J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2010, 26(3), 251-257.

Effect of Different Surface Treatment Methods on the Friction

and Wear Behavior of AISI 4140 Steel

Mustafa Ulutan1)† , Osman N. Celik1) , Hakan Gasan2) and Umit Er1)

1) University of Eskisehir Osmangazi, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Eskisehir, Turkey
2) University of Eskisehir Osmangazi, Institute of Metallurgy, Eskisehir, Turkey
[Manuscript received January 19, 2009, in revised form August 18, 2009]

In this study, the effects of various surface treatments on the friction and wear behavior of AISI 4140 steel
have been evaluated. Sample surfaces of AISI 4140 steel were treated by quenching, carburizing, boronizing
and plasma transferred arc (PTA) modification. The microstructural characteristics of surface treated steel
samples were examined by optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The mechanical
properties of the samples including the surface roughness, microhardness, and abrasive and adhesive wear
characteristics were also evaluated. Wear tests were applied by using a block-on-disc configuration under dry
sliding conditions. The wear behavior and friction characteristics of the samples were determined as a function
of sliding distance. Each sample group was compared with the other sample groups, and it was observed that
the carburized samples demonstrated the lowest weight losses; however, PTA-treated samples demonstrated
the lowest coefficient of friction in comparison to the other sample groups at the same sliding distance.

KEY WORDS: AISI 4140 steel; Quenching; Boronizing; Plasma transferred arc (PTA);
Carburizing; Sliding wear

1. Introduction and observed that the hardness of sample

AISI 4140 steel (DIN 42CrMo4) is a ubiqui-
tously material in industrial applications, such as
in the automotive, aerospace, and manufacturing
industries[1,2] . The included alloying elements of Cr
and Mo provide AISI 4140 steel with a high harden-
ability and toughness. Thereby, it has become one of
the most important substrate materials for abrasive
and adhesive wear applications[3] .
Thermal or thermo chemical heat treatments are
commonly used to improve the surface properties of
AISI 4140 steel. Staia et al.[4] applied a pulse ion ni-
triding process to the AISI 4140 steel that resulted
in an improved surface wear resistance compared to
untreated samples. Totik[5] evaluated the wear behav-
ior of induction-hardened AISI 4140 steel under dry
sliding conditions. Sen et al.[6] reported the growth
kinetics of a boride layer on boronized AISI 4140 steel,
† Corresponding author. Assist. Prof., Ph.D.; E-mail address:
mulutan@ogu.edu.tr (M. Ulutan).
surface-formed borides changed between 1446 and
1739 HV0.1 . In addition, different surface treatments
and techniques have been applied to AISI 4140 steel,
such as gas boronizing[7] , plasma-enhanced chemical
vapour deposition[8] , DC-pulsed plasma nitriding[9] ,
laser surface hardening[10] , and high velocity oxy-
fuel[11] .
The aim of this study was to investigate a com-
parison of practical surface treatment processes for
industrial applications. Herein, four different surface
treatments, including quenching, boronizing, carbur-
izing, and plasma transferred arc (PTA) surface mod-
ification, were applied to AISI 4140 steel substrates.
2. Experimental
The substrate material used in this study was com-
mercial AISI 4140 steel (0.4 C, 1.2 Cr, and 0.2 Mo)
(wt pct). The dimensions for each PTA-treated sam-
ple were 100 mm×13 mm×20 mm. The dimensions
for each sample of the remaining groups were
252 M. Ulutan et al.: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2010, 26(3), 251–257
Fig. 1 Plint TE-53 multipurpose friction and wear tester with the adapted data acquisition system
12.7 mm×12.7 mm×12.7 mm.
The first group of samples was boronized with
Ekabor-1 powder using the pack boronizing method.
Boronizing was applied at 900◦ C for 4 h. The second
group of the samples was carburized in an ethane gas
environment at 850◦ C for 9 h. After the carburiz-
ing process, the samples were cooled in quenching oil
at 80◦ C. The third group of samples was austenized
at 850◦ C for 30 min, and then cooled to room tem-
perature in quenching oil. The surfaces of the last
group of samples were treated using PTA. After PTA
treatment, the samples were cross-sectioned for micro-
scopic examination. Surface treated AISI 4140 steel
samples were ground on Struers MD piano 220 and
600 grit magnetic discs, polished using 3 μm diamond
paste, and etched with 2% nital solution for metallo-
graphic examinations.
Microhardness profiles were obtained by perform-
ing indentation with a load of 100 g for a dwell time
of 10 s.
Abrasive wear tests were conducted using block-
on-disc contact geometry on a PLINT TE 53 multi-
purpose friction and wear tester (England). The
counter disc (60 mm in diameter and 16 mm width)
was coated with 400 grit silicon carbide (SiC) abra-
sive paper. The test load was selected to be 42 N,
which is the lowest applicable load for the wear tester.
All of the wear tests were performed at 0.94 ms−1
sliding speed (300 r/min). Prior to testing, speci-
mens were ground for a few seconds and then cleaned
with acetone. The sliding distance was fixed to 400 m
for each specimen. The weight loss of each abrasive
wear specimen was measured using a PrecisaXB 220A
scale with a precision s degree of 10−4 g (Switzerland).
The abrasive paper was changed after each wear test.
Wear experiments were repeated three times and the
average results were used for comparisons. All of the
tests were performed at room temperature in air with
normal humidity (30%) for consistency throughout
the wear tests.
Adhesive wear tests in dry sliding conditions were
performed using the same friction and wear tester.
The counterpart disc was made from quenched AISI
52100 (100Cr6) steel (∼65 HRC), and every test was
performed using an unused disc. Prior to testing, both
discs and specimens were cleaned with acetone. The
sliding distance was selected to be 2000 m. Friction
force data were simultaneously stored by a Honey-
well data acquisition system, which was adapted to
the Plint TE-53 tester (Fig. 1). The load cell sensi-
tivity of the tester was 0.01 N, while the coefficient
of friction (COF) signals were recorded at an interval
of once every second during the entire test. The sur-
face roughness of the samples was precisely measured
before and after the sliding tests using Taylor Hobson-
Form TalySurf Series 2 surface roughness equipment
(England).
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Microstructure
The microstructures of the untreated samples ex-
hibit tempered ferrite and pearlite phases, which are
depicted in Fig. 2. Figure 2 also depicts the mi-
crostructures of the boronized, quenched, carburized,
and PTA surface-modified samples. The boronizing
process produced thin FeB and Fe2 B (∼100 μm thick-
ness) layers on the substrate, which was further con-
firmed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis (Fig. 3).
PTA surface treatment changed the microstructure to
martensite, with a small amount of retained austen-
ite. The PTA-treated layer thickness was measured
to be approximately 2.5 mm. Although, martensite
phase was observed in the microstructures of both
the quenched and carburized samples, the hardness
of the carburized samples was relatively higher due
to their high carbon (C) content. Table 1 summa-
rizes the process conditions, layer thickness and sur-
face hardness of the investigated samples.
3.2 Friction and wear tests
Figure 4 summarizes the abrasive wear weight
 M. Ulutan et al.: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2010, 26(3), 251–257 253

Fig. 2 Microstructures of the untreated (a), boronized (b), carburized (c), quenched (d), PTA surface layer (e),
PTA intermediate layer (f), and PTA substrate (g) samples

Table 1 Process conditions, layer thickness and surface hardness of the samples
Methods Conditions Hardness/HV0.1 Effective layer thickness/μm
Untreated — 225 —
Quenched 850◦ C-30 min quenched in oil 580 —
Boronized 900◦ C–4 h, Ekabor 1 powder 1350 100
Carburized Carburized 9 h after cooled in 80◦ C oil 760 —
PTA modified 15 V, 110 A, powder fee rate 3.9 mm/s, 600 2500
electrode diam. 4.7 mm, plasma gas 0.8 (Ar, 1/dk),
shield gas 25 (Ar, 1/dk), arc length 3 mm

losses of the investigated samples. The smallest
weight losses were measured in the carburized sam-
ples, followed by boronized, quenched, PTA surface-
modified samples in order of increasing weight loss.
As expected, the greatest weight losses were observed
in untreated samples. Scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) microphotographs of the worn surfaces were
taken after the abrasive wear test (Fig. 5(a–e)). The
abrasively worn surfaces of the boronized, carbur-
ized, and quenched samples had nearly the same wear
traces and exhibited similar weight losses. Figure
5(e) depicts the worn surface of an untreated sam-
ple, whose surface shows a high concentration of wear
debris and narrow tracks, indicative of high abrasive
wear. The wear tracks exhibited by the PTA surface-
modified sample were intense and smooth, demon-
254 M. Ulutan et al.: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2010, 26(3), 251–257

Fig. 3 XRD analysis of the boronized samples Fig. 4 Weight losses of the samples

greater hardness increases wear resistance; however, it

strating that it suffered the highest weight loss in com-
parison to the other treated samples.
The weight losses due to SiC emery paper abra-
sion of the boronized samples were observed to be
greater than those of the carburized samples, despite
their larger hardness. Generally, it is accepted that a
is not an absolute rule, and wear properties can also
depend on different factors, according to the previous
studies. The wear results obtained for the boronized
and carburized samples agree well with those obtained
in literature. Habig[12] reported that silicon carbide
(SiC) causes an increase in the wear of iron boride.

Fig. 5 SEM images of the abrasively worn surfaces of boronized (a), carburized (b), PTA (c), quenched (d) and
untreated (e) samples
 M. Ulutan et al.: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2010, 26(3), 251–257 255
Table 2 Surface roughness and COF values of the samples after adhesive wear
Before test After test COF values
Process
Ra Rz Ra Rz Max. Mean Std.
Untreated 0.398 3.852 2.112 0.865 0.805 0.698 0.061
Quenched 0.524 5.321 0.646 6.941 0.712 0.663 0.0461
Boronized 0.402 4.115 0.357 3.651 0.619 0.525 0.0455
Carburized 0.424 4.312 0.332 4.228 0.593 0.526 0.0900
PTA 0.456 4.663 0.401 5.562 0.471 0.402 0.0383
Notes: Ra , average surface roughness; Rz , maximum surface roughness (μm)

explained by (a) increasing steel hardness[15] and (b)

increasing iron carbides formation. The energy dis-
persive spectroscopy (EDS) investigations have shown
that the formation of iron carbides increases with the
increasing carbon content (Fig. 6). The hardness of
the PTA surface-modified samples was observed to be
lower than that of the other samples. The high en-
ergy input required by the PTA process leads to a
relatively slow cooling rate, which facilitates the for-
mation of retained austenite in the microstructure.
The retained austenite decreases both the hardness
and the abrasive wear resistance of the modified sur-
faces. Accordingly, the abrasive wear resistances of
Concentration/wt pct PTA surface-treated samples were observed to be rel-
Element Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 atively low, as expected. These results agree well with
C 17.789 2.315 10.039 9.297 3.551 previous studies of different steel substrates[16–18] .
Si – 0.528 – – 0.528 Figure 7 depicts the plots of the COF vs distance
Cr 0.820 0.702 0.750 0.935 0.976 for the adhesive wear tests. Sample COF data (Table
V 0.126 – 0.108 – – 2) were recorded at one-second intervals for a con-
Mn 0.842 0.857 0.814 0.962 1.065 stant distance of 2000 m and then averaged to obtain
Mo – – – 0.530 0.414 the final results. The best adhesive wear resistance
Fe 80.423 95.599 88.290 88.277 93.467 was observed in the PTA surface-modified samples.
Fig. 6 EDS analysis of carburized sample surface Boronized, carburized, and quenched samples exhib-
ited lower COF values compared to the untreated
samples. Figure 8(a) depicts an SEM image of the
boronized worn surface after the adhesive wear test,
where cracks on the wear track, roughly perpendicular
to the direction of sliding, are clearly observable. Ad-
ditionally, hard particles, which are removed from the
boronized surface during testing, are observed to im-
pact the tribological system as an abrasive surface and
create tracks on the worn surface. The COF values
of the carburized samples are quite similar to those
of the boronized samples due to the large oxidized
layers on the treated sample surfaces. Figure 8(b) de-
picts the oxidized layer as white in color. The COF
values of the PTA surface-modified samples have a
mean value of 0.40 in the steady state period, which
Fig. 7 Coefficient of friction values of the samples plotted is the lowest COF of all of the test samples. This
against distance low COF may be the result of the formation of an
oxide layer during the incubation period. An oxide
layer is exceptionally hard, supports load, and pro-
Wang and Hutchings[13] reported that the boronized
tects the surface. The formation of an oxide layer also
steel has a much higher wear resistance to alumina
decreases the COF, and therefore, decreases the wear
abrasives than to silicon carbide abrasives. Er and
rate. The debris and the worn surfaces of the counter
Par[14] noted that the boronized steels are harder
discs of the PTA samples are dark brownish-red in
than the carburized steels which lost more weight
color, which may allude to the presence of magnetite
against silicon carbide abrasive papers. The weight
Fe3 O4 ; however, hard abrasive-oxide particles are ob-
losses of carburized steels were lower than those of the
served to form high concentrations of debris on the
quenched samples. These lower weight losses may be
256 M. Ulutan et al.: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2010, 26(3), 251–257
Fig. 8 SEM images of adhesively worn surfaces of boronized (a), carburized (b), PTA (c), quenched (d) and
untreated (e) samples
sample surfaces (Fig. 8(c)). The presence of de-
bris on the sample surface decreased the real con-
tact area therefore decreased the COF values of the
PTA surface-treated samples. The average surface
roughness (Ra ) of the PTA surface-treated samples
decreased from 0.456 to 0.401 after adhesive wear test,
while the maximum surface roughness (Rz ) increases
from 4.663 to 5.562 μm (Table 2). The surface rough-
ness measurements were corrected under the assump-
tion of a decreasing real contact area.
Untreated and quenched samples exhibit nearly
the same COF values; however, quenched samples
exhibit lower standard COF deviations compared to
those of the untreated samples. The COF data of
the untreated samples were greatly impacted by the
surface-adsorbed particles that were formed during
the adhesive wear test, which increased the COF val-
ues. SEM images of the worn surfaces of the untreated
and quenched samples are depicted in Fig. 8(d)–(e),
and the bonded particles on the sample surfaces can
clearly be seen. The friction and wear behaviors of
the samples agree well with those obtained in previ-
ous studies[19–22] .
4. Conclusions
In this study, the following results were observed:
(1) AISI 4140 steel surfaces were successfully hard-
ened by the quenching, boronizing, carburizing, and
PTA surface modification techniques. The great-
est surface hardness was obtained by the boronizing
process. (2) After the abrasive wear experiments, the
carburized sample lost the least weight, followed by
the weight losses from boronized, quenched, and PTA
surface-treated samples, in that order. Untreated
samples, as expected, resulted in the greatest weight
 M. Ulutan et al.: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2010, 26(3), 251–257
losses. (3) The lowest average COF values were ob-
served in the PTA samples. These lower COF val-
ues were caused by a relatively small contact area
and high surface oxidation. Carburized and boronized
samples were observed to have nearly the same aver-
age COF values.
From these results, carburizing, boronizing, and
quenching processes can be advised as abrasive service
conditionings for AISI 4140 steel. If the adhesive wear
is effective on the tribological system, PTA, boroniz-
ing or carburizing processes should be preferred for
AISI 4140 steel, respectively.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Eskisehir Osmangazi
University Research Council (No. 200315015). Special
thanks to Serkan Ozel and OTOSAN Corp. for their con-
tributions.
REFERENCES
[1 ] S.H. Choo, S. Lee and M.G. Golkovski: Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, 2000, 293(1-2), 56.
[2 ] A. Medina-Flores, J. Oseguera, P. Santiago and J.A.
Ascencio: Surf. Coat. Technol., 2004, 188-189, 7.
[3 ] O. Kessler, T. Herding, F. Hoffmann and P. Mayr:
Surf. Coat. Technol., 2004, 182(2-3), 184.
[4 ] M.H. Staia, A. Fragiel, S.P. Brhl, J.N. Feugeas and
B.J. Gomez: Thin Solid Films, 2000, 377-378, 650.
[5 ] Y. Totik: Surf. Coat. Technol., 2006, 200(8), 2711.
257
[6 ] S. Sen, U. Sen and C. Bindal: Mater. Lett., 2006,
60(29-30), 3481.
[7 ] A. Küper, X. Qiao, H.R. Stock and P. Mayr: Surf.
Coat. Technol., 2000, 130(1), 87.
[8 ] F.E. Kennedy, D. Lidhagen, A. Erdemir, J.B. Wood-
ford and T. Kato: Wear, 2003, 255(7-12), 854.
[9 ] P. Corengia, G. Ybarra, C. Moina, A. Cabo and E.
Broitman: Surf. Coat. Technol., 2005, 200(7), 2391.
[10] T. Mioković, V. Schulze, O. Vöhringer and D. Löhe:
Acta Mater., 2007, 55(2), 589.
[11] K. Padilla, A. Velásquez, J.A. Berrı́os and E.S.P.
Cabrera: Surf. Coat. Technol., 2002, 150(2-3), 151.
[12] K.H. Habig: in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Wear of
Materials, ASME, New York, 1983, 288.
[13] A.G. Wang and I.M. Hutchings: Wear, 1988, 124(2),
149.
[14] U. Er and B. Par: Wear, 2006, 261(3-4), 251.
[15] V. Abouei, H. Saghaan, Sh. Kheirandish and Kh.
Ranjbar: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2007, 23(1), 107.
[16] E. Bourithis, A. Tazedakis and G. Papadimitriou: J.
Mater. Process. Technol., 2002, 128(1-3), 169.
[17] L. Bourithis and G. Papadimitriou: Wear, 2005,
258(11-12), 1775.
[18] L. Bourithis, G.D. Papadimitriou: Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, 2003, 361(1-2), 165.
[19] J.A. Wang and H. Danninger: Wear, 1998, 222(1), 49.
[20] C.W. Cho, Y.Z. Lee: Surf. Coat. Technol., 2004,
179(1-2), 1.
[21] A. Bahrami, S.H.M. Anijdan, M.A. Golozar, M. Sha-
manian and N. Varahram: Wear, 2005, 258(5-6), 846.
[22] G. Straffelini, D. Trabucco and A. Molinari: Wear,
2001, 250, 485.