Retained austenite stability on rolling contact fatigue performance of 8620 case‐carburized steel
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Varying levels of retained austenite (RA) were achieved through varying undercooling severity in uniformly treated case carburized 8620 steel. Specimens were characterized via XRD and EBSD techniques to determine RA volume fraction and material characteristics prior to rolling contact fatigue (RCF). Higher RA volume fractions did not lead to improvement in RCF lives. XRD measurements after RCF testing indicated that little RA decomposition had occurred during RCF. A continuum damage mechanics (CDM) finite element model (FEM) was then developed to investigate the effects of RA stability on RCF. The results obtained from the CDM FEM captured similar behavior observed in the experimental results. Utilizing the CDM FEM, a parametric study was undertaken to examine the effects of RA quantity, RA stability, and applied pressure on RCF performance. The study demonstrates that the energy requirements to transform the RA phase are critical to RCF performance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels · Metal Alloys Wear and Properties · Metallurgy and Material Forming
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechanical Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana USA
Funding
Cummins Incorporated
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Retained Austenite (1948 Campbell, Edward, Demille Memorial Lecture)
2. The effect of heat treatment on retained austenite in a 1% carbon‐chromium bearing steel
3. Size change of through hardened bearing steels at application temperatures
4. Dimensional stability of high carbon bearing steels
5. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.02.01710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.02.017 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.msea.2013.11.07210.1016/j.msea.2013.11.072 ↗
7. 10.1016/0043-1648(85)90069-910.1016/0043-1648(85)90069-9 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.msea.2018.06.07810.1016/j.msea.2018.06.078 ↗
9. 10.2320/matertrans1960.15.17310.2320/matertrans1960.15.173 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.10.00110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.10.001 ↗
11. 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2019-71510.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2019-715 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.mtla.2018.08.02910.1016/j.mtla.2018.08.029 ↗
13. Smith WF · 1993
14. 10.1016/j.msea.2020.14002310.1016/j.msea.2020.140023 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.11.00310.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.11.003 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.msea.2015.01.00510.1016/j.msea.2015.01.005 ↗
17. 10.1007/s11661-011-0687-y10.1007/s11661-011-0687-y ↗
18. 10.1520/STP36135S10.1520/STP36135S ↗
19. RCF life comparsion of bearing steels at two stress levels
20. 10.1016/j.wear.2004.01.02010.1016/j.wear.2004.01.020 ↗
21. 10.1007/s11661-001-0240-510.1007/s11661-001-0240-5 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2010.09.04010.1016/j.scriptamat.2010.09.040 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.01.03510.1016/j.matdes.2018.01.035 ↗
24. 10.2320/matertrans.46.183910.2320/matertrans.46.1839 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.10561010.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105610 ↗
26. 10.1111/ffe.1273110.1111/ffe.12731 ↗
27. 10.1115/1.404005110.1115/1.4040051 ↗
28. 10.1016/0022-5096(95)00001-Y10.1016/0022-5096(95)00001-Y ↗
29. 10.1080/10402004.2019.164032910.1080/10402004.2019.1640329 ↗
30. Yu W · 2020
31. Lemaitre J · 2012
32. Hatem TM · 2009
33. 10.1115/1.295910910.1115/1.2959109 ↗
34. 10.1080/10402004.2019.158755710.1080/10402004.2019.1587557 ↗
35. Lemaitre J · 2005
36. 10.1016/0001-6160(53)90083-210.1016/0001-6160(53)90083-2 ↗
37. 10.1007/BF0264230810.1007/BF02642308 ↗