00M-144
Cost Reduction Processes for Transfer Case Sprockets:
François Chagnon [1], Jeffrey A. Danaher [2], Edmond Ilia [3] and Steve Krise [3]
Copyright © 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Transfer case sprockets usually require quenching to
improve hardness and mechanical properties. This
additional process step can be avoided with sinter
hardening. Indeed, sinter hardening allows the
production of P/M parts with high strength and apparent
hardness directly from sintering because the martensitic
transformation takes place during the cooling portion of
the sintering operation. Therefore, this process
eliminates the need for a post-sintering heat treatment
with all the inherent related problems such as part
distortion, oil contamination and added processing
costs. Many low alloy steel powders have been
developed for sinter hardening applications. These
materials, combined with the availability of sintering
furnaces equipped with enhanced cooling capacity,
make sinter hardening particularly attractive for parts that
are difficult to quench because of their size and shape.
Moreover, the powder mix formulation and processing
conditions can be tailored to achieve a specific
microstructure.
The objective of this paper is to review the metallurgical
aspects involved in sinter hardening and to relate these
to the characteristics of the base powder, admixed
additions and processing conditions in order to develop
appropriate mix formulations for the production of
transfer case sprockets.
INTRODUCTION
The former process to manufacture the NVG transfer
case sprockets by P/M consisted in compacting parts to
densities ranging from 6.8 to 7.2 g/cm³ from a FN-0205
mix. These were sintered at 1120°C for 20 to 25
minutes in a nitrogen-based atmosphere, sized to meet
dimensional tolerances and heat treated to reach an
apparent hardness of 30 HRC minimum. Parts were de-
oiled and tempered before shipping to customer. The
case sprockets must survive an engine test of 800
1
Part 1: Metallurgical Aspects
[1] Quebec Metal Powders LTD
[2] QMP America
[3] MascoTech Sintered Components
Joules at NVG. Because this process involved many
steps, sinter hardening was looked at as an alternative to
reduce processing costs. Sinter hardening makes the
elimination of the quenching operation feasible because
parts reach high apparent hardness during the post-
sintering cooling. Also, sinter hardening reduces
thermal stresses and distortion which generally happen
during heat treating. The sizing operation is therefore
not required since better dimensional tolerances can be
maintained. It is also worth noting that sinter hardened
parts cannot be sized because of the high hardness
reached after sintering. Finally, the cleaning operation
to remove oil before shipping is eliminated together with
the smoke generated during the tempering operation.
The substantial weight of the transfer case sprocket,
1,300 g, offers an interesting challenge to meet the NVG
requirements using the sinter hardening route. The base
powder must show good compressibility and high
hardenability to reach the density and apparent hardness
specifications. Part I of this case study reviews the
metallurgical aspects involved in the sinter hardening
process. The second part of the study covers the
evaluation of various material formulations and
processing conditions to successfully produce transfer
case sprockets by sinter hardening.
HARDENABILITY AND HARDNESS
Hardenability is the property which determines the depth
and distribution of hardness induced by quenching a
steel. Hardenability is affected by the chemical
composition, austenitic grain size and structure of the
steel before quenching [1]. Hardness is the resistance of
steel to plastic deformation [1]. It is usually measured by
a hardness testing machine that makes an indentation
into the surface of the steel. For P/M materials, the
residual porosity affects the resistance to plastic
deformation and the term apparent hardness represents
the combination of matrix hardness plus the effect of
porosity. As illustrated in Figure 1, the apparent
hardness increases linearly with density. The maximum HV
hardness is that of a fully dense, fully martensitic 1000 HRC

structure. In the reference study [2], the amount of 900 Effect of retained 64
martensite in the forged specimens was about 90%, and 800
austenite
61
that of the pressed and sintered ones was about 75%. 700 57
Martensitic Structure (quenched)

HARDNESS
This explains why the straight line does not intersect the
600 53
matrix hardness at full density.
500 47

400 41

300 31
Pearlitic Structure (air cooled)
65 Matrix Hardness
200 13
APPARENT HARDNESS, HRC

100 Spheroidized Carbide Structure

60

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

55 CARBON, %

50 Figure 2. Hardness as a function of carbon content

and microstructure [3].
45 40

40 75% Martensite
90% Martensite 35

APPARENT HARDNESS, HRC

35
6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 30
DENSITY, g/cm³

Figure 1. Variation of apparent hardness with 25

density of a sinter hardened steel (ATOMET 4701+2%

Cu+0.8%C) [2]. 20

The maximum hardness in a steel is achieved in a fully 15

martensitic structure for any given carbon content. This
is well illustrated in Figure 2. The hardness of martensite
rapidly increases with the carbon content to reach 60
HRC at about 0.4%C. Beyond this carbon concentration,
the rate of increase is significantly reduced up to about
0.80%C to reach 65 HRC and then levels off due to the
tendency to retain austenite in high carbon steels. For
pearlitic and spheroidized carbide structures, hardness
increases linearly with carbon content [3]. Therefore, in
a quenched structure, when the concentration of softer
phases increases, i.e. less martensite, the hardness of
the material diminishes. This is illustrated in Figure 3 for
sinter hardened specimens made from ATOMET 4701
with 1% copper and 0.65% combined carbon cooled at
different rates, 0.8 to 14°C/s from 650 to 400°C. The
apparent hardness increases linearly with the amount of
martensite. At a green density of 6.8 g/cm, the
maximum apparent hardness that can be achieved with
this material is about 39 HRC which corresponds to a
martensite content of 100%. The only way to further
increase hardness is to raise the density.
2
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MARTENSITE, %
Figure 3. Variation of apparent hardness with the
amount of martensite in sinter hardened specimens
(ATOMET 4701, 1% Cu and 0.65% combined carbon
at 6.8 g/cm³).
Carbon is a key element to achieve high hardness in
steels. However, carbon alone is not sufficient to
achieve a throughout martensitic structure because of a
lack of hardenability. Rapid quench rates are therefore
required to full harden medium carbon steels and these
lead to shape distortion and cracking [1]. For P/M
materials, this phenomena is amplified because of the
presence of porosity which lowers heat transfer during
cooling due to the lower thermal conductivity of porous
parts [4].
Alloying elements are therefore added to plain carbon
steels to improve mechanical properties by increasing
the depth of hardening. This means that larger sections
can be produced with a throughout martensitic structure.
Also, a high hardenable steel requires a slower quench
rate which leads to a significant reduction of thermal
stresses and distortion. This is exactly the principle
behind sinter hardening. Alloying elements are added in
the liquid steel or admixed with the powder to improve
hardenability.
EFFECT OF ALLOYING ELEMENTS
Sinter hardening is defined as a process where the
martensite transformation takes place during the cooling
phase of the sintering cycle. This means that the alloy
hardenability and/or the cooling rate from the sintering
temperature must be high enough to make that reaction
occurs. The martensite transformation is a diffusionless
reaction [5], meaning that there is no change in
chemical composition but a sudden change in crystal
structure when austenite transforms in martensite. The
face-centered cubic (f.c.c.) structure of austenite
changes into a supersaturated solid solution of carbon
trapped in a body-centered tetragonal (b.c.t) structure by
a combination of shearing actions. This creates a
distorted lattice and the degree of distortion increases
with the concentration of carbon. This distorted lattice
accounts for the high hardness of martensite. The
martensite reaction is also athermal [5], meaning that it
proceeds only on cooling and stops if cooling is
interrupted.
Basically there are two different types of steel powders
for P/M applications. First, unalloyed iron powders can
be used in combination with admixed elements.
Graphite, copper and nickel are the most commonly
used elements in the P/M industry. Copper and nickel
can be also bonded to the steel powders by either
binder or diffusion treatments. These treatments are
known to minimize segregation and improve
dimensional stability. The former requires the use of an
organic binder while the latter required a thermal
treatment to bond the metallic additives to the steel
powders. Admixed nickel alone does not sufficiently
improve hardenability to obtain a large amount of
martensitic after sintering at conventional sintering
temperature because of its poor diffusion in iron. High
temperature sintering and long time at temperature are
therefore required to promote diffusion [6,7,8]. The use
of manganese, chromium and molybdenum under either
their elemental forms, ferro or master alloys combined
to high temperature sintering to get these elements in
solution makes sinter hardening feasible with unalloyed
powders as base material [6,9].
The second type of steel powders used in P/M
applications are low alloy steel powders. Because the
alloying elements are fully dissolved in the iron matrix, a
homogenous microstructure can be achieved after
sintering at conventional temperature i.e 1120°C.
Graphite, copper or nickel can also be admixed to
increase strength. As for unalloyed steel powders,
binder or diffusion treatments can be used to improve
dimensional control. The utilization of elements with low
coefficient of diffusion in iron like nickel or ferroalloys
requires high temperature sintering to get homogenous
microstructure.
Figure 4 illustrates the effect of various alloying elements
on the hardenability of steels. Manganese, molybdenum
and chromium are the most efficient elements to improve
3
hardenability of steels while the effect of copper and
nickel is significantly lower. Nevertheless, nickel, in
either admixed or alloyed conditions, and admixed
copper are the most utilized elements in P/M because
their oxides are easily reduced at conventional sintering
temperature. However, in the admixed condition, the
diffusion of nickel in iron is incomplete and leads to a
heterogeneous microstructure after sintering which is not
suitable for many sinter hardening applications where
uniform apparent hardness is required. This is the
reason why fully low alloy steel powders are generally
used for these applications. Figure 5 illustrates the
microstructures of a FD-0408 (diffusion alloy powder with
4% Ni, 1.5% Cu and 0.80%C) and a sinter hardened
powder with 2% copper and 0.80% carbon. The
heterogeneous structure of the diffusion alloy is evident
with the presence of martensite, bainite, pearlite and
both rich nickel and retained austenite phases. For the
fully pre-alloyed FLC-4608 type material (FL-4600
powder with 2% admixed copper and 0.85% carbon),
the microstructure consisted of almost only martensite
with few areas of bainite.
5
Mn
4
MULTIPLYING FACTOR
Mo
Cr Ni
3
2
Cu
1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
ALLOYING ELEMENTS, %
Figure 4. Effect of alloying elements on
hardenability of steels [10,11].
However, pre-alloying nickel in the iron matrix tends to
reduce the compressibility of steel powders because this
element is a ferrite strengthener as seen in Figure 6.
Copper is also known to be a strong ferrite strengthener.
Elements that promote the strength of the ferrite will
negatively affect the powder compressibility. It can also
be observed on Figures 4 and 6 that chromium and
molybdenum could be valuable pre-alloying elements to
improve hardenability while maintaining good
compressibility. However, during water atomization and
annealing, some elements like manganese and
chromium can be oxidized and this can also negatively
affect compressibility [12]. Therefore, the concentration
of these elements are generally maintained below 0.6%
to minimize their negative impact on compressibility [12].
Molybdenum is a very interesting element that promotes
hardenability without strongly affecting compressibility.
However, this element is expensive and significantly
raises the cost of the part.
 the sintering temperature. Figure 7 illustrates continuous
cooling transformation diagrams (CCT) of materials
having different hardenabilities. In order to reach a fully
martensitic structure for a given material, the cooling
rate must be fast enough to miss not only the pearlite
nose but also the bainite nose of the CCT curves.

CR1 >> CR4 Matl Hardenability

Matl 1 << Matl 4
CR1 CR4

Matl 1 Matl 4
Austenite Pearlite

TEMPERATURE
Austenite Bainite

a
Austenite Martensite

TRANSFORMATION TIME

Figure 7. Illustration of microstructures obtained for

different materials of different hardenability
submitted to various cooling rates.
P/M steels with heterogeneous microstructure due to
incomplete diffusion of admixed elements as seen I
Figure 5a, can be visualized as a combination of many
materials. Areas rich in alloying elements have greater
hardenability than poor ones and shift the CCT diagram
b to the right. As a result, for a given cooling rate, there is
Figure 5. Microstructure of FD-0408 (a) and FLC- a mixture of various constituents depending on the
4608 (b) sinter hardened materials. concentration in alloying elements in a specific area in
220 the part. When fully alloyed P/M steels are used as base
Si
materials, it is easier to determine the critical cooling
200 Mn
rate which will allow to reach the desired microstructure.
BRINELL HARDNESS NUMBER

180
A simple technique consists in recording the cooling rate
that is encountered by the part when cooling from the
160
Ni
sintering temperature and correlates it to the apparent
Mo hardness and percent of martensite in the part. It is
140
V worth noting that the sintering conditions (furnace load,
belt speed, sintering temperature, atmosphere
120 W
composition) and the section thickness and density of
100
Cr the parts will have a significant impact on cooling rate.
At cooling rates generally obtained in standard sintering
80 conditions and for materials exhibiting good hardenability
like FLC-0208, the pearlite nose is easily missed.
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 However, this is not the case for the bainitic nose (from
ALLOYING ELEMENT IN FERRITE, % 650 to 400°C) since most of the sintering furnaces are
not equipped with fast cool units which make the
Figure 6. Probable hardening effect of various reduction of the cooling rate in this critical temperature
elements as dissolved in ferrite [13]. range feasible. Materials with enhanced hardenability
PROCESSING SINTER HARDENABLE MATERIALS are therefore required to retard the bainitic
transformation. Figure 8 illustrates the effect of the
The main goal of using sinter hardenable materials is to weight of four inch diameter discs on apparent hardness
achieve almost fully martensite structure and therefore of two sinter hardened materials with different
maximum apparent hardness after sintering. It becomes hardenability [14]. For the 400 g specimens, both
therefore important to well understand the phase materials show similar apparent hardness. However as
transformation mechanisms involved when cooling from the weight of the specimens is raised to 800 g, ATOMET
4
4701 which has higher hardenability than FL-4600 600

powder, shows a lesser reduction in hardness.

500

50

TEMPERATURE, °C
ATOMET 4701+2% Cu+ 0.8%C 400
45 FLC4608
APPARENT HARDNESS, HRC

40 300

35 Ms
200
30
100
25
Mf

20
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
15
PERCENT CARBON, %
10 Figure 9. Influence of carbon content on the
5 martensite range [5].
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
35 50
Specimen weight, g
Retained Austenite
Figure 8. Effect of specimen weight on apparent Apparent Hardness

APPARENT HARDNESS, HRC

hardness of sinter hardened materials (green density 30

RETAINED AUSTENITE, %
of 6.8 g/cm³) [14].
40

It was previously mentioned that carbon content is the 25

key element to achieve high hardness. However, in high

carbon steels, it is easier to retain austenite at room 20
temperature. Raising the carbon content lowers both Ms 30
(temperature at which transformation of austenite to
martensite starts) and Mf (temperature at which 15

transformation ends) [5]. As illustrated in Figure 9, as

the carbon content exceeds 0.6%, austenite is not all 10 20
transformed into martensite at room temperature and the 0.65 0.80

range from Ms to Mf is enlarged with increasing carbon COMBINED CARBON, %

levels. Raising the concentration of alloying elements
also lowers Ms and increases the susceptibility of
retaining austenite in alloyed steels. Because sinter
hardened P/M materials generally contain high combined
carbon, they are susceptible to retain austenite. This is
illustrated in Figure 10. Raising the combined carbon
from 0.65% to 0.80% in this sinter hardened P/M steel
increases the amount of retained austenite from 15% to
28% [15]. Because retained austenite is softer than
martensite, the higher amount of retained austenite in
the high carbon material probably limits the gain in
apparent hardness to 4 HRC.
The transformation of austenite into martensite due to
the change of the f.c.c. structure to b.c.t structure
creates a highly distorted lattice with volume expansion
which accounts for the high hardness of martensite.
Therefore, a tempering treatment is generally carried out
on sinter hardened parts to restore their mechanical
properties. The tempering temperature depends on
whether the strength, impact resistance or hardness
needs to be optimized.
Figure 10. Effect of combined carbon concentration
of percent of retained austenite in sinter hardened
P/M steels (ATOMET 4701+2% Cu+C; 7.0 g/cm³) [15].
Figure 11 illustrates the effect of the tempering
temperature on apparent hardness, tensile properties
and impact energy of sinter hardened materials
containing 0.65% and 0.80% combined carbon [15]. It is
evident from this figure that maximum values of all
properties cannot be met at the same time and
compromises are therefore required when designing a
new part. The high carbon material exhibits the highest
apparent hardness in the as-sintered condition and for
the various tempering temperatures. However, this
material shows lower tensile and yield strengths than the
0.65% C material in the as-sintered condition and for
tempering temperatures up to about 500°C. In the as-
sintered condition, both materials show comparable low
impact energy values.
Therefore, for applications requiring high apparent
hardness and where mechanical properties are less
critical, tempering can be avoided. However, for
applications requiring a good combination of hardness
and strength, tempering the 0.80%C material at only
150°C for 60 minutes is a good compromise with a loss
of only 2 HRC in hardness, from 41 to 39 HRC, but a
gain of more than 10% in tensile strength, from 817 to
910 MPa and 50% in impact energy from 12 to 17 joules.

5
Applications requiring high tensile strength and impact resistance.
energy require a lower carbon content i.e. 0.65%, and a
tempering treatment at 200°C. CONCLUSIONS
45
Sinter hardening makes the production of parts with high
0.80% C
apparent hardness feasible after sintering, eliminating
40
the need for a post-sintering heat treatment. The
APPARENT HARDNESS, HRC

following elements are key parameters to succeed with

35 sinter hardening:
0.65% C

30 1. Base powders must show sufficient hardenability in

order to produce martensite when P/M parts are
25
cooled from the sintering temperature. These
powders must also have good compressibility to
reach high green density during the compaction
20
step.
15
int
. 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2. Because of the presence of porosity, P/M steels
-S
As
TEMPERING TEMPERATURE, °C always exhibit lower apparent hardness than the
1100
same material at full density. For a given martensite
content, apparent hardness of P/M steels increases
linearly with density.
1000 0.65% C Tensile Strength

3. At a given density, apparent hardness increases

STRENGTH, MPa

900
linearly with the martensite content.

4. To fully harden P/M parts, cooling rates from the

800
0.80% C No yield at 0.8%C
sintering temperature must be fast enough to avoid
at 400°C both the pearlite and bainite transformations.
Yield Strength
0.65% C
700
0.80% C
5. Proper adjustment of the carbon content is required
to reach the optimum combination of hardness and
600
.
strength.
int 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-S
As
TEMPERING TEMPERATURE, °C
6. A good understanding of the application is required
22
to successfully design a sinter hardened part.
Specific part requirements must lead the choice of
20 0.80% C
the base powder and mix formulation as well as the
compaction and sintering parameters and the
IMPACT ENERGY, J

18 tempering conditions.

16 REFERENCES
0.65% C
14
1. Smith, W.F., “Structure And Properties Of Engineering
Alloys”, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981, pp 114-161.
2. Chagnon F. and Trudel Y., “Effect Of Density On
12 Mechanical Properties Of Sinter Hardened P/M Materials”,
Advances in Powder Metallurgy & Particulate Materials,
Vol. 3 Metal Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ,
10
-S
int
. 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1998, pp 12-119 to 12-125.
As 3. Krauss G., “STEELS: Heat Treating And Processing
TEMPERING TEMPERATURE, °C
Principles”, American Society for Metals, Materials Parks,
Figure 11. Effect of tempering temperature and OH, 1990, pp145-179.
carbon content on apparent hardness, tensile 4. Ferguson, H., “The Heat Treatment Of P/M Steels-An
th
properties and impact energy of sinter hardened Overview”, Proceedings of the 16 ASM Heat Treating
materials (ATOMET 4701+2% Cu+C at 6.9 g/cm³) [15]. Society Conference & Exposition, 19-21 March 1996,
Cincinnati, OH, pp 319-322.
To maximize yield strength, a tempering treatment at 5. Avner, S.H., “Introduction To Physical Metallurgy”,
300°C is required. This is the temperature where McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, pp 249-347.
retained austenite is almost completely transformed into 6. Danniger H., “Sintering Of Low Alloy Steels Prepared
From Elemental Powders”, Powder Metallurgy Science &
ferrite and carbides. However, at this temperature, sinter Technology-Vol.-4, July 1993, pp 22-36.
hardened materials are sensitive to temper 7. Kawase K., Morimoto K., Kohno T. and Yanagawa H.,
embrittlement which significantly deteriorates impact “High Temperature Sintering Of Low Alloy Steel Powders”,
6
 SAE International Congress & Exhibition, Detroit February
26-29, 1996, SAE Technical Paper 960381.
8. Miura H., Baba T. and Honda T., “The Effect Of
Heterogeneous Structure On The Properties Of Sintered
Low Alloy Steels”, Advances in Powder Metallurgy &
Particulate Materials, Vol. 4 Metal Powder Industries
Federation, Princeton, NJ, 1996, pp 13-42 to 13-49.
9. Shivanath R., Jones P.K. and Lawcock R., “On The
Synergies Of High Temperature Sintering And Alloy
Development For High Endurance P/M Powertrain
Components”, Advances in Powder Metallurgy &
Particulate Materials, Vol. 4 Metal Powder Industries
Federation, Princeton, NJ, 1996, pp 13-427 to 13-437.
th
10. “The Making, Shaping And Treating Of Steel”, 9 edition,
United Steel Corporation, 1971.
11. Grossmann M.A. and Bain E.C., “Elements of
Hardenability”, American Society for Metals, Metals Park,
OH, 1952.
12. Trudel Y. Gagné and Racicot F., “Design Criteria For The
Manufacturing Of Low Alloy Steel Powders”, Advances in
Powder Metallurgy & Particulate Materials, Vol. 5 Metal
Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ, 1991, pp
45-58.
13. Avner, S.H., “Introduction To Physical Metallurgy”,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, pp 349-385.
14. Chagnon F. and Trudel Y., “Designing Low Alloy Steel
Powders For Sinter Hardening Applications”, Advances in
Powder Metallurgy & Particulate Materials, Vol. 4 Metal
Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ, 1996, pp
13-211 to 13-220.
15. Chagnon F. and Gagné M., “Effect Of Tempering
Temperature On Mechanical Properties And
Microstructure Of Sinter Hardened Materials”, Advances
in Powder Metallurgy & Particulate Materials, Vol. 2 Metal
Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ, 1999.