissions, as well as a higher load bearing capacity at the surface, in
performance under demanding conditions is necessary. This is amongst others motivated by reducing
Metals 2017, 7, 415 4 of 20
fuel consumption and emissions, as well as a higher load bearing capacity at the surface, in the
near Metals 2017, 7, 415
surface case, as well as at greater depths below the surface. A secondary target is 4 of 20 to design
efficient alloying concepts taking the entire processing route into consideration including modified
the near surface case, as well as at greater depths below the surface. A secondary target is to design
or innovative heat treatments. A fundamental way of dealing with these demands is to adjust
efficient alloying concepts taking the entire processing route into consideration including modified
the chemical composition of carburizing steels. In this respect, one can principally define two
or innovative heat treatments. A fundamental way of dealing with these demands is to adjust the
approaches. An economically-driven approach aims at achieving a defined performance spectrum
chemical composition of carburizing steels. In this respect, one can principally define two approaches.
with An economically‐driven approach aims at achieving a defined performance spectrum with a cost‐
a cost-reduced alloy concept, whereas a performance-driven approach targets superior properties
reduced alloy concept, whereas a performance‐driven approach targets superior properties at equal
at equal or moderately increased cost. The current work considers both approaches focusing on
or moderately
modified increased cost.
molybdenum-based The concepts
alloy current work considers
including both approaches
niobium focusing
microalloying. on modified
Thereby, innovative
molybdenum‐based alloy concepts including niobium microalloying. Thereby, innovative heat
heat treatment conditions have also been considered. The success of either strategy is verified by using
treatment conditions have also been considered. The success of either strategy is verified by using
standardized tooth root fatigue tests and back-to-back running tests allowing direct benchmarking
standardized tooth root fatigue tests and back‐to‐back running tests allowing direct benchmarking
against a database of many established gear steel grades.
against a database of many established gear steel grades.
2. Optimization Strategy for Carburizing Steels

2. Optimization Strategy for Carburizing Steels
2.1. Gear Fatigue Failure Modes and Failure Mechanism

2.1. Gear Fatigue Failure Modes and Failure Mechanism
The The
geargear
loadload
carrying
carrying capacity
capacity isis generally
generally limited bydifferent
limited by differentfailure
failure modes.
modes. Each
Each failure
failure
modemode
is decisively influenced
is decisively influenced byby thethe gear
gear design, the gear
design, the gearmaterial
materialcharacteristics,
characteristics,
the the operating
operating
conditions and the gear lubricant performance. Nevertheless, each single failure mode is dominated
conditions and the gear lubricant performance. Nevertheless, each single failure mode is dominated by
different physical physical
by different parameters parameters
and subject and tosubject
different to failure
different failure mechanisms.
mechanisms. A profound A understanding
profound
understanding of the underlying mechanism and of the relevant load and stress conditions, under a
of the underlying mechanism and of the relevant load and stress conditions, under a particular
particular contemplation of the gear size, are essential requirements in order to select an appropriate
contemplation of the gear size, are essential requirements in order to select an appropriate gear
gear material with optimized material properties in the entire gear volume to provide a sufficiently
material with optimized material properties in the entire gear volume to provide a sufficiently high
high load carrying capacity. Gear failures basically can be divided into material fatigue‐related
load carrying capacity. Gear failures basically can be divided into material fatigue-related failures and
failures and non‐fatigue failure modes, which are primarily due to tribological problems in the
non-fatigue failure modes, which are primarily due to tribological problems in the lubricated contact,
lubricated contact, such as for instance scuffing. A further differentiation of gear failures is possible
such based on the failure initiation site. Regarding the location on the gear, this can be either the gear flank
as for instance scuffing. A further differentiation of gear failures is possible based on the failure
initiation site.
or the Regarding
tooth root area. the location
On the other on theit gear,
hand, is the this can be either
crack initiation the
site gear flank
located at the or the tooth
surface or at root
area. greater material depth. All these aspects can result in different requirements towards the material
On the other hand, it is the crack initiation site located at the surface or at greater material depth.
properties in different areas.
All these aspects can result in different requirements towards the material properties in different areas.
FigureFigure 3 shows the main gear failure modes related to material fatigue, which are targeted for
3 shows the main gear failure modes related to material fatigue, which are targeted for
optimization in the present investigation. Pitting and tooth root breakage are the typical appearances
optimization in the present investigation. Pitting and tooth root breakage are the typical appearances
of fatigue failure in gears. Both failure types are usually initiated at the surface or close to the surface
of fatigue failure in gears. Both failure types are usually initiated at the surface or close to the surface
and are characterized by a crack propagating further into the material. While the pitting load capacity
and are characterized by a crack propagating further into the material. While the pitting load capacity
is strongly influenced by the Hertzian contact stresses in the gear contact, the tooth root strength is
is strongly
related influenced
to bending by the Hertzian
stresses contact
in the root stresses inin
fillet. Differences the gear
the contact,
nature of the the toothand
contact root strength is
bending
related to bending stresses in the root fillet. Differences in the nature of the contact
stresses may result in different requirements regarding the material properties in relevant material and bending stresses
may result
areas. in different requirements regarding the material properties in relevant material areas.

Figure 3. Main gear fatigue failure modes.
Figure 3. Main gear fatigue failure modes.
Additionally, the failure mode of micropitting can negatively influence the gear performance.
Additionally, the failure mode of micropitting can negatively influence the gear performance.
Micropitting is most often observed at the surface of the loaded gear flank, typically occurring under
unfavorable lubricating conditions. Micropitting can also be considered as a fatigue failure, yet with
Micropitting is most often observed at the surface of the loaded gear flank, typically occurring under
a crack propagation limited to the near‐surface zone. Consequently, micropitting is controlled by the
unfavorable lubricating conditions. Micropitting can also be considered as a fatigue failure, yet with
material characteristics in the near‐surface zone. Furthermore, the contact load at the flank surface
a crack propagation limited to the near-surface zone. Consequently, micropitting is controlled by the
also induces stresses deeper in the material. If these stresses exceed the prevailing local strength of
material characteristics in the near-surface zone. Furthermore, the contact load at the flank surface also
Metals 2017, 7, 415 5 of 20
Metals 2017, 7, 415 5 of 20

the material, subsequent failure with crack initiation below the surface may arise. In the literature,
such failure types are referred to as tooth interior fatigue fracture (TIFF), tooth flank fracture or sub‐
surface fatigue. As the load‐induced stresses at greater material depths increase with increasing gear
induces stresses deeper in the material. If these stresses exceed the prevailing local strength 5 of 20
Metals 2017, 7, 415 of the material,
size, the strength
subsequent failure with properties of the material
crack initiation below theat a greater
surface material
may arise. depth
In the consequently
literature, such failuregain in
types
the material, subsequent failure with crack initiation below the surface may arise. In the literature,
importance for large gears.
are referred to as tooth interior fatigue fracture (TIFF), tooth flank fracture or sub-surface fatigue. As the
such failure types are referred to as tooth interior fatigue fracture (TIFF), tooth flank fracture or sub‐
The stress condition in a gear tooth basically is in relation to the tooth normal force acting in the
load-induced stresses at greater material depths increase with increasing gear size, the strength properties
surface fatigue. As the load‐induced stresses at greater material depths increase with increasing gear
gear
of thecontact,
size, which
material at again
the astrength
greater depends
material
properties of on
depththe the applied
consequently
material at a torque.
gain in
greater This tooth
depth normal
importance
material for large force causes
gears.
consequently gain in contact
stresses at the gear flank and bending stresses especially in the root fillet as is schematically indicated
importance for large gears.
The stress condition in a gear tooth basically is in relation to the tooth normal force acting in
in Figure The stress condition in a gear tooth basically is in relation to the tooth normal force acting in the
4. Further influences on the on actual stress distribution
the gear contact, which again depends the applied torque. Thisarise
toothfrom the force
normal gear causes
geometry, the
contact
gear contact, which again depends on the applied torque. This tooth normal force causes contact
operating conditions and the manufacturing process (residual stress).
stresses at stresses at the gear flank and bending stresses especially in the root fillet as is schematically indicated
the gear flank and bending stresses especially in the root fillet as is schematically indicated
in Figure 4. Further
in Figure influences
4. Further on the
influences actual
on the actual stress distribution
stress distribution arise
arise from from the
the gear gear geometry,
geometry, the the
operating operating conditions and the manufacturing process (residual stress).
conditions and the manufacturing process (residual
Hertzian contact stress stress).
Tooth normal force
Hertzian contact stress high
Tooth normal force
high
Stress level
Stress level
Bending stress
Bending stress
low low

Figure 4. Schematic distribution of stress inside a gear tooth indicating highly loaded areas (Hertzian
contact stress at tooth flank, bending stress at tooth root).
Basically, increasing the gear size allows transmitting a higher torque. However, load‐induced
stresses at greater material depth also become larger with increasing gear size, even if the maximum
Basically, increasing the gear size allows transmitting a higher torque. However, load-induced
Basically, increasing the gear size allows transmitting a higher torque. However, load‐induced
relevant stress value is comparable. Figure 5 demonstrates exemplarily the distribution of the
relevant stresses over material depth for different gear sizes. It is obvious that with increasing gear
relevant
relevant stress
stress value is comparable.
value is comparable. Figure 5 demonstrates
Figure
size, expressed by the radius of curvature ρ exemplarily
5 demonstrates the distribution
exemplarily the
C for the gear flank or the gear module m
of the relevant
distribution
n for the tooth of the
stresses over
root, material depth
respectively, for different
an adjustment of the gear sizes.
hardness It is
profile obvious
becomes that with
necessary. increasing
This is
relevant stresses over material depth for different gear sizes. It is obvious that with increasing gear to keep the gear size,
expressed allowable stress on a larger level than the actual load‐induced stress at any position into the depth.
by the radius of curvature ρC for Cthe gear flank or the gear module mn for the tooth root,
size, expressed by the radius of curvature ρ for the gear flank or the gear module m n for the tooth
Consequently, with increasing gear size, an increased case hardening depth (CHD) is required. The
respectively, an adjustment
root, respectively, of the hardness
an adjustment profile becomes
of the hardness necessary.
profile becomes This is toThis
necessary. keepis theto allowable
keep the
influence of case hardening depth on the pitting and bending strength of gears is shown in Figure 6.
stress on a larger level than the actual load-induced stress at any position into the depth. Consequently,
allowable stress on a larger level than the actual load‐induced stress at any position into the depth.
with increasing gear size, an increased case hardening depth (CHD) is required. The influence of case
Consequently, with increasing gear size, an increased case hardening depth (CHD) is required. The
hardening depth on the pitting and bending strength of gears is shown in Figure 6.
influence of case hardening depth on the pitting and bending strength of gears is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5. Comparison of gear flank contact pressure (left) and tooth root stress (right) vs. the allowable
stress over material depth depending on the gear size represented by the curvature ρC and module
mn for a given tangential driving force Ft [7].

stress over material depth depending on the gear size represented by the curvature ρC and module
stress over material depth depending on the gear size represented by the curvature ρC and module mn
mn for a given tangential driving force F
for a given tangential driving force Ft [7].t [7].
Metals 2017, 7, 415 6 of 20
Metals 2017, 7, 415 6 of 20
Metals 2017, 7, 415 6 of 20

Figure 6. Influence of case hardening depth (Eht is identical to CHD) on the relative pitting endurance
limit σHlim (left) and the relative tooth root endurance σFlim (right) for different gear sizes [8].
Because a different hardness profile also influences the residual stresses (compressive residual
Because a different hardness profile also influences the residual stresses (compressive residual
stresses are assumed over the complete case carburized layer), not only the material strength, but also
stresses
the are assumed
equivalent overcurve
stress the complete case carburized
are influenced layer),
by a different nothardening
case only the material strength,
depth (Figure
Because a different hardness profile also influences the residual stresses (compressive residual but also
7, left).
Obviously, the ratio between local equivalent stress and local material strength is more critical for
the equivalent stress curve are influenced by a different case hardening depth (Figure 7, left). Obviously,
stresses are assumed over the complete case carburized layer), not only the material strength, but also
smaller CHD and, in this case, is most unfavorable at a depth that is close to the case‐core interface.
the ratio
the between
equivalent local equivalent
stress curve are stress and local
influenced by a material strength
different case is more
hardening critical
depth for smaller
(Figure 7, left). CHD
and, Consequently,
in this case, isCHD mostis not only an at
unfavorable important
a depth that influencing
is closeparameter for the interface.
to the case-core pitting and
Obviously, the ratio between local equivalent stress and local material strength is more critical for bending
Consequently,
CHDstrength of gears, but may also strongly contribute to minimizing the risk of a crack initiation below
smaller CHD and, in this case, is most unfavorable at a depth that is close to the case‐core interface.
is not only an important influencing parameter for the pitting and bending strength of gears, but
the surface and CHD
Consequently, thereby reducing
is not the risk of failure due to tooth flank fracture (Figure 7, right).
may also strongly contribute toonly an
minimizingimportant
the riskinfluencing parameter
of a crack initiationfor the
below pitting and bending
the surface and thereby
Furthermore, it is obvious that also increasing the core strength of the gear material may contribute
strength of gears, but may also strongly contribute to minimizing the risk of a crack initiation below
reducing the risk of failure due to tooth flank fracture (Figure 7, right). Furthermore, it is obvious that
to reducing the risk of a failure initiation at greater material depth.
the surface and thereby reducing the risk of failure due to tooth flank fracture (Figure 7, right).
also increasing the core strength of the gear material may contribute to reducing the risk of a failure
Furthermore, it is obvious that also increasing the core strength of the gear material may contribute
initiation at greater material depth. CHD = 0.5 mm
to reducing the risk of a failure initiation at greater material depth. point on pitch circle
1 Contact pressure = constant
CHD = 1.2 mm
strength
CHD = 0.5 mm point on pitch circle
Contact pressure = constant
Equivalent stress
exposureexposure
12
Material strength
CHD = 1.2 mm endangered range

strength
Efffect of hardness profile
Equivalent stress
Material strength
2 endangered range
Material Material
Efffect of hardness profile 3 1 CHD = 1.2 mm

Efffect of residual stress
2 CHD = 1.7 mm
3 CHD = 2.2 mm
3 1 CHD = 1.2 mm
stress Efffect of residual stress
2 CHD = 1.7 mm
Material depth Material depth 3 CHD = 2.2 mm
stress
Material
Figure 7. Exemplary depth
influence of varying case hardening depth on the material
Material depth strength (left),
equivalent stress (left) and material exposure as a function of depth indicating the risk of sub‐surface
Figure Figure 7. Exemplary
7. Exemplary influence ofof varying
influence
overloading (right) [7]. varying case
case hardening
hardening depth
depthon on
the the
material strength
material (left), (left),
strength
equivalent stress (left) and material exposure as a function of depth indicating the risk of sub‐surface
equivalent stress (left) and material exposure as a function of depth indicating the risk of sub-surface
overloading (right) [7].
2.2. Requirements on Material Properties for Large Gear Sizes
overloading (right) [7].
An increased case hardening depth required for large gear sizes is correlated with an increased
carburizing time. Longer carburizing times will affect further material properties and result in special
demands on the material characteristics for large‐sized gears. Some major requirements for optimized
materials with special regard to large gear applications are summarized in the following:
demands on the material characteristics for large‐sized gears. Some major requirements for optimized
•materials with special regard to large gear applications are summarized in the following:
demands Case hardening depth: adequate CHD is necessary to achieve the required fatigue strength at the
on the material characteristics for large-sized gears. Some major requirements for optimized
• case and core: for the effects, see Figures 6 and 7; the gear material has to be suitable for long
materials with special regard to large gear applications are summarized in the following:
Case hardening depth: adequate CHD is necessary to achieve the required fatigue strength at the
heat treatment process times to achieve the high CHD required for large gears;
case and core: for the effects, see Figures 6 and 7; the gear material has to be suitable for long
• •CaseSurface hardness: a minimum surface hardness of 660 HV or 58 HRC (Rockwell‐C hardness) is
hardening depth: adequate CHD is necessary to achieve the required fatigue strength at the
heat treatment process times to achieve the high CHD required for large gears;
case required according to existing standards in order to achieve allowable stress numbers for pitting
and core: for the effects, see Figures 6 and 7; the gear material has to be suitable for long heat
• Surface hardness: a minimum surface hardness of 660 HV or 58 HRC (Rockwell‐C hardness) is
treatment
and processof times
bending to achieve
quality theand
levels MQ high CHD
ME; required
higher surface forhardness
large gears;
values do not increase
required according to existing standards in order to achieve allowable stress numbers for pitting
• Surface hardness:
fatigue a
resistance, minimum
but make surface hardness
machinability of
more 660 HV
difficult; or
in 58 HRC
contrast,
and bending of quality levels MQ and ME; higher surface hardness values (Rockwell-C
wear do hardness)
resistance of the is
not increase
surface typically increases with increased surface hardness;
required according
fatigue to existing
resistance, but make standards in order
machinability more to achievein allowable
difficult; stressresistance
contrast, wear numbersof forthe pitting
surface typically increases with increased surface hardness;
and bending of quality levels MQ and ME; higher surface hardness values do not increase fatigue
resistance, but make machinability more difficult; in contrast, wear resistance of the surface
typically increases with increased surface hardness;
Metals 2017, 7, 415 7 of 20
• Core tensile strength and toughness: increased core hardness is known to especially influence the
tooth root bending strength; higher core toughness allows higher core hardness for optimized
strength; furthermore, increased core strength and toughness are assumed to reduce the risk of
tooth flank fracture damages; gear steels with improved hardenability are required to achieve the
desired properties for large gears;
• Microstructure and grain size: fine acicular martensite in the case, as well as fine acicular
martensite and bainite in the core are required for optimized load carrying capacity; fine grain
size, particularly ASTM 8 and finer, is known to positively impact gear flank and tooth root load
carrying capacity; adequate alloying elements are required to ensure grain size stability and fine
microstructure even at long process times of carburization;
• Residual austenite: a certain amount of retained austenite in the case is, due to its ductility,
assumed to be beneficial for micropitting load capacity and may also contribute to an improved
pitting strength; a higher amount of residual austenite may reduce case hardness and bending
strength; up to 25% finely-dispersed retained austenite is allowable according to existing
gear standards;
• Cleanness: non-metallic inclusions are known to act as local stress raisers; depending on inclusion
size and its chemical composition, the gear load carrying capacity, especially the risk of a crack
initiation below the surface, may be diminished; as the highly stressed material volume increases
with the gear size, the probability of critical inclusions located in critical material sections is
increased; consequently, high demands on the cleanness of the gear material especially for large
gears result;
• Area reduction ratio, material homogeneity and intergranular oxidation depth: these are further
parameters that gain special importance for large gears; requirements according to existing gear
standards have to be fulfilled even for larger gear sizes; intergranular oxidation can act as a fatigue
fracture initiation site and may reduce the fatigue strength of the tooth;
• Hardenability: improved hardenability of the gear material is a basic requirement to achieve
several of the above described properties for large gears.
Figure 8 demonstrates the influence of gear size on the tooth root bending strength. Basically,
allowable stress numbers decrease with increasing gear size due to different size effects. Nevertheless,
the results clearly prove that for large gear sizes, gear steel grades with better hardenability
(17CrNiMo6, 17NiCrMo14) achieve significantly higher bending strength values compared to gear steel
grades with lower hardenability (16MnCr5). The difference in gear strength depending on material
hardenability increases with the gear size. Consequently, appropriate alloying elements achieving
high material hardenability and ensuring adequate material characteristics are essential for high
performance carburizing steels in order to meet the requirements of large-sized gears and to provide
an adequate gear load carrying capacity.
As the performance reference for the current study, steel grade 18CrNiMo7-6 (1.6587) has been
selected since this grade is currently being widely used for demanding gear applications in Europe
(refer to Table 1 for alternative gear steel grades used in other geographical regions). The task was to
modify the main alloying elements in a way to achieve either the same performance at lower alloy
cost or better performance at similar alloy cost. The following approach is considered to be relevant in
this respect:
• Improving hardenability;
• Increasing core tensile strength and toughness;
• Increasing fatigue strength in both the case and core;
• Reducing quench distortion and thus negative acting tensile residual stresses;
• Improving microstructural stability to withstand elevated temperatures during manufacturing
and service.
Metals 2017, 7, 415 8 of 20
Figure 8. Influence of gear size on tooth root bending strength for gear materials with different
hardenability; (left) examples of investigated test gears, (upper right) experimentally-determined tooth
root endurance limit for material 16MnCr5 depending on gear size and (lower right) size factor for
tooth root bending strength for different gear steels [9].
A fundamental way to deal with these issues is to adjust the chemical composition of the
carburizing steel. Accordingly, the chemical composition of carburizing steels can be further developed
to achieve the above goals using the following guidelines:
• Minimize intergranular oxidation → reduce Si, Mn and Cr [10];

• Prevent MnS inclusions → reduce S, limit Mn;
• Prevent TiN inclusions → control Ti/N wt % ratio close to three;
• Improve hardenability → increase Mo;
• Improve toughness → increase Ni and Mo;
• Refine and homogenize grain size → balance Nb, Ti, Al and N microalloying addition;
• Strengthen grain boundaries → reduce P and S, add Mo and Nb.
Some previous developments of improved gear steels put the focus on high nickel additions and
reduced molybdenum content (Figure 9). Although this approach provides an elevated core strength
and generally high toughness, the hardness in the near-surface zone can be too low, as nickel is a
very efficient austenite stabilizer. On the other hand, raising the carbon and molybdenum content,
optionally in combination with microalloying elements, shifts the hardenability curve entirely upwards,
thus providing a sufficient safety margin against local overloading in the critical area below the surface.
This second approach may be leading to lower toughness especially when the nickel content is being
reduced. However, refining and homogenizing the martensitic microstructure (packet size) can regain
toughness. It was shown on the example of 18CrNiMo7-6 that below an average martensite packet
size of 20 µm, the impact toughness strongly increases [11]. Since the packet size strongly correlates
with the prior austenite grain size [11,12], control and refinement of the latter one across the entire
processing chain is an appropriate means of improving toughness.
Metals 2017, 7, 415 9 of 20
Figure 9. Effect of alloy modifications on hardenability as compared to standard 18CrNiMo7-6 steel.
3. Controlling Grain Size in Carburizing Steels

Many studies have been indicating that prior austenite grain size control in carburizing steel can
be effectively achieved by using niobium microalloying in combination with other microalloys such
as titanium, aluminum and nitrogen [13–20]. The developed concepts have been used to generally
refine and homogenize the grain size under standard case carburizing conditions. Furthermore, it has
been demonstrated that high temperature carburizing becomes possible without violating grain size
restrictions, thus allowing a faster furnace throughput. This is particularly beneficial when a larger
case depth is required like in gears for trucks and heavy machinery. Additionally, a production concept
for fine-grained carburizing steel has been developed based on an aluminum-free melt. This is to fully
eliminate brittle inclusions deteriorating toughness and fatigue resistance in the steel.
The obstruction of grain coarsening is based on a pinning effect of precipitates on the austenite
grain boundary. For efficient grain boundary pinning, a suitable size and distribution of precipitates is
necessary, which again depends on the prior thermo-chemical treatment, as well as the carburizing
temperature. Above a certain limiting carburizing temperature, the precipitates coarsen or dissolve,
and their pinning effect is lost. It appears to be most efficient keeping as much as possible microalloy
content in solid solution during thermo-chemical processing, which then can precipitate as fine-sized
and homogeneously-distributed particles during up-heating to carburizing temperature. Niobium
has the beneficial characteristic of low solubility in such steel, similar to titanium, providing
temperature-stable precipitates. Yet, niobium has a lower affinity to nitrogen and does not form
1
coarse nitrides, contrary to titanium. Furthermore, its precipitation kinetics is slower so that niobium
remains longer in solution, forming finer and more dispersed precipitates. It was also found that
mixed precipitates of Nb, Ti and N are better resistant against dissolution at a very high austenitizing
temperature. Therefore, a microalloy combination of low Ti (sub-stoichiometric to N) and Nb in the
range of 0.03–0.10% has been proven to be most efficient.
Adding niobium in combination with titanium to the reference grade 18CrNiMo7-6 has a marked
effect on the grain size distribution as shown in Figure 10a. Not only the grain size is generally
much finer, but also the scattering range becomes narrower. The microalloyed variant safely avoids
prohibited grain sizes despite high carburizing temperature (1030 ◦ C) and the long holding time
Metals 2017, 7, 415 10 of 20
(25 h). Similar good results of grain size stability have been obtained with modified variants of
25MoCr4 and 20CrMo5
Metals 2017, 7, 415 grades (Figure 10b). The Nb and Ti dual microalloyed 25MoCr4 variant reveals10 of 20
resistance to coarsening up to a 1050 ◦ C carburizing temperature, whereas the Nb-only microalloyed
20CrMo5 variant is stable up to 1000 ◦ C. The latter alloy indicates that for very high carburizing
high carburizing temperatures, indeed, the addition of multiple microalloys appears to increase the
temperatures, indeed, the
temperature stability addition precipitates.
of pinning of multiple microalloys
However, appears to increase
at standard the temperature
carburizing stability
conditions below
of ◦
pinning precipitates. However, at standard carburizing conditions below 1000 C, also the Nb-only
1000 °C, also the Nb‐only microalloyed concept exhibits very fine austenite grain size with a rather
microalloyed concept exhibits very fine austenite grain size with a rather narrow size distribution.
narrow size distribution.
100
prohibited
16 grain sizes prohibited range
18CrNiMo7-6 mod.
(+Nb, +Ti) 80
Cumulative frequency in %
12
Frequency (%)
18CrNiMo7-6
standard
60
8
40
950C/25h
1000C/20h 20CrMo5 mod./FP
4 1050C/15h
20
950C/25h
1000C/20h 25MoCr4 mod./FP
1050C/15h
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
ASTM austenite grain size Austenite grain size (ASTM)
(a) (b)
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Controlling
Controlling grain
grain size
size in
in carburizing
carburizing steel:
steel: (a)
(a) grain
grain size
size distribution
distribution of
of a a Nb
Nb ++ Ti
Ti
microalloyed 18CrNiMo7‐6 (1.6587) heat‐treated compared to a conventional analysis
microalloyed 18CrNiMo7-6 (1.6587) heat-treated compared to a conventional analysis (carburizing (carburizing
conditions: 1030
conditions: 1030 °C/25
◦ C/25h);
h); (b)
(b) grain
grain size
size stability
stability under
under various
various carburizing
carburizing conditions
conditions for Nb
for Nb
microalloyed 20CrMo5 (1.7264) and 25CrMo4 (1.7325).
microalloyed 20CrMo5 (1.7264) and 25CrMo4 (1.7325).
The martensite start temperature depends on the austenite grain size [21]. The smaller the
The martensite start temperature depends on the austenite grain size [21]. The smaller the
austenite grain size, the lower is the martensite start temperature. Accordingly, in a mixed grain size
austenite grain size, the lower is the martensite start temperature. Accordingly, in a mixed grain
structure, transformation locally occurs at different temperatures. This situation will lead to the
size structure, transformation locally occurs at different temperatures. This situation will lead to the
generation of residual stresses due to the volume change when the microstructure transforms from
generation of residual stresses due to the volume change when the microstructure transforms from
austenite to martensite. The earlier formed martensite islands cannot plastically accommodate the
austenite to martensite. The earlier formed martensite islands cannot plastically accommodate the
transformational volume change of the later formed martensite islands. Hence, imbalanced elastic
transformational volume change of the later formed martensite islands. Hence, imbalanced elastic
stresses cause a macroscopic distortion of the quenched component. It has been experimentally
stresses cause a macroscopic distortion of the quenched component. It has been experimentally
confirmed that a larger grain size scatter results in a larger scatter of distortion (Figure 11a) [22]. The
confirmed that a larger grain size scatter results in a larger scatter of distortion (Figure 11a) [22].
distortion has to be corrected by straightening or hard machining. This is not only costly, but also
The distortion has to be corrected by straightening or hard machining. This is not only costly, but
reduces the thickness of the case layer when performing hard machining. Furthermore, residual
also reduces the thickness of the case layer when performing hard machining. Furthermore, residual
stresses overlay the applied load stresses. Especially tensile residual stresses can cause premature
stresses overlay the applied load stresses. Especially tensile residual stresses can cause premature
failure, for instance under fatigue conditions.
failure, for instance under fatigue conditions.
Consequently, microalloying of case carburizing steel leading to reduced grain size scatter as
Consequently, microalloying of case carburizing steel leading to reduced grain size scatter as
demonstrated above is expected to lower quench distortions. This could indeed be verified for
demonstrated above is expected to lower quench distortions. This could indeed be verified for
components manufactured from the modified variant of 25MoCr4 (320 ppm Nb, pm Ti, 160 ppm N)
components manufactured from the modified variant of 25MoCr4 (320 ppm Nb, pm Ti, 160 ppm N)
shown in Figure 11b. The material was continuously cast into bar. The bar was FP (ferrite‐pearlite)
shown in Figure 11b. The material was continuously cast into bar. The bar was FP (ferrite-pearlite)
annealed before cold extrusion and then again FP annealed. Carburization occurred at 980 °C for 195
annealed before cold extrusion and then again FP annealed. Carburization occurred at 980 ◦ C for
min to a target case depth of 0.95 mm with a total furnace residence of 400 min. The components were
195 min to a target case depth of 0.95 mm with a total furnace residence of 400 min. The components
then quenched in an oil bath (Isorapid 277) held at 60 °C. Subsequently part distortion was
were then quenched in an oil bath (Isorapid 277) held at 60 ◦ C. Subsequently part distortion was
characterized by roundness deviation measurements at five positions as shown in Figure 11b. It is
characterized by roundness deviation measurements at five positions as shown in Figure 11b. It is
obvious that the microalloyed variant has a much lower roundness deviation as compared to the
obvious that the microalloyed variant has a much lower roundness deviation as compared to the
standard alloy. At each measuring position, the deviation was reduced by approximately 50%
standard alloy. At each measuring position, the deviation was reduced by approximately 50% resulting
resulting in a similar reduction of straightening efforts. The cost savings achieved by such reduced
in a similar reduction of straightening efforts. The cost savings achieved by such reduced straightening
straightening or hard machining efforts likely compensate the cost for the microalloys. If the available
equipment allows high temperature carburizing, severe process time savings can be realized. For
instance, for producing a target case depth of 1.5 mm, the total treatment cycle time can be reduced
by 25 and 40 percent when the carburizing temperature is raised to 980 °C and 1030 °C, respectively,
as compared to a standard carburizing temperature of 930 °C.
Metals 2017, 7, 415 11 of 20
or hard machining efforts likely compensate the cost for the microalloys. If the available equipment
allows high temperature carburizing, severe process time savings can be realized. For instance, for
producing a target case depth of 1.5 mm, the total treatment cycle time can be reduced by 25 and
40 percent when the carburizing temperature is raised to 980 ◦ C and 1030 ◦ C, respectively, as compared
to a standard carburizing
Metals 2017, 7, 415 temperature of 930 ◦ C. 11 of 20
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

(a) (b)
Figure 11. Reducing quench distortion in carburizing steel: (a) influence of mean prior austenite grain
Figure 11. Reducing quench distortion in carburizing steel: (a) influence of mean prior austenite
size scattering in steel 16MnCr5 (1.7131) on quench distortion [22]; (b) roundness deviation of a heat‐
grain size scattering in steel 16MnCr5 (1.7131) on quench distortion [22]; (b) roundness deviation of a
treated transmission shaft measured at five positions for standard 25MoCr4 (1.7325) and 25MoCr4
heat-treated transmission shaft measured at five positions for standard 25MoCr4 (1.7325) and 25MoCr4
modified by Nb‐microalloying.
modified by Nb-microalloying.
4. Increasing Hardenability and Tempering Resistance
4. Increasing Hardenability and Tempering Resistance
As outlined above, it is of high interest to avoid a steep hardness gradient in the transition zone
As outlined above, it is of high interest to avoid a steep hardness gradient in the transition zone
from the case layer to the core material. Therefore, the hardenability of the alloy must be improved.
from the case layer to the core material. Therefore, the hardenability of the alloy must be improved.
Several alloying elements,
Several alloying elements, besides
besides carbon,
carbon, contribute
contribute to
to hardenability,
hardenability, such
such as:
as: molybdenum,
molybdenum,
manganese, chromium, nickel, as well as boron microalloying. For cost reduction reasons for the
manganese, chromium, nickel, as well as boron microalloying. For cost reduction reasons for the
alloys, the use of higher manganese and chromium additions, eventually combined with boron
alloys, the use of higher manganese and chromium additions, eventually combined with boron
microalloying, has been favored for many gear applications. However, such a cost‐reduced alloy
microalloying, has been favored for many gear applications. However, such a cost-reduced alloy
concepts, although providing good hardenability, have limitations in terms of toughness and
concepts, although providing good hardenability, have limitations in terms of toughness and tempering
tempering resistance. Besides, the limitation of intergranular oxidation requires reduced Mn, Cr and
resistance. Besides, the limitation of intergranular oxidation requires reduced Mn, Cr and also Si levels.
also Si levels. In the other extreme, alloy producers have developed richly‐alloyed steels for those
In the other extreme, alloy producers have developed richly-alloyed steels for those applications where
applications where transmission failure causes high replacement and outage costs.
transmission failure causes high replacement and outage costs.
An example is 15NiMoCr10‐4 (C: 0.15%, Si: 1.1%, Cr: 1%, Mo: 2% and Ni: 2.5%), which is used
An example is 15NiMoCr10-4 (C: 0.15%, Si: 1.1%, Cr: 1%, Mo: 2% and Ni: 2.5%), which is used
in high‐end applications, e.g., in aerospace or Formula‐1 gears. However, such steel requires special
in high-end applications, e.g., in aerospace or Formula-1 gears. However, such steel requires special
melting technology and is, thus, not widely available. Comparing this steel to another high‐Ni steel
melting technology and is, thus, not widely available. Comparing this steel to another high-Ni steel
(14NiCrMo13‐4), the increase of the molybdenum content from 0.25%–2.0% brings about a significant
(14NiCrMo13-4), the increase of the molybdenum content from 0.25%–2.0% brings about a significant
improvement of hardenability, surface hardness and also tempering resistance [23] (Figure 12a). The
improvement of hardenability, surface hardness and also tempering resistance [23] (Figure 12a).
high tempering resistance of the material bears two important advantages. Firstly, it allows
The high tempering resistance of the material bears two important advantages. Firstly, it allows
performing duplex treatments, i.e., the case‐hardened surface is exposed to a second treatment, such
performing duplex treatments, i.e., the case-hardened surface is exposed to a second treatment, such
as PVD coating or plasma nitriding (PN), for further increasing surface hardness. These treatments
as PVD coating or plasma nitriding (PN), for further increasing surface hardness. These treatments
are usually performed in a temperature window of 300 °C to 500 °C. It is thus a prerequisite that the
are usually performed in a temperature window of 300 ◦ C to 500 ◦ C. It is thus a prerequisite that the
hardness obtained in the underlying material after quenching from the carburizing temperature not
hardness obtained in the underlying material after quenching from the carburizing temperature not
be degraded by the second heat cycle. Secondly, many conventional case carburizing steel grades are
be degraded by the second heat cycle. Secondly, many conventional case carburizing steel grades are
restricted to a maximum operating temperature of 120 °C to 160 °C. A steel grade with high tempering
restricted to a maximum operating temperature of 120 ◦ C to 160 ◦ C. A steel grade with high tempering
resistance can be operated at higher temperatures without degrading. Elevated operating
temperatures may occur for instance by frictional heating when the transmission experiences
lubrication problems.
Good tempering resistance in a typical gear steel base alloy can also be achieved with lower
molybdenum additions, as indicated in Figure 12b. Already, a Mo addition of 0.5% to 0.7% provides
good resistance against softening for tempering parameters up to around 16. Resistance against
Metals 2017, 7, 415 12 of 20
resistance can be operated at higher temperatures without degrading. Elevated operating temperatures
may occur for instance by frictional heating when the transmission experiences lubrication problems.
Good tempering resistance in a typical gear steel base alloy can also be achieved with lower
molybdenum additions, as indicated in Figure 12b. Already, a Mo addition of 0.5% to 0.7% provides
good resistance against softening for tempering parameters up to around 16. Resistance against
softening under
Metals 2017, 7, 415 a tempering parameter of 16 means that a secondary treatment at a temperature of
12 of 20
450 ◦ C for up to 10 h should be sustainable. This condition is typical for plasma nitriding.
Microalloying
Microalloying of of Nb
Nb further
further enhances
enhances the
the tempering
tempering resistance,
resistance, obviously
obviously as
as the
the result
result of
of a
a
synergy effect with Mo. Molybdenum and niobium have to some extent similar metallurgical effects.
synergy effect with Mo. Molybdenum and niobium have to some extent similar metallurgical
Both exert
effects. Bothstrong
exertsolute
strongdrag on grain
solute drag boundaries, as well as as
on grain boundaries, dislocations [24] and
well as dislocationsalso lower
[24] and alsothe
activity of carbon [25]. These fundamental effects are noticed by delayed recovery or recrystallization,
lower the activity of carbon [25]. These fundamental effects are noticed by delayed recovery
as
or well as a reduced as
recrystallization, rate of pearlite
well growth,
as a reduced thus
rate of increased hardenability.
pearlite growth, The solubility
thus increased of both
hardenability.
elements in austenite is however very different. Molybdenum has a good solubility [26], whereas that
The solubility of both elements in austenite is however very different. Molybdenum has a good
of niobium is low [27]. Therefore, niobium precipitates as NbC particles at rather high temperatures.
solubility [26], whereas that of niobium is low [27]. Therefore, niobium precipitates as NbC particles at
Manganese, chromium and particularly molybdenum increase the solubility of niobium in austenite
rather high temperatures. Manganese, chromium and particularly molybdenum increase the solubility
[28]. Accordingly,
of niobium more
in austenite niobium
[28]. will remain
Accordingly, in solution
more niobium after in
will remain quenching from
solution after austenitizing
quenching from
temperature, which is then available for fine precipitation during tempering treatment acting against
austenitizing temperature, which is then available for fine precipitation during tempering treatment
softening.
acting against softening.
800 Tempering temperature (ºC) for 1h

500 550 600 650 700
62.5 HRC Base alloy: 0.2%C – 1.4%Cr – <1%Mn

750
Surface hardness (HV50)
15NiCrMo10-4 50
Rockwell C hardness
700 2.0% 40
60 HRC
0.7%Mo + 0.03%Nb
Mo () Mo: 0.2 0.5 0.7%

30
650
57.5 HRC
0.25% no Mo
20
600
55 HRC
14NiCrMo13-4 10
550
100 200 300 400 15 16 17 18 19 20
Tempering temperature (°C) Tempering parameter
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Increasing tempering resistance in carburizing steel: (a) surface hardness of the carburized
Figure 12. Increasing tempering resistance in carburizing steel: (a) surface hardness of the carburized
layer in relation to tempering temperature and the effect of increased molybdenum content; (b) effect
layer in relation to tempering temperature and the effect of increased molybdenum content; (b) effect
of tempering resistance as a function of the molybdenum content and synergy effect with niobium
of tempering resistance as a function of the molybdenum content and synergy effect with niobium
(tempering parameter = T × (20 + log t) × 10 (T in K, t in h)).
(tempering parameter = T × (20 + log t) × 10 −3 −3
(T in K, t in h)).
5. Modification and Testing of Carburizing Steels
5. Modification and Testing of Carburizing Steels
Based on the
Based on the individual
individual
andand synergetic
synergetic effects
effects of alloying
of alloying elements
elements described
described before,
before, the the
intended
intended processing route and the desired property profile, two modified alloy concepts have been
processing route and the desired property profile, two modified alloy concepts have been designed
designed (Table 2) for a full‐scale production trial including gear running tests. One of the developed
(Table 2) for a full-scale production trial including gear running tests. One of the developed alloy
alloy designs (Concept V1) can be considered as a modified 20MnCr5 grade. It is targeting higher
designs (Concept V1) can be considered as a modified 20MnCr5 grade. It is targeting higher
performance than that of 18CrNiMo7‐6 at similar alloy cost. The content of carbon is increased for
performance than that of 18CrNiMo7-6 at similar alloy cost. The content of carbon is increased
higher maximum hardness while Mo and Ni are added for increased hardenability and tempering
for higher maximum hardness while Mo and Ni are added for increased hardenability and tempering
resistance. The other developed alloy design (Concept V2) can be considered as modified 20CrMo5
resistance. The other developed alloy design (Concept V2) can be considered as modified 20CrMo5
grade added with nickel, which has a lower total alloy cost than 18CrNiMo7‐6, yet aiming at similar
grade added with nickel, which has a lower total alloy cost than 18CrNiMo7-6, yet aiming at similar
performance. In both concepts, niobium microalloying is applied for austenite grain size control. The
performance. In both concepts, niobium microalloying is applied for austenite grain size control.
achieved mechanical properties of both developed case carburizing steels obtained after heat
treatment indeed correspond to the postulated expectations (Figure 10 and Table 3). The
hardenability behavior of Concept V1 is superior to that of 18CrNiMo17‐6, whereas that of Concept
V2 is within the hardenability range of the reference grade. After an austenitizing treatment at 880 °C
for a duration of 2 h followed by quenching in oil and holding at 180° for 2 h, Concept V1 shows
Metals 2017, 7, 415 13 of 20
The achieved mechanical properties of both developed case carburizing steels obtained after heat
treatment indeed correspond to the postulated expectations (Figure 10 and Table 3). The hardenability
behavior of Concept V1 is superior to that of 18CrNiMo17-6, whereas that of Concept V2 is within the
hardenability range of the reference grade. After an austenitizing treatment at 880 ◦ C for a duration of
2 h followed by quenching in oil and holding at 180 ◦ C for 2 h, Concept V1 shows clearly better tensile
and fatigue strength, while Concept V2 nearly exactly matches the strength of the reference grade. The
toughness of both developed steels is lower than that of 18CrNiMo7-6 due to the reduced nickel alloy
content, yet remains still at a good level.
Table 2. Chemical composition of developed case carburizing steels (alloy additions in wt %).
Steel Grade C Si Mn Cr Mo Ni Nb
Concept V1 0.26 0.12 1.46 1.23 0.54 0.91 0.03
Concept V2 0.21 0.25 1.17 1.15 0.21 0.22 0.04
Table 3. Mechanical properties of developed case carburizing steels (hardened at 880 ◦ C/2 h +
oil/180 ◦ C/2 h).
Property Concept V1 Concept V2 18CrNiMo7-6

Tensile strength, Rm (MPa) 1758 1182 1182
Impact energy, Av (J) 47 55 80
Rotating fatigue limit σ(50%@N =107 ) (MPa) 722 491 510
Hardness at 11 mm depth (HRC) 51 44 41
Hardness at 25 mm depth (HRC) 50 36 36
The heat treatment behavior of the developed alloys has been tested by a carburizing process
operated at 1030 ◦ C to a nominal case depth range of 0.95 mm to 1.2 mm. This originated from the gear
running tests to be executed with a module of 5-mm gears actually requiring a 0.75 mm to 1.0 mm
case depth. The additional case depth was intended to compensate for grinding losses during hard
machining of the carburized gear. For determining the depth of the case layer, a limit hardness of 550
HV was defined according to ISO 6336-5. The targeted surface hardness was set to 680 HV–700 HV.
Additionally, a secondary plasma nitriding treatment has been also performed at 400 ◦ C and 440 ◦ C,
respectively. Table 4 summarizes the hardness data for the various pilot heat treatments. In the
as-quenched condition after carburizing, both grades fulfill the requirements. Both alloy concepts
sustain a tempering treatment at 200 ◦ C. Concept V2 however does not retain sufficient hardness after
plasma nitriding treatment. On the contrary, Concept V1, due to its increased tempering resistance,
shows very high surface hardness of around 1000 HV after plasma nitriding, whereas the core hardness
is reduced. Nevertheless, a core hardness of more than 400 HV still represents a high value. It thus
appears that Concept V1 by some further optimization has the potential of fulfilling the case depth
requirements at secondary treatment temperatures up to 440 ◦ C. A further increase of the molybdenum
content towards 0.7% (Figure 9) and fine-tuning of the microalloy addition are thought to be the most
promising ways to achieve the necessary tempering resistance.
Table 4. Hardness characteristics of steels after various heat treatments.
Concept V1 (20MnCr5 mod.) Concept V2 (20CrMo5 mod.)

Treatment after
Carburizing at 1030 ◦ C Surface Core CHD550HV1 Surface Core CHD550HV1
(HV1) (HV10) (mm) (HV1) (HV10) (mm)
As quenched 769 544 2.04 786 408 1.28
−70 ◦ C/2 h + 200 ◦ C/2 h 717 505 1.53 - - -
200 ◦ C/2 h - - - 672 430 1.20
Plasma nitriding 400 ◦ C 994 432 0.8 707 416 0.25
Plasma nitriding 440 ◦ C 1009 422 0.35 570 395 0.1
Metals 2017, 7, 415 14 of 20
The operational performance of the developed steel grades (V1 and V2) was tested and
benchmarked at FZG, Technical University of Munich, Germany. The tooth root load carrying capacity
was investigated in a pulsator rig (Figure 13a). Investigations on the flank load carrying capacity
were performed by running tests on a back-to-back gear test rig (Figure 13b) according to DIN
ISO 14635-1 [29]. The test gears for these investigations were case hardened after the gear milling.
Subsequent to case carburizing, the test gears were mechanically cleaned by shot blasting. The flanks,
as well as the tooth roots of the test gears for the investigations on the tooth root bending strength were
not ground. The gear flanks of the test gears for the gear running tests were finally ground to a gear
qualityMetals 2017, 7, 415
of Q ≤ 5 and a surface roughness Ra ≤ 0.3 µm. In order to reduce the effects of the 14 of 20
premature
contact profile, modifications in the form of tip relief were applied to the gears for the running tests.
Force sensor
Torque measurement
Test gear
Actuator
Slave gear
Controlling valve
Load lever
Hydrostatic bearing
Test gear Load clutch
Displacement
sensor
Test pinion
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Equipment for gear testing used at FZG: (a) pulsator test rig for investigations of the tooth
Figure 13. Equipment for gear testing used at FZG: (a) pulsator test rig for investigations of the
root load carrying capacity; (b) back‐to‐back gear test rig for investigations of the flank load carrying
tooth root load carrying capacity; (b) back-to-back gear test rig for investigations of the flank load
capacity.
carrying capacity.
For the experimental investigations on the tooth root bending strength standard pulsator test,
gears with a gear module mn = 5, number of teeth z = 24 mm and face width b = 30 mm were used. For
For the experimental investigations on the tooth root bending strength standard pulsator test,
the running tests, spur gears with a module mn = 5 mm, a gear ratio of 17/18 and a face width b = 14
gears with a gear module mn = 5, number of teeth z = 24 mm and face width b = 30 mm were
mm were used. Both test gear types are typical for the examination of bending strength respectively
used. For‘the running
pitting load tests,
capacity spur
of case gears with
carburized a module
gears and according mn =to 5 the
mm, a gear ratio
specifications of of 17/18
ISO and a face
6336 for
width b = 14 mm were used. Both test gear types are typical for the examination of bending strength
reference test gears.
respectively The tooth root load carrying capacity is one of the determining factors in gear design. Besides
pitting load capacity of case carburized gears and according to the specifications of ISO
the strength of the material itself, the existing state of stress (load‐induced stresses and residual
6336 for reference test gears.
stresses) significantly influences the tooth root load carrying capacity. The mechanical cleaning
The tooth root load carrying capacity is one of the determining factors in gear design. Besides the
procedure by shot blasting as used in this test program introduces compressive stresses in the sub‐
strength of the material itself, the existing state of stress (load-induced stresses and residual stresses)
surface zone and is beneficial to fatigue resistance (see also Figure 14a) [30]. The current tooth root
significantly influences the tooth root load carrying capacity. The mechanical cleaning procedure by
bending fatigue tests were carried out under a constant pulsating load with a frequency of 90 Hz and
continued
shot blasting as useduntil the limiting
in this test number
program of introduces
load cycles of 6 × 106 was reached
compressive stressesor
intooth root breakage
the sub-surface zone and
occurred. Gear standards generally consider 3 × 10 6 as the beginning of the endurance range for
is beneficial to fatigue resistance (see also Figure 14a) [30]. The current tooth root bending fatigue tests
bending strength. For each alloy concept, a complete S‐N‐curve was determined based on a number
were carried out under a constant pulsating load with a frequency of 90 Hz and continued until the
of approximately 25 test points. The endurance strength level of the S‐N‐curve was determined using
number of load cycles of 6 × 106 was reached or tooth root breakage occurred. Gear standards
limitingthe “stair‐step‐method” based on at least 10 data points for each alloy concept. The pulsating load at
generally consider 3 × 106 as the beginning of the endurance range for bending strength. For each
the endurance limit was estimated for a failure probability of 50 percent. The low‐cycle fatigue part
alloy concept, a curve
of the S‐N complete S-N-curve
was supported by was determined
around based
10 valid tests on avariant.
for each number The ofconversion
approximately
of the 25 test
points.pulsating load into the resulting tooth root stress was done as described in DIN 3990 Part 3 [5]. The
The endurance strength level of the S-N-curve was determined using the “stair-step-method”
based onallowable stress numbers for bending conditions σ
at least 10 data points for each alloy concept. Flim and σFE given in DIN 3990/ISO 6336 [5,6] are
The pulsating load at the endurance limit
valid for standard reference test gears at standard test conditions in a gear running test and a failure
was estimated for a failure probability of 50 percent. The low-cycle fatigue part of the S-N curve was
probability of one percent. Therefore, the test results from the pulsator tests were converted to these
supported by around 10 valid tests for each variant. The conversion of the pulsating load into the
conditions according to the state‐of‐the‐art as outlined in detail by Niemann and Winter [31].
resulting tooth root stress was done as described in DIN 3990 Part 3 [5]. The allowable stress numbers
The results obtained from these tests are displayed in Table 5. Case carburized alloy Concept V1
for bending conditions σFlim and σFE given in DIN 3990/ISO 6336 [5,6] are valid for standard reference
(20MnCr5 mod.) exhibits a clearly higher tooth root bending strength than the case carburized alloy
Concept
test gears V2 (20CrMo5
at standard mod.), as can
test conditions in be expected
a gear runningfrom testthe hardness characteristics.
and a failure probabilityIt has
of been
one percent.
established that surface‐hardened gears of high load capacity containing high residual compressive
Therefore, the test results from the pulsator tests were converted to these conditions according to the
stresses in the surface layer due to shot peening exhibit an increased risk of crack initiation below the
state-of-the-art as outlined in detail by Niemann and Winter [31].
surface [32]. In this respect, the cleanness of the material has a decisive influence. Furthermore, it is
The results obtained from these tests are displayed in Table 5. Case carburized alloy Concept
assumed that the microstructure and especially the ductility of the surface layer are also relevant to
V1 (20MnCr5 mod.) exhibits a clearly higher tooth root bending strength than the case carburized
the cracking behavior. Alloy Concept V1 did not show sub‐surface crack initiation, which may be
related to sufficiently high cleanness and ductility.
Figure 14a compares the determined allowable stress numbers to the tooth root bending stress
levels according to DIN 3990/ISO 6336 [5,6] and to the test results of several batches of two case
hardened Western European standard steels determined under comparable test conditions [Error!
indicates the typical performance range of European state‐of‐the‐art carburizing grades (see also
Figure 14a). Additionally, some international carburizing grades that were tested by the same method
are indicated. Figure 14 clearly demonstrates that alloy Concept V1 ranks on top of quality level ME
defined for established alloys according to DIN 3990 [5] and performs better than many higher
alloyed steel grades including the reference grade 18CrNiMo7‐6. Alloy Concept V2 compares well to
Metals 2017, 7, 415 15 of 20
the state‐of‐the‐art alloys achieving quality level MQ.
alloyTable 5. Characteristics of the determined S‐N‐curves concerning tooth root bending strength for 50%
Concept V2 (20CrMo5 mod.), as can be expected from the hardness characteristics. It has been
established that surface-hardened gears of high load capacity containing high residual compressive
failure probability, as well as nominal and allowable bending stress numbers.
stresses in the surface layer due to shot peening exhibit an increased risk of crack initiation below the
surface [32]. In thisCriterion Concept V1
respect, the cleanness of the material has a decisive influence. Concept V2
Furthermore, it is
Nominal endurance tooth root bending
assumed that the microstructure and especially the ductility of the surface layer are also relevant to the
1368 1072
stress for 50% failure probability (MPa)
cracking behavior. Alloy Concept V1 did not show sub-surface crack initiation, which may be related
toGradient of determined S‐N curve at
sufficiently high cleanness and ductility.
limited fatigue life (50% failure
Figure 14a compares the determined allowable stress 28.1
numbers to the tooth root8.8 bending stress
probability)
levels according to DIN 3990/ISO 6336 [5,6] and to the test results of several batches of two case
Number of load cycles at inflection point
hardened Western European standard steels determined under comparable test conditions [33].
2,048,078 436,884
(50% failure probability)
A further performance benchmark of both developed concepts against established case carburizing
Allowable bending stress σ
alloys is shown in Figure 14b.FEIn (MPa) 1134 area indicates the typical
this diagram, the grey shaded 885 performance
Nominal bending stress σ
range Flim (MPa)
of European state-of-the-art carburizing grades 567 442
(see also Figure 14a). Additionally, some
Cracking behavior in low‐cycle fatigue Fractures with crack Fractures with crack
international carburizing grades that were tested by the same method are indicated. Figure 14 clearly
range
demonstrates that alloy Concept V1 ranks oninitiation at the surface initiation at the surface
top of quality level ME defined for established alloys
Fractures with crack
according to DIN 3990 [5] and performs better than many higher alloyed steel grades including the
Cracking behavior in high‐cycle fatigue Fractures with crack
reference grade 18CrNiMo7-6. Alloy Concept V2 compares well to the state-of-the-art initiation below the
alloys achieving
range initiation at the surface
quality level MQ. surface

20MnCr5 mod. 600
High core hardness ≥ 40HRC
20CrMo5 mod. ME
Medium core hardness ≥ 34HRC
500
σFlim (MPa)
MQ
Low core hardness ≥ 28HRC
σFlim (MPa)
400
Carburized alloy steels

ML
300 Flame or induction hardened
Q&T steels
V1 (20MnCr5 mod.)
V2 (20CrMo5 mod.)
SAE 9310
Surface hardness (HV1) 200 15NiMoCr10-4
20CrMnTi
Case carburizing PLUS mechanical cleaning 20CrMnMo
Case carburizing NO mechanical cleaning 100

17CrNiMo6 (m n = 5 mm) 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
Surface hardness (HV1)
16MnCr5 (mn = 5 mm)
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Comparison of the tooth root bending stress numbers of newly developed case carburized
Figure 14. Comparison of the tooth root bending stress numbers of newly developed case carburized
steels:
steels: (a)
(a) vs.
vs. strength
strength levels
levels of
of DIN
DIN 3990
3990 and
and vs.
vs. the
the results
results of
of reference
reference steels determined under
steels determined under
comparable test conditions [30]; (b) vs. selected alternative case carburizing steels as specified in Table
comparable test conditions [30]; (b) vs. selected alternative case carburizing steels as specified in
1.
Table 1.
In order
Table to determine
5. Characteristics ofthe pitting load
the determined capacity concerning
S-N-curves of the gear flank, repeated
tooth gear running
root bending strength for 50% tests
were carried out for finding the endurance limit [Error! Reference source not found.]. The endurance
failure probability, as well as nominal and allowable bending stress numbers.
limit for pitting strength is considered to be reached when at least 50 × 106 load cycles are sustained
without damage (this criterion is generally accepted by gear standards). The test rig was driven with
Criterion Concept V1 Concept V2
a constant
Nominalspeed of 3000
endurance rpm.
tooth root All stress
bending test forruns were performed under oil spray lubrication
1368 1072
50% failure probability (MPa)
(approximately 2 L/min into the tooth mesh) with FVA (Forschungsvereinigung Antriebstechnik) Oil
Gradient of determined S-N curve at limited
No. 3 with 4% additive Anglamol 99 (sulphur‐phosphorous additive), a mineral oil of viscosity class
28.1 8.8
fatigue life (50% failure probability)
Number of load cycles at inflection point
2,048,078 436,884
(50% failure probability)
Allowable bending stress σFE (MPa) 1134 885
Nominal bending stress σFlim (MPa) 567 442
Fractures with crack Fractures with crack
Cracking behavior in low-cycle fatigue range
initiation at the surface initiation at the surface
Fractures with crack Fractures with crack
Cracking behavior in high-cycle fatigue range
initiation at the surface initiation below the surface
Metals 2017, 7, 415
Metals 2017, 7, 415 16 of 20 16 of 20
ISO VG 100, and an oil temperature of 60 °C. Prior to each test run, a two‐stage running‐in period
In was performed.
order to determine the pitting load capacity of the gear flank, repeated gear running tests
Under the described test conditions, 6–8 test runs for each variant were scheduled at different
were carried out for finding the endurance limit [33]. The endurance limit for pitting strength is
load levels in order to determine the pitting load carrying capacity. The test runs were continued
considered
until to be reached
either when
one of the atcriteria
failure least 50 × 106 load
mentioned below cycles are sustained
was reached without
or the specified damage (this
maximum
criterionnumber of load cycles was exceeded without failure. The test runs were regularly interrupted after a
is generally accepted by gear standards). The test rig was driven with a constant speed of
3000 rpm.defined interval of load cycles in order to inspect the flank condition. According to the defined failure
All test runs were performed under oil spray lubrication (approximately 2 L/min into the
criteria, a test run was terminated when:
tooth mesh) with FVA (Forschungsvereinigung Antriebstechnik) Oil No. 3 with 4% additive Anglamol

99 (sulphur-phosphorous additive), a mineral oil of viscosity class ISO VG 100, and an oil temperature
Tooth breakage occurred;
◦  The flank area damaged by pitting exceeded about 4% of the working flank area of a single tooth
of 60 C. Prior to each test run, a two-stage running-in period was performed.
Under or about 2% of the total working flank area;
the described test conditions, 6–8 test runs for each variant were scheduled at different
 The mean profile deviation due to micropitting exceeded the limiting value of 15 μm to 20 μm.
load levels in order to determine the pitting load carrying capacity. The test runs were continued until
either one ofAfter every test
the failure run, the
criteria flank condition
mentioned below was
wasevaluated
reached and
ordocumented by means
the specified maximumof digital
number of
photos (Figure 15). During all test runs of alloy Concept V2, micropitting was observed on the flanks
load cycles was exceeded without failure. The test runs were regularly interrupted after a defined
of the test pinion and test gear. However, the limiting criterion of a profile deviation ffm > 20 μm due
intervalto micropitting was not reached in any of the test runs. Normally, light micropitting leads to higher
of load cycles in order to inspect the flank condition. According to the defined failure criteria,
a test run was terminated when:
load cycles until a pitting failure occurs. Test gears made from alloy Concept V1 partly showed a
significantly lower sensitivity to micropitting than the test gears made from alloy Concept V2.
• Tooth breakage occurred;
The performed gear running tests allow an approximate determination of the pinion torque at
• Thethe endurance limit, as well as of the nominal contact stress number at the endurance for a failure
flank area damaged by pitting exceeded about 4% of the working flank area of a single tooth
or about 2% of the total working flank area;
probability of 50 percent. The allowable contact stress σ Hlim representing the pitting load capacity with
• Thea failure probability of one percent is then calculated according to DIN 3990 [5]. Table 6 summarizes
mean profile deviation due to micropitting exceeded the limiting value of 15 µm to 20 µm.
the determined flank pitting load capacity limits for the two developed steel grades. A benchmark
After every test run, the flank condition was evaluated and documented by means of digital
comparison of these data against the strength values for the different quality levels according to DIN
3990/ISO 6336, as well as for some reference data from the literature [29] is provided by Figure 16. A
photos (Figure 15). During all test runs of alloy Concept V2, micropitting was observed on the flanks
further performance benchmark of both developed concepts against established case carburizing
of the test pinion and test gear. However, the limiting criterion of a profile deviation f fm > 20 µm due
alloys is shown in Figure 17. Obviously, alloy Concept V1 (20MnCr5 mod.) exhibits a very high
to micropitting was not reached in any of the test runs. Normally, light micropitting leads to higher
pitting endurance limit and outperforms established alloys of quality level ME. The pitting endurance
load cycles until a pitting failure occurs. Test gears made from alloy Concept V1 partly showed a
limit of alloy Concept V2 (20CrMo5 mod.) is situated in the upper region of the established contact
significantly lower sensitivity to micropitting than the test gears made from alloy Concept V2.
stress field for case hardened steels reaching quality level ME.
Concept V1 (20MnCr5 mod.)

σH0 = 1598 N/mm2, σH0 = 1801 N/mm2, σH0 = 1900 N/mm2,
51 × 106 load cycles 15 × 106 load cycles 9 × 106 load cycles
Concept V2 (25CrMo5 mod.)

σH0 = 1495 N/mm2, σH0 = 1598 N/mm2, σH0 = 1801 N/mm2,
51 × 106 load cycles 54 × 106 load cycles 12 × 106 load cycles
Figure 15. Examples of the typical tooth flank condition at the end of the test runs for various nominal
contact stresses and load cycles (tooth width is 14 mm).
The performed gear running tests allow an approximate determination of the pinion torque at
the endurance limit, as well as of the nominal contact stress number at the endurance for a failure
probability of 50 percent. The allowable contact stress σHlim representing the pitting load capacity with
a failure probability of one percent is then calculated according to DIN 3990 [5]. Table 6 summarizes
the determined flank pitting load capacity limits for the two developed steel grades. A benchmark
Metals 2017, 7, 415 17 of 20
Metals 2017, 7, 415 17 of 20

Metals 2017, 7, 415 17 of 20
comparison of these data against the strength values for the different quality levels according to DIN
Table 6. Experimentally‐determined endurance limit for pitting.
3990/ISO 6336, as well as for some reference data from the literature [29] is provided by Figure 16.
A further performance benchmark Criterion
of both developed concepts against Concept V1
establishedConcept V2
Table 6. Experimentally‐determined endurance limit for pitting. case carburizing
alloys isNominal endurance strength for 50% failure probability (MPa)
shown in Figure 17. Obviously, alloy Concept V1 (20MnCr5 mod.)1699 exhibits a very 1547
high pitting
Criterion Concept V1 Concept V2
endurance limit and Allowable contact stress (MPa)
outperforms established alloys of quality level ME. The1793
pitting 1633 limit of
endurance
Nominal endurance strength for 50% failure probability (MPa) 1699 1547
alloy Concept V2 (20CrMo5 mod.) is situated in the upper region of the established
Allowable contact stress (MPa) 1793 contact
1633 stress field
for caseThe current results suggest that alloy Concept V1 has the potential of providing an economically‐
hardened steels reaching quality level ME.
viable solution for highly loaded gears in heavy machinery and vehicles. Its use in vehicle
The current results suggest that alloy Concept V1 has the potential of providing an economically‐
transmissions could
viable solution enable
Table
for downsizing of in
gear
6. Experimentally-determined
highly loaded gears components,
heavy endurancethereby
machinery limit
and for reducing
pitting.Its weight.
vehicles. In larger
use in vehicle
transmissions, such as those used in trucks and heavy machinery, its application can
transmissions could enable downsizing of gear components, thereby reducing weight. In larger help with
avoiding unexpected failure and extending warranty periods. The results of alloy Concept V2 indeed
Criterion
transmissions, such as those used in trucks and heavy machinery, Concept V1
its application Concept
can V2
help with
position it as a cost‐attractive alternative to the established premium grade 18CrNiMo7‐6.
avoiding unexpected failure and extending warranty periods. The results of alloy Concept V2 indeed
Nominal endurance strength for 50% failure probability (MPa) 1699 1547
position it as a cost‐attractive alternative to the established premium grade 18CrNiMo7‐6.
Allowable contact stress (MPa) 1793 1633

Figure Comparison
16. 16.
Figure of the determined pittingpitting
strength numbernumber
of newly developed case carburized
Figure 16. Comparison
Comparison of
of the
the determined
determined pitting strength
strength number of of newly
newly developed
developed case
case
steels vs. strength levels of DIN 3990 and literature data of reference steels.
carburized steels vs. strength levels of DIN 3990 and literature data of reference steels.
carburized steels vs. strength levels of DIN 3990 and literature data of reference steels.
Case
Casecarburized
carburized alloy steels
steels
σHlim (MPa)
σHlim (MPa)
20MnCr5 mod.
V1 (20MnCr5 mod.)
20MnCr5
V1(20CrMo5
(20MnCr5
20CrMo mod.
mod.)
5 mod.
V2 mod.)
20CrMo 5 mod.
V2 (20CrMo5 mod.)
SAE 9310
Flame or induction SAE 9310
15NiMoCr10-4
Flame or QT
hardened induction
steels 15NiMoCr10-4
20CrMnTi
hardened QT steels 20CrMnTi
20CrMnMo
20CrMnMo
Surface hardness

Surface hardness

Figure 17. Comparison of the pitting endurance strength number of newly developed case carburized
steels vs. strength levels of DIN 3990 and vs. selected alternative case carburizing steels as specified in
Table 1.
Metals 2017, 7, 415 18 of 20
The current results suggest that alloy Concept V1 has the potential of providing an
economically-viable solution for highly loaded gears in heavy machinery and vehicles. Its use in
vehicle transmissions could enable downsizing of gear components, thereby reducing weight. In larger
transmissions, such as those used in trucks and heavy machinery, its application can help with avoiding
unexpected failure and extending warranty periods. The results of alloy Concept V2 indeed position it
as a cost-attractive alternative to the established premium grade 18CrNiMo7-6.
6. Conclusions
Many parameters such as material, heat treatment, gear design, machining and lubrication
must be considered for optimizing gear box performance. This study identified the desired material
characteristics with regard to two major fatigue failure mechanisms in gears, pitting and tooth root
breakage, considering the particular stress conditions in large gears. The objective was to optimize
the alloy composition of case carburizing steels for obtaining a load bearing characteristic providing
better service performance of large gears. In the modified alloy design, particularly the dedicated use
of molybdenum and niobium as alloying elements was considered.
Molybdenum alloying in case carburizing steels is established due to its pronounced hardenability
effect. The current results demonstrate that molybdenum has several additional metallurgical benefits
that are not provided by alternative hardenability elements:
• Molybdenum significantly increases the tempering resistance, thus opening an opportunity

of performing secondary heat treatments after case carburizing. The increased tempering
resistance also makes gears less vulnerable against hot running in case of lubrication problems
during operation.
• It is also known that molybdenum enhances the large angle grain boundary cohesion, thus
obstructing intergranular crack propagation and hence retarding macroscopic damage.
• Contrary to manganese, molybdenum does not have a strong segregation tendency, and it does
not form inclusions. Furthermore, its use does not increase the sensitivity for intergranular
oxidation, as is the case for manganese and chromium.
• The present investigation has demonstrated that modifying standard alloys with the moderate
addition of molybdenum (0.5–0.7 wt %) can lead to significantly better performance in gear
running tests than state-of-the-art alloys including several steels highly alloyed with nickel.
Microalloy addition of niobium to case carburizing steels is an increasingly applied technology

offering the following advantages:
• Niobium carbide nano-precipitates obstruct prior austenite grain coarsening during case
carburizing and simultaneously reduce grain size scattering. A finer and more homogeneous
grain structure results in improved toughness, higher fatigue resistance and less distortion after
heat treatment.
• Niobium further increases the tempering resistance provided by molybdenum due to a
metallurgical synergy based on solute drag and particle pinning.
• Prior austenite grain refinement of martensitic steels, as well as nano-carbide precipitates of
niobium results in an increased resistance against hydrogen embrittlement.
The combined alloying effects of molybdenum and niobium are particularly relevant for highly
loaded, large-sized gears requiring increased case hardening depth and thus long carburization times
or elevated carburizing temperature. It was demonstrated by experimental benchmarking that the
dedicated use of these metallurgical effects allows producing carburized gear steel with significantly
increased performance in a cost-efficient way.
Acknowledgments: Part of this work has been financially supported by the International Molybdenum
Association (IMOA), London, U.K.
Metals 2017, 7, 415 19 of 20
Author Contributions: Frank Hippenstiel designed and provided the steel alloys and forgings, Thomas Tobie
designed and conducted the gear performance tests, Hardy Mohrbacher contributed to the metallurgical
interpretation of the experimental results and wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.
References
1. Hippenstiel, F.; Johann, K.-P.; Caspari, R. Tailor Made Carburizing Steels for Use in Power Generation Plants.
In Proceedings of the International European Conference on Heat Treatment, Strasbourg, France, June 2009.
2. Spitzer, H.; Bleck, W.; Flesch, R. Einsatzstähle—Normung und Entwicklungstendenzen, ATTT/AWT-Tagung
Einsatzhärtung; Tagungsband; Hanser: München, Germany, 1998; pp. 11–20.
3. N.N. DIN EN 10084:2008. Carburizing Steels; Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2008.
4. N.N. ISO 683-11: Edition 1987. Heat-Treatable Steels, Alloy Steels and Free-Cutting Steels, Part 11: Wrought
Case-Hardening Steels; Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1981.
5. N.N. DIN 3990 1-5: Edition 1987:12. Calculation of Load Capacity of Cylindrical Gears; Endurance Limits and
Material Qualities; Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1987.
6. N.N. ISO 6336 1-5: Edition 2006/2003. Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gears—Strength and
Quality of Materials; Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2003.
7. Tobie, T.; Höhn, B.-R.; Stahl, K. Tooth flank breakage—Influences on subsurface initiated fatigue failures
of case hardened gears. In Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical
Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE 2013, DETC2013-12183,
Portland, OR, USA, 4–7 August 2013.
8. Tobie, Th. Zur Grübchen - und Zahnfußtragfähigkeit einsatzgehärteter Zahnräder. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical
University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 2001.
9. Steutzger, M. Größeneinfluß auf die Zahnfußfestigkeit, Forschungsvereinigung Antriebstechnik e.V.,
Frankfurt am Main, Forschungsvorhaben Nr. 162, Heft 529. 1997.
10. Uno, M.; Hirai, M.; Nakasato, F. Effect of Alloying Elements on the Properties of Cr-free Carburizing Steels.
Sumitomo Search 1989, 39, 33–44.
11. Wang, C.; Wang, M.; Shi, J.; Hui, W.; Dong, H. Effect of Microstructure Refinement on the Strength and
Toughness of Low Alloy Martensitic Steel. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2007, 23, 659–664.
12. Morito, S.; Saito, H.; Ogawa, T.; Furuhara, T.; Maki, T. Effect of Austenite Grain Size on the Morphology and
Crystallography of Lath Martensite in Low Carbon Steels. ISIJ Int. 2005, 45, 91–94. [CrossRef]
13. Huchtemann, B.; Schüler, V. Beitrag zur Beeinflussung der Austenitkorngröße von Edelbaustahlen. HTM
1993, 48, 124–132.
14. Kubota, M.; Ochi, T. Development of Anti-Coarsening Steel for Carburizing. Mater. Sci. Forum 2007, 539–543,
4855–4860. [CrossRef]
15. Leap, M.J.; Brown, E.L. Effects of composition and, processing on development of grain coarsening resistance
in cold forged and carburised steel. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2002, 18, 945–958. [CrossRef]
16. Kimura, T.; Kurebayashi, Y. Niobium in Microalloyed Engineering Steels, Wire Rods and Case Carburized
Products. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Symposium on Niobium, TMS 2001, Orlando, FL, USA,
2–5 December 2001; pp. 801–820.
17. Hippenstiel, F. Tailored Solutions in Microalloyed Engineering Steels for the Power Transmission Industry.
Mater. Sci. Forum 2007, 539–543, 4131–4136. [CrossRef]
18. Alogab, K.A.; Matlock, D.K.; Speer, J.G.; Kleebe, H.J. The Influence of Niobium Microalloying on Austenite
Grain Coarsening Behavior of Ti-modified SAE 8620 Steel. ISIJ Int. 2007, 47, 307–316. [CrossRef]
19. Alogab, K.A.; Matlock, D.K.; Speer, J.G.; Kleebe, H.J. The Effects of Heating Rate on Austenite Grain Growth
in a Ti-modified SAE 8620 Steel with Controlled Niobium Additions. ISIJ Int. 2007, 47, 1034–1041. [CrossRef]
20. Klenke, K.; Kohlmann, R.; Reinhold, P.; Schweinebraten, W. Improved Performance by High Temperature
Carburizing Shown by the Example of VW4521 + Nb, Proceedings Steels in Cars and Truck 2008; Verlag Stahleisen
Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2008; pp. 173–183.
21. Hong-Seok, Y.; Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H. Austenite Grain Size andthe Martensite–Start Temperature. Scr. Mater.
2009, 60, 493–495.
Metals 2017, 7, 415 20 of 20
22. Randak, A.; Eberbach, R. Einfluß der Austenitkorngröße auf einige Eigenschaften des Stahls 16MnCr5.
HTM Härterei-Technische Mitteilungen 1969, 24 Heft 3, 201–209.
23. Dehner, E.; Weber, F. Experience with Large high-Speed Load Gears. GearTechnology 2007, July, 42–52.
24. Togashi, F.; Nishizawa, T. Effect of Alloying Elements on the Mobility of Ferrite/Austenite Interface. J. Jpn.
Inst. Met. 1976, 40, 12–21. [CrossRef]
25. Tanaka, T.; Enami, T. Metallurgical Variables Involved in Controlled Rolling of High Tensile Steels and Its
Application. Tetsu-to-Hagané 1972, 58, 1775–1790. [CrossRef]
26. Pavlina, E.J.; Speer, J.G.; Van Tyne, C.J. Equilibrium solubility products of molybdenum carbide and tungsten
carbide in iron. Scr. Mater. 2012, 66, 243–246. [CrossRef]
27. Lakshmanan, V.K.; Kirkaldy, J.S. Solubility Product for Niobium Carbide in Austenite. Metall. Trans. A 1984,
15, 541–553. [CrossRef]
28. Koyama, S.; Ishii, T.; Narita, K. Effects of Mn, Si, Cr, and Ni on the Solution and Precipitation of Niobium
Carbide in Iron Austenite. J. Jpn. Inst. Met. 1971, 35, 1089–1094. [CrossRef]
29. N.N. ISO 14635 Part 1: Gears—FZG Test Procedures—Part 1: FZG Test Method A/8,3/90 for Relative Scuffing
Load-Carrying Capacity of Oil; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
30. Weigand, U. Werkstoff- und Wärmebehandlungseinflüsse auf die Zahnfußtragfähigkeit. Ph.D. Thesis,
Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 1999.
31. Niemann, G.; Winter, H. Maschinenelemente, Band II: Getriebe Allgemein, Zahnradgetriebe—Grundlagen,
Stirnradgetriebe; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1989.
32. Bretl, N.; Schurer, S.; Tobie, T.; Stahl, K.; Höhn, B.-R. Resistenza a flessione—Al piede dei denti di ingranaggi
cementati. Organi di Trasmissione 2014, 3, 28–32.
33. Höhn, B.-R.; Stahl, K.; Schudy, J.; Tobie, Th.; Zornek, B. FZG Rig-Based Testing of Flank Load-Carrying
Capacity Internal Gears. GearTechnology 2012, June/July, 60–69.
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Metals: Optimizing Gear Performance by Alloy Modification of Carburizing Steels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metals: Optimizing Gear Performance by Alloy Modification of Carburizing Steels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

metals

Received: 30 August 2017; Accepted: 26 September 2017; Published: 6 October 2017

Metals 2017, 7, 415; doi:10.3390/met7100415 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

2. Optimization Strategy for Carburizing Steels

2.1. Gear Fatigue Failure Modes and Failure Mechanism

Metals 2017, 7, 415 5 of 20

CHD = 1.2 mm endangered range

Efffect of hardness profile 3 1 CHD = 1.2 mm

• Minimize intergranular oxidation → reduce Si, Mn and Cr [10];

Figure 9. Effect of alloy modifications on hardenability as compared to standard 18CrNiMo7-6 steel.

3. Controlling Grain Size in Carburizing Steels

800 Tempering temperature (ºC) for 1h

62.5 HRC Base alloy: 0.2%C – 1.4%Cr – <1%Mn

Mo () Mo: 0.2 0.5 0.7%

Property Concept V1 Concept V2 18CrNiMo7-6

Table 4. Hardness characteristics of steels after various heat treatments.

Concept V1 (20MnCr5 mod.) Concept V2 (20CrMo5 mod.)

Carburized alloy steels

Case carburizing NO mechanical cleaning 100

Metals 2017, 7, 415 17 of 20

• Molybdenum significantly increases the tempering resistance, thus opening an opportunity

Microalloy addition of niobium to case carburizing steels is an increasingly applied technology

You might also like