02FTM7 Selecting the Best Carburizing Method for the Heat Treatment of Gears by: G.D. Lindell, Twin Disc, Inc., D.J. Breuer, Metal Improvement Company, Inc., D.H. Herring, The HERRING GROUP, Inc. American Gear Manufacturers Association TECHNICAL PAPERSelecting the Best Carburizing Method for the Heat Treatment of Gears G.D. Lindell, Twin Dise, Inc., D.J. Breuer, Metal Improvement Company, Inc., DH. Herring, The HERRING GROUP, Inc. [The statements and opinions contained herein are those ofthe author and should notbe construed as. an official action or ‘pinion of the American Gear Manufacturers Association. J Copyright © 2002 American Gear Manufacturers Association 1500 King Street, Suite 201 ‘Alexandria, Virginia, 22314 ‘October, 2002 ISBN: 1-55589-807-6Selecting the Best Carburizing Method for the Heat Treatment of Gears Gerald D. Lindell, Twin Disc, Inc. David J. Breuer, Metal Improvement Company, Inc. Daniel H. Herring, The HERRING GROUP, Inc. ABSTRACT ‘A very good compromise between cost and performance is achieved by atmosphere carburizing, the present day de facto standard processing method used in the gear industry. A typical workload is shown in Figure 1 Figure 1: Load of Production Gears (650 Ibs net) in Position for Loading into an Atmosphere Carburizing Furnace followed by Oil Quenching. ‘All indications. are, however, that the greatest Potential for future growth will come in vacuum carburizing. Figure 2 shows aload of gears ready to be charged into a typical vacuum carburizer. This ‘method of carburizing has been shown to offer proven metallurgical and environmental benefits. For the industry to stay competitive both technologies will be needed in the future. This is to insure that the challenges posed by ever increasing performance requirements in smaller packages and by anew generation of materials and manufacturing ‘methods can be met. INTRODUCTION (Of paramount importance today is lowering unit cost that can only be achieved by improved dimensional control and more cost effective manufacturing methods. The benefits achieved by ‘vacuum carburizing can be realized in high volume, critical component manufacturing Figure 2: Load of Production Gears (650 lbs net) in Position for Loading into a Vacuum Carburizing Furnace followed by High Gas Pressure or Oil Quenching Vacuum carburizing has proven itselfa robust heat treatment process and a viable alternative to atmosphere carburizing. Gear manufacturers of heavy duty, off-road transmissions and related ‘equipment such as Twin Disc Corporation have found numerous benefits in substituting vacuum carburizing with high gas pressure quenching for either atmosphere or vacuum carburizing with oil quenching technology. This paper will present scientific data in support ofthis choice. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND It is unfortunate that atmosphere and vacuum technology are viewed as competitors instead of as complements to one another. The existing “us versus them” mentality created by constant ‘negative comparisons has hurt both technologies. Inthe 1960s the need for better atmosphere control prompted a series of R&D efforts to find a solution (One of these led to the development of vacuum carburizing, viewed as an alternative to atmosphere carburizing providing enhanced metallurgicalproperties and shorter cycle times. However, it was promoted within the heat treatment industry as a panacea for all the problems of atmosphere carburizing, and, thus, initiated competition between the two technologies. Had vacuum carburizing proved to be a robust technology at that time, itis generally believed that a significant portion of today’s installed equipment base would use this technology. Its failure to achieve commercial success can be directly related to reliability and cost. The creation of soot was the Actilles heel of vacuum carburizing. Perhaps a ‘more accurate statement is that the equipment designs and process parameters of vacuum carburizing were not optimized, and the technology's capabilties oversold to the heat-treating community ‘Today these problems have been addressed and ssooting is no longer a limitation of the process. New equipment designs, controls, and processing ‘methods assure excellent up time productivity and high volume capacities. POWER TRANSMISSION COMPONENTS: ‘The application and manufacture of high quality transmission gearing used in demanding applications such as shown in Figures 3 and 4 require careful consideration of a number of critical factors including: component design; material selection; heat treatment method; and the influence of post heat treatment manufacturing operations. Gearing is subject to both sliding and rolling contact stresses on the gear flanks in addition to bending stress in the tooth roots. The most desirable gear properties to meet these two criteria would be hardened gears for strength and contact properties with residual compressive surface stress for bending fatigue properties. Fatigue is a major cause of failure in gears. Fatigue failures fall into two classes: tooth root bending fatigue and tooth flank contact related failures. In this work residual stress and microhardness testing were used as indicators to compare the atmosphere ‘and vacuum carburizing processes. ‘The greater the magnitude and depth of compressive stress the greater the abilty to improve fatigue properties. A high compressive stress value at the surface helps the component resist crack initiation. The deeper the compressive layer the greater the resistance to crack growth for longer periods of time. Figure 3: Typical heavy duty Transmission Used {or Airport Fire Vehicles. Figure 4: Heavy Duty Marine Transmission ‘Transfer Gears, Residual stress values are an important factor in fatigue critical components. Residual stresses are additive with applied stress. Compressive residualstresses are desired as they oppose the applied, repetitive, and undesirable tensile stress. that causes fatigue failure. X-ray difraction methods allow measurement of residual stress levels For the purposes ofthis investigation, the vacuum and atmosphere carburizing processes were studied using x-ray diffraction techniques and microhardness measurements. Specimens of AISI £8620 material were manufactured, carburized by the diferent methods and subjected to identical post heat treatment operations. Grinding and shot pening were selected as representative CARBURIZING PROCESSES Carburizing of a steel surface is both a function of the rate of carbon absorption into the steel and the diffusion of carbon away from the surface and into ‘the metal. Once a high concentration of carbon has developed on the surface, during what is commonly called the "boost stage’, the process normally introduces a “diffuse stage” where solid state diffusion occurs over time. This step results in a change in the carbon concentration, or carbon gradient between the carbon rich surface and the interior core of the metal. The result is a reduction of ‘the carbon concentration at the surface while increasing the depth of carbon absorption In the carburization process the residual compressive stress results from the delayed transformation and volume expansion of the carbon-enriched surface. This induces the desirable residual compressive stress through the case hardened layer. ‘Atmosphere Carburizing ‘Atmosphere carburizing is an empirically based, time-proven process in which a carbon-rich atmosphere surrounding a workload is used to chemically react with the surface of the parts to allow an adequate quantity of carbon to be absorbed at the surface and diffused into the material In atmosphere carburizing parts are heated to austenitizing temperature in an Endothermic or equivalent atmosphere containing approximately 40% hydrogen, 40% nitrogen, and 20% carbon ‘monoxide. Small percentages of carbon dioxide (up to 1/2%), water vapor (upto 1%), and methane (up to 1/2%) along with trace amounts of oxygen are also present. This “neutral” or ‘carrier gas" atmosphere is generally considered neither carburizing nor decarburizing to the surface of the steel In order to perform the carburizing process enriching gas is added to the carrier gas atmosphere. The enriching gas is usually either natural gas which is about 90 ~ 95% methane (CHs) or propane (CH). In atmosphere carburizing itis commen practice to begin the flow of enrichment gas just after the furnace has recovered setpoint. ‘This practice contributes to case non-uniformity as various parts of the workload are not uniform in temperature and carburize at diferent rates. ‘The water gas reaction (Equation 1) is important in the control of the atmosphere carburizing process. Instruments such as dew point analyzers monitor the H2O/Hp ratio of this equation while infrared ‘analyzers and oxygen probes look at the COCO ratio. CO+H20 = CO2 + Hp O) In atmosphere carburizing, intergranular oxidation is one of the phenomena taking place as a result of the constant changes occurring in the furnace atmosphere. This can be explained by considering an alternative form ofthe water gas reaction (Equation 2). Herewe ‘see that the transfer of carbon in atmospheres ‘containing CO and His connected witha transfer of ‘oxygen, giving rise to an oxidation effectin steel with alloying elements such as silicon, chromium, and manganese (CO + He = IC] + HO a Figure 5 shows results from an actual gear sample that was atmosphere carburized. Results show carburization to an effective case depth (50 HRC) of 0.030" (0.76 mm) in the root and 0.052" (1.33 mm) at the pitch diameter. Of greater significance is the value for the depth of high hardness (= 58 HRC), namely 0.014" (0.35 mm) at both the gear tooth pitch line and root. From this, depth the hardness values quickly diverge. These results are typical of the vast majority of carburized ‘gears currently in service. ‘Advantages of atmosphere carburizing include: ‘+ The lowest initial capital equipment investment cost.Hardness (microns) 0010 020 58 HRC 50 HRC Pitch Line Root 1 m0 052 ost oro om Depth (inches) Figure 5: Pitch Line & Root Comparison: Atmosphere Carburized (Oil Quenched) Gear + Capabiity of high volume output using a wide variety of equipment styles, types, and work- toad sizes. Furnace types include box, pit, mechanized box (integral- and sealed-quench furnaces), pusher, conveyor (mesh belt and cast link bel), shaker hearth, rotary hearth, rotary drum (rotary retort), and carbottom. = Adequate process control; that i; all of the pro- cess variables are understood and reliable con- trol devices are available to provide a measure of process repeatabilty + Capable of being easily automated with recipe ‘and/or part-number control of heat treat cycles. + Well-understood process problems allowing troubleshooting based on an_ established theoretical and empirical knowledge base. ‘The last point is very important. Often in the real world, cost or other considerations mean that problems cannot be avoided, but itis the abilty to Quickly and easily address the issues that arise, which dictates the success of a given technology. This certainly is one of biggest advantages of atmosphere carburizing, Disadvantages of atmosphere carburizing include: + A requirement of knowledge gained through empirically methods is required to achieve re- peatable results. This is due toa wide variability inthe type of equipment, its operation, mainte- ‘nance and constantly changing process condi- tions, ‘= The need to “condition” equipment if idled or shut down prior to processing work. + The need for large material allowances for post-processing operations due to accuracy and finish requirements. Case depths typically are speciiedin wide ranges (e.g. 0.030%00.050, in. (0.75 to 1.25 mm) to compensate for cycle induced variabilty. + Case depth quality issues; the best part of the case often lost due tothe amount of stock re moval required + The need to constantly be concerned about ‘safety and fire prevention issues (e.g. fre from ‘combustible gases and quench oils, hot contact surfaces and pinch points). + Theneed to monitor environmental pollution is- sues including air quality (for potential hazard- ous gases, such as CO and NOx), water quality (for contamination concems such as ol, miner- als, etc.), waste disposal (quench oils). and safely issues + Processing techniques that produce non-uni- formty of case and carbon profiles throughout the gear geometry (tip-pitch line-root). It is important to note that a great deal of the ‘non-uniformity of case depth can be avoided if ‘adequate soak ime at temperature is used orfload preheating techniques are employed ‘Vacuum Carburizing ‘Vacuum carburizing is a proven method of pure carburizing and pure diffusion in which carbon penetrates into the surface of the steel being processed without interference from external Influences such as gas chemistry or surface contaminants.Vacuum carburizing is a modified gas carburizing process in which the carburizing is done at pressures far below atmospheric pressure (760 Tort). The typical pressure range for low pressure vacuum carburizing is 1-20 Tor. ‘The advantage of this method is that the steel surface remains very clean and the vacuum ‘environment makes the transfer carbon to the steel surface faster (higher carbon flux values) since ‘atmosphere interactions such as found in the water {gas reaction do not take place. In addition no intergranular oxidation can ocour. ‘The carbon produced by the breakdown of th hydrocarbon gas introduced into the chamber is. {ree to penetrate into the surface of the steel while the hydrogen and residual hydrocarbon byproducts are removed from the system by the vacuum pumps. The hydrocarbon gases currently being used for vacuum carburizing are acetylene (C2H,), propane (CsHe) and to a lesser degree ethylene (CzH,). ‘Methane (CH,) is essentially non-reactive at these low pressures, unless the temperature is near 1900 °F (1040 °C). tn vacuum carburizing the breakdown of hydrocarbon gases involve non-equilibrium reactions. Thismeans thatthe surace ofthe steelis ‘very rapidly raised to the saturation evel of carbon in austenite. By repeating the boost and difuse steps desired carbon profile and case depth can be achieved Hardness (microns) ‘mo in to 0 Depending on the type of hydrocarbon gas used, carbons deliveredto the stee! surface viareactions such as CoHp 20+ He “0 CsHy +0 + 20H8 ea) CoHe > Cota + CHy> C+ 2CHy (20) CoH > Orla + Ho + CHy + C + 2CHy (20) Coty C+ CHy ® ‘The control ofthe low pressure vacuum carburizing process is on a time basis. The carbon transfer Fates are a function of temperature, gas pressure, ‘and flow rate. Simulation programs have been created to determine the boost and diffuse times of the cycle. Figure 6 shows results from an actual gear sample that has been low pressure vacuum carburized. Results show carburization to an effective case depth (50 HRC) of 0.040" (1.00 mm) in the root and 0.052" (1.33 mm) at the pitch diameter. Of greater significance was the value for the depth of high ‘hardness (= 58 HRC), namely 0.032" (0.80 mm) at both the gear tooth pitch line and root. ‘The overall case depth of maximum hardness for the vacuum carburized part is noticeably deeper than the atmosphere carburized part in Figure 5. One also observes a far greater consistency in the root and pitch line hardness through the depth of high hardness. 58 HRC 50 HRC Pitch Line Root oom 070 om Depth (inches) Figure 6: Pitch Line & Root Comparison: Vacuum Carburized (Oil Quenched) GearFigure 7 below shows an actual gear sample that has been vacuum carburized and high gas pressure ‘quenched. These results, when compared to Figure 5 and Figure 6 allow us to conclude that a more Uniform case depth has been developed between ‘the gear pitch line and root. ‘This is due in large part to the absence of a vapor layer in gas quenching resulting in a more uniform ‘quenching rate in the gear tooth and root profiles. ‘Advantages of vacuum carburizing include: = Absence of intergranular oxidation, = Capability of higher temperatures due to the type of equipment and the nature of the pro- cess. + Process and cycle flexibility allows a wider vari- ‘ty of materials to be processed. + Processing methods produce more uniform case and carbon profiles throughout the gear tooth geometry (tip-pitch line-root) ‘= Easy integration into manufacturing. The pro- cess is clean, safe, simple to operate and easy to maintain, Also, working conditions are excel- lent (that is, there are no open flames, heat and pollution), + Full automation capability using recipe or part- ‘number control of heat treating cycles, ‘= Precise process control achieved using com- puter simulations, which allow adjustments to established cycles. mm mm Hardness (microns) g = Consumption of energy by the equipment and process only when needed due to the nature of the vacuum operation. ‘Typically less distortion results provided ade- quate measures are taken in loading, Disadvantages of vacuum carburizing include: + Higher initial capital equipment cost than atmo- sphere carburizing equipment. + Part cleanliness is more critical in order to achieve desired results, ‘= Empirical process control, which requires proc- essing loads to determine optimum settings or to fine tune simulator. ‘+ Formation of soot and tar, which occur due to the type, pressure, and quantity of hydrocarbon gas introduced Its important to note that research during the past ‘six years has succeeded in finding combinations of Pressure, gas type, and flow parameters to ‘minimize soot and tar formation and eliminate these factors as a concer in the vacuum carburizing process. ‘Shot Peening ‘Shot peening is a process that induces a high ‘magnitude, residual compressive stress. It is most ‘effective for parts subject to high cycle fatigue leading as the compressive stress at the surface results in significantly enhanced fatigue life. Figure 8 below illustrates a typical S-N curve for a high cycle fatigue application 58 HRC 50 HRC Pitch Line Root io onion 630 0 Sen OH) Depth (inches) Figure 7; Pitch Line & Root Comparison: Vacuum Carburized (High Gas Pressure Quenched) GearTypleal tess vs Load Cycles Figure 8: Stress versus Load Cycles ‘This graph shows that a linear reduction in tensile stress results in an exponential improvement in fatigue life. A:35% reduction in stress - from 110 ksi (759 MPa) to 70 ksi (483 MPa) results in a 400% improvernent in fatigue life, ~ from 40,000 cycles to 160,000 cycles. Additional reductions in tensile stress result in significantly more fatigue enhancement, ‘The residual compressive stress from shot peening ‘counteracts applied tensile stresses in the material ‘The compressive stress from shot peening is Induced from small, spherical media striking the surface. The impact from each particle stretches the surface enough to yeldit intension. The surface cannot fully restore itself thus producing a permanent compressed state, ‘Shot peeningis a surface treatment that results in a ‘magnitude of residual compression that is ~ 55 - {60% of the material's ultimate tensile strength atthe ‘surface where most fatigue cracks initiate. For carburized gears the amount of surface ‘compression is typically 170 - 230 ksi (1173 - 1587 MPa) offering significant improvement in fatigue properties. TEST METHODS X-Ray Diffraction X-ray diffraction measures residual stresses at surface and sub-surface locations in a sample. The method is considered a surface analysis technique since only a few atomic layers are measured. The sub-surface measurements were made by electrochemically removing small amounts of ‘material. These sub-surface measurements were subsequently corrected for stress gradient and layer removal effects using standard analytical calculations. The technique measures strain by measuring changes in atomic distances. It is a direct, self-calibrating method that measures tensile, compressive, and neutral strains equally wel. Strains are converted to stresses by multiplying by elastic constants appropriate for the alloy and atomic planes measured. For this study, chromium Ke: radiation was chosen to diffract the (211) planes at approximately 156° 28, The area measured was nominally 4 mm in diameter. TEST PROCEDURE ‘The following procedure was performed in order to evaluate the influence of atmosphere and vacuum carburizing as well as the influence of shot peening and grinding, ‘© Five coupons were cut and stamped from the same heat lot of AISI 8620, © Aseparate manufacturing process was created for each coupon according to the following stamped identifications: ° Ve: Vacuum Carburize © VC&SP: Vacuum Carburize & Shot Peen © AG: ‘Atmosphere Carburize © AC&SP: Atmosphere Carburize & Shot Poon © VC & DSP: Vacuum Carburize & Dual Shot Peen ‘© Thecoupons were sent out for vacuum or atmo- sphere carburizing © The coupons were ground to size removing no more than 0.006" (0.15 mm) from the non- stamped side. © Three of the five coupons were sent out for shot peening, (© Allfive coupons were sent out for X-ray difrac- tion analysis on the non-stamped side. PROCESS COMPARISON ‘The carburizing parameters used are summarized In Table 1 below: Influence of Carburizing Method ‘Vacuum carburizing produced a deeper case depth of high (= 58 HRC) hardness as seen in Figure 9‘showing a comparison of atmosphere and vacuum carburized test coupons. Figure 10 shows a comparison of core ‘microstructure, Samples shown are from the pitch line with the area below the root showing similar results. Today, vacuum carburizing techniques can ‘employ either oil or high pressure gas quenching technology in the range of 6-20 bar using nitrogen, helium, argon or gas blends. A properly designed gas quench system will produce a core ‘microstructure in a heavy section thickness that consists of tempered martensite with some transformation products (bainite and ferrite) present in the microstructure as well Table 1: Carburizing Parameters Carburiang | Temperature | Boost Time | bifusion ] Hardening | Quenching | Tempering Method (minutes) | Time | Temperature | Method (minutes) Timasprere | 1725°F 300 720 TEST F | O1@ 60S | 350F (40°C) easec) | (140°) | (175°C) 2 hours Vacuum | 1725°F @ aia TsO" | Nirogen gas °F (940°C) (e5°0) | @z0bar | (175°C) 2hours *Note: 1 bar= 147 pela _ 58 HRC é a 50 HRC & g : AC Oi1Q a H ve nl (HPGQ) oo ot on oe m0 050 Os) ome Depth (inches) Figure 9: Comparison of Vacuum Carburizing Using High Pressure Gas Quenching and Atmosphere ‘Carburizing Using Oil Quenching ‘Atmosphere or Vacuum Carburized & il Quenched Sample. Core microstructure consists of tempered ‘martensite. Core Hardness is 37 HRC. AISI 8620 Gears Part Weight = 26 Ibs. Load Weight = 500 Ibs net ‘Vacuum Carburized & Gas Quenched ‘Sample. Core microstructure consists ‘of tempered martensite and transformation products. Core Hardness is 29 HRC. Figure 10: Comparison of Core MicrostructureInfluence of Shot Peening Figure 11 shows the residual stress distributions of the carburizing processes followed by grinding with shot peening, oo) Figure 11: Vacuum and Atmosphere Carburized Ground Samples With Single and Dual Shot Peening The graph shows that a sold layer of compression exists using all three methods. From a fatigue standpoint, excellent resistance tothe ination and ‘growth of fatigue cracks will result. The tensile Stross required for a fatigue crack to develop must first overcome the compressive stress that is ~ 150 ksi (1035 MPa) at the surface and ~ 220 ksi 0.002" (1518 MPa 0.,051mm) below the surface. Hoe wcttrnaty 7 ree / The three residual stress curves have the representative shape of a carburized and shot peened material. The maximum compressive stress ofall three curves is similar and is = 220 ksi (1518 MPa). This value is approximatly 55 - 60% of the material's utimate tensile strength at the surface. Since all three coupons were 59 - 62 HRC, they had similar hardness & tensile strength (atthe surface). The reason that the curves shown in Figure 11 do not cross the neutral axis is due to the carburization process that induces residual compressive stresses prior to shot peening ‘The depth of the compressive stress layer is a function of the intensity or energy of the shot ‘stream. It can be increased by increasing the shot size and/or velocity. The depth isthe location where the curves would cross the neutral axis (into tension) ifthe positively sloped lines were extended. ‘A deeper depth of compression is desired as this is fa layer resisting crack growth. The tradeoff to increasing the intensity is that there is additional cold work and material displacement at the point of shot impact, This generally results in a less compressed surface stress (at depth = 0.000") and ‘a more aggressive surface finish. Figure 12 shows visually how increasing the shot peening energy changes the shape of the residual stress curve. Figure 12: Influence of Shot Peening Energy on Residual StressCoupon VC & DSP was dual pened. Dual peening Consists of shot peening the same surface twice. First, a higher intensity is utilized and then followed by a lower intensity, usually with a smaller media. ‘The second peening operation is able to reduce the ‘cold work at the surface by improving the surface finish thus making the surface more compressed. ‘The use of dual shot peening should be weighed via, ‘a cost/benefit analysis. Typically, dual peening approximately doubles the cost while offering the potential to double or triple the fatigue lite produced bya single shot pen, ‘An analysis of Figure 11 indicates that the best fatigue performance should come from the coupon ‘dual shot peened as it has the best combination of ‘surface compression and compressive layer depth Properties. ‘This is particularly evident between 0.003" (0.076 mm) and 0.008" (0.203 mm). At 0.004” (0.102 mm) below the surface there is stil 200 ksi (1380 MPa) of ‘compression for the VC & DSP coupon versus 170 ksi (1173 MPa) for coupon AC & SP and 145 ksi for ‘coupon VC & SP. ‘The dual shot peened coupon should result in a significant increase in high cycle fatigue properties over the (single) pened coupons. Interms of fatigue performance, the additional 5 ksi (4.5 MPa) of compression measured in the vacuum carburizing coupon (without shot pening cr grinding) should yield significant increases in {gear life under high cyclic fatigue loading over the ‘atmosphere carburized coupon. CONCLUSIONS ‘The primary focus of this study was to determine which carburizing process was more suitable for heavy duty transmission gears manufactured from AAIS| 8620 steel. Vacuum carburizing was found superior to atmosphere carburizing in this instance as the data in Table 2 indicates, for the following reasons: Higher Surface Hardness Greater Depth of High Hardness: Deeper Effective Case Depth in the Tooth Root Higher Surface Residual Compression Uniformity of Case at Pitch line of the Gear Flank & Roots Both the atmosphere carburized and vacuum carburized surfaces responded equally to the shot peening treatment. ‘© Maximum compressive stress: ~ 220 ksi (1518 MPa) ‘© Compressive layer depth: (0.178 - 0.203 mm) ‘The dual shot peening resulted in a greater depth of ‘compression by ~ 001” ~.002" (0.025 - 0.051 mm), ‘The surface stress of the dual pening was very similar to the previously discussed shot peened coupons at ~ 135 ksi (932 MPa). The (higher) first een would have resulted in a less compressed surface butthe secondary peen further compressed itto ~ 195 ksi (932 MPa). ~ 007" - .008" RECOMMENDATION Testing of actual gears must be performed to ‘conclude with certainty that changes to the manufacturing process (material, geometry, heat ‘treatment, shot pening, grinding) will yield benefits such as those observed in this study. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ‘The authors would lke to thank Bodycote Thermal Processing, Racine, Wisconsin for atmosphere carburizing and Midwest Thermal-Vac, Kenosha, ‘Wisconsin for the vacuum carburizing of gears and ‘test coupons and both organizations for the load photographs. ‘Table 2: Comparison of Atmosphere and Vacuum Carburizing Results Process | Surface] Surface] High(=S8 | Figh(=58 | Surface | Deviation of Hardness | Hardness HRO) HRC) Residual | Case at (before | (ater Hardness Hardness | Compression | Pitch Line grinding) | grinding) | (coupons) (gears) si) Vacuum | 60HRC | 62 HRC 0.028" 008" 196 oo ‘Aimosphere [| 59HRC | S58HRAC 0.008" o01s 142 0.028" 10REFERENCES 1, Lindell, G., Herring, D., Breuer, D., and Matlock, B.,, An Analytical Comparison of Atmosphere and Vacuum Carburizing Using Residual Stress and Microhardness Measurements, 2001 Heat Treating Conference Proceedings, ‘ASM International 2. Herring, D., Pros and Cons of Atmosphere and Vacuum Carburizing, Industrial Heating Maga- zine, January 2002. " ‘Shot Peening Applications, 8!" Edition, Metal Improvement Company, 2001 Herring, D., Practical and Scientific Aspects of Low Pressure Carburizing, 2001 Heat Treating Conference Proceedings, ASM International ‘Sugiyama, M., Acetylene Vacuum Carburizing, 1998 Heat Treating Conference Proceedings, ASM Intemational. Prashnik, William J., Influence of Partial Pres- ‘sure Carburizing: Its Etfect on Bending Fatigue Durability, Heat Treating Magazine, Pt. 182, June/July 1980.