technical

Effects of Different Shot Peening Treatments in

Combination with a Superfinishing Process on
the Surface Durability of Case-Hardened Gears
Dominik Kratzer, Johannes König, Thomas Tobie and Karsten Stahl

Introduction grinding temper on the flank load-carrying capacity of case-har-

Increasing demands on power transmission and reduction in dened gears. As a result, grinding temper caused reduced hard-
mass of modern gearboxes lead to gear designs that are close to ness depth profile values and reduced compressive residual
their load-carrying capacity limits. Therefore, the probability of stress profile values (Ref. 6). These effects were considered to be
different failure modes like pitting, scuffing and wear increases responsible for the resulting reduced surface durability.
if there are no improvements in surface durability. Possible Subsequently the calculation according to ISO 6336-2 (Ref. 9)
measures to strengthen the gear’s flank load-carrying capac- was extended using the proposed surface factor ZS to take these
ity include shot peening and superfinishing. During the shot effects into consideration. Moreover, the investigations by König
peening process, compressive residual stresses are induced in et al. (Ref. 11) showed that smoother flank surfaces lead to a
the surface near area of the gear (Ref. 5). According to König higher pitting load-carrying capacity. In order to take this effect
et al. (Ref. 11), this can lead to a significant increase in pitting into consideration in the calculation model for the endurance
resistance. Another possibility to strengthen a gear’s surface is strength in ISO 6336-2 (Ref. 9), the ZR factor was replaced by the
to reduce its surface roughness, for example, with superfinish- factor ZR,GS. The resulting calculation approach for the permis-
ing processes. Both positive effects have been proven in mul- sible contact stress is shown in Equation 2.
tiple experimental research projects (Refs. 10, 11, 15 and 17), σHLIM ∙ ZNT (2)
σHP = SHmin ZL ∙ Zv ∙ ZR,GS ∙ ZW ∙ ZX ∙ ZS
but the combined applicability in a predictive surface durability
calculation has not been proven until now. This paper presents Where
the results of these investigations, which were carried out as a ZR,GS is Roughness factor for superfinished gears
part of the FVA (Research Association for Drive Technology) ZS is Surface factor
research project 521 II (Ref. 12). Detailed descriptions of the calculation approaches for the
factors ZS and ZR,GS are presented in the following.
State of the Art and Research Objectives Calculation of ZS
The scientific literature (Refs. 10–11; 15 and 17) contains Schwienbacher et al. (Ref. 13) detected that the flank load-
numerous investigations describing the influence of smooth carrying capacity of case-hardened gears is influenced by the
surfaces due to superfinishing processes and residual stresses degree of grinding temper on the gears’ flanks. The reduced
on the surface durability of gears. Schwienbacher et al. (Ref. 13) compressive residual stresses and reduced hardness value in
and König et al. (Ref. 11) proposed an extension of the calcula- surface near material regions due to grinding temper were con-
tion approach described in ISO 6336-2 (Ref. 9) to consider these sidered as the main reason for the reduced flank load-carrying
effects. capacity compared to gears without grinding temper. Therefore
According to the international gear rating standard ISO Schwienbacher et al. (Ref. 13) correlated the resulting flank
6336-2 (Ref. 9), the permissible contact stress for gears is calcu- load-carrying capacity of gear batches with different degrees of
lated using Equation 1: grinding temper with the measurement results for the residual
σHlim ∙ ZNT (1) stress depth profile and the hardness depth profile. As a result
σHP = SHmin ZL ∙ Zv ∙ ZR ∙ ZW ∙ ZX the surface factor ZS according to Equation 3 consists of a factor
Where regarding the influence of hardness (ZS,HV) and a factor regard-
σHP is Permissible contact stress ing the influence of the residual stresses (ZS,ES) according to
σHlim is Allowable stress number for contact stress Equations 4–5 and as defined by Schwienbacher et al. (Ref. 13).
SHmin is Minimum required safety factor for surface durability
ZNT is Life factor ZS = ZS,HV0.49 ∙ ZS,ES0.51 (3)
ZL is Lubricant factor (4)
ΔHVint_xn
Zv is Velocity factor ZS,HV = 1 + 1.68 ∙ with ΔHVint_xn = HVint_xn –HVint_xn_Ref
621 HV1
ZR is Roughness factor
ZW is Work hardening factor ΔESint_xn (5)
ZS,ES = 1 + 1.91 ∙ with ΔESint_xn = ESint_xn –ESint_xn_Ref
ZX is Size factor 6575 N/mm2

Schwienbacher et al. (Ref. 13) investigated the influence of

Printed with permission of the copyright holder, the American Gear Manufacturers Association, 1001 N. Fairfax Street, Fifth Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314-1587. Statements
presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and may not represent the position or opinion of the American Gear Manufacturers Association.

58 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | March/April 2021

[www.geartechnology.com]
Where effect into consideration when calculating the pitting load-car-
ZS,HV is Surface hardness factor
rying capacity, König et al. (Ref. 11) used the above mentioned
ZS,ES is Surface residual stress factor
approach according to Schwienbacher et al. (Ref 13). It was
ΔHVint_xn is Difference of the integral hardness value up to the shown that the calculation results show a good correlation with
depth xn compared to a reference batch, HV1 the experimental results. Since only a limited number of gear
ΔESint_xn is Difference of the integral residual stress value up to
variants were investigated, different peening conditions still had
the depth xn compared to a reference batch, N/mm2 to be validated.
HVint_xn is Integral hardness value up to the depth xn , HV1
Since an additional superfinishing process was applied to all
HVint_xn_Ref is Integral hardness value of the reference batch up to gear batches investigated by König et al. (Ref. 11), a significant
the depth xn, HV1 refinement of the surface roughness values compared to the
ESint_xn is Integral residual stress value up to the depth xn, conventionally ground gear batch occurred in accordance with
N/mm2 other research (Refs. 16–17). The influence of the surface rough-
ESint_xn_Ref is Integral residual stress value of the reference batch ness on the pitting load-carrying capacity is regarded in the rat-
up to the depth xn , N/mm2 ing method according to ISO 6336-2 by the surface roughness
factor ZR as defined in Equation 8 for case-hardened gears.
Since the factor ZS takes into account deviations in comparison (8)
to a reference, the ΔHVint_xn and ΔESint_xn values are calculated by ( )
ZR = Rz3
10
0.08

comparing the investigated gear batch (HVint_xn_Ref /ESint_xn_Ref ) with Where

a known reference batch (HVint_xn_Ref /ESint_xn_Ref ). The variables ZR is Roughness factor
Rz10 is Mean relative peak‑to‑valley roughness for the gear pair
ΔHVint_xn and ΔESint_xn in Equations 4–5 are obtained by numeri-
cally integrating the subsurface measuring points up to the depth The ZR factor according to ISO 6336-2 (Ref. 9) covers values
xn. The depth xn is the minimum depth from the surface at which for Rz10 down to 1 μm. Since the Rz10 values for superfinished
the hardness or residual stress profile of the investigated gear gears are below this limit, the possible extension of the given
batch deviates from the reference gear batch. The variables are ISO formula was investigated. The experiments by König et al.
calculated as described in Equations 6 and 7. (Ref. 11) showed that the ISO factor ZR for superfinished gears
n–1 (6) might be replaced by the factor ZR,GS. The factor can be calcu-
HVint_xn = x1 ∙
n Σ i=1
HVi+1 + HVi
2
∙ (xi+1 – xi) lated according to Table 1 or derived graphically (Fig. 1). The
n–1 (7) factor ZR,GS limits the theoretical curve of ZR to the value 1.14.
ESint_xn = x1 ∙
n Σ
i=1
σEi+1 + σEi
2
∙ (xi+1 – xi) The factor ZR,GS of König et al. (Ref. 11) is calculated according
to DIN 3990-2 (Ref. 2) and based on the Rz100 value. In the fol-
Where
lowing, this factor is replaced by the Rz10 value according to the
xi is Depth of measurement point i, mm
HVi is Surface hardness at measurement point i, HV1 new convention in ISO 6336-2 (Ref. 9).
σEi is Residual stress value at measurement point i, N/mm2 The limit of 1.14 for the ZR,GS factor results from the experi-
mentally covered range of roughness values. A further extension
Calculation of ZR,GS of applicability of ZR,GS to lower roughness values has not yet
König et al. (Ref. 11) investigated gears which were subjected been investigated.
to a shot peening and a superfinishing process. Shot peening In summary, the application of the surface factor ZS for shot
leads to increased subsurface compressive residual stress values, peened gears and the extension of the roughness factor ZR to
which might affect the surface durability (Ref. 5). To take this ZR,GS are possibilities for taking into consideration positive

Table 1 Workflow for determining ZR,GS according to

König et al. (Ref. 11)
Step 1:
All of the following conditions must be true:
1. Gears are case-hardened
2. Gears are superfinished
3. Safety factor against micropitting of Sλ > 2
Replace ZR with ZR,GS
All are true
(proceed to Step 2)
Any is false Use ZR according to DIN
3990-2 / ISO 6336-2

( Rz3 )
0.08
Step 2: Check if > 1.14
100
Is true ZR,GS = 1.14
Is false ZR =(RZ100 )
3 0.08
> 1.14

Figure 1 Curve of the roughness factor ZR and the extension ZR,GS

according to König et al. (Ref. 11)

March/April 2021 | GEAR TECHNOLOGY 59

 technical
effects of gear surface refinements when calculating the pitting area of high cycle fatigue, five variants were tested at the same
load-carrying capacity of gears. For the surface factor ZS, a vali- load level in order to compare the mean load cycles until failure
dation for different shot peening processes and the resulting dif- occurs. In order to prove the applicability of the ZR,GS factor for
ferent subsurface compressive residual stress profiles is pending, values above 1.14, S-N-curves were evaluated for several vari-
as well as the validation of the existing calculation approach for ants with different flank roughness values. For the superfinished
the surface roughness factor ZR,GS for even finer surface rough- batches with very smooth surfaces, vibratory finishing with and
ness values. These topics are addressed, evaluated and con- without chemical enhancement were applied after the conven-
cluded in the following. tional grinding to obtain even finer surface roughness values.
The shot peening process took place between the grinding and
Test Program and Methods the superfinishing processes. All variants and the intended pur-
To prove that the surface factor ZS can be applied to consider the pose are summarized in Table 2.
positive effects of increased compressive residual stresses in the To validate the calculation model for the roughness factor
flank-load carrying capacity calculation, as well as to validate ZR,GS, experimental tests were carried out with a FZG back-
the applicability of the roughness factor ZR,GS for smoother gear to-back gear test rig in accordance with ISO 146351 (Ref. 7)
surfaces than investigated by König et al. (Ref. 11), numerous in order to obtain the nominal endurance strength for 50 %
flank load-carrying capacity tests were carried out. For the tests failure probability of the variants RGS, ET1, EB, GSL and O2.
relating to the applicability of the surface factor ZS in the load Generally, the gears in the test and transmission gearboxes are
loaded by rotating the two shaft parts next to the load clutch
Table 2 Investigated variants and purpose of the corresponding shot in opposite directions. By locking the load clutch, a closed
peening treatment mechanical power circuit results. The desired pressure on the
Manufacturing Purpose test gears is monitored by locking the load clutch at certain
R1 Unpeened reference Reference angles of rotation, depending on the intended amount of load.
RGS Shot peened and Conventional process parameters
superfinished Controlling this angle of rotation after a defined number of
ET1 Shot peened and Residual stress profile with same maximum revolutions guarantees the stability of the applied torque. The
superfinished values as RGS but closer to surface electric motor drives the test gears at the required pinion speed
ETT Shot peened and Residual stress profile with higher values
superfinished into the depth of the material of 3,000 rpm. The lubricant FVA 3 with 4 % anglamol, a sulfur
EB Shot peened and Residual stress profile with reduced and phosphorus containing additive, at 60°C by way of injection
superfinished maximum value
lubrication was used for the investigations, as there is an exten-
EV Shot blasted and Residual stress profile after shot blasting
superfinished sive data base for this type of oil.
GSL Shot peened and Minimal surface roughness with The geometry of the test gear was used in accordance to other
superfinished conventional peening process
Minimal surface roughness without
research projects at FZG with the aim to investigate the flank
02 Superfinished additional peening process load-carrying capacity. The gears’ geometry is summarized in
Table 3. All gears were manufactured from 16MnCr5, case-
hardened, mechanically cleaned by shot blasting and ground.
Depending on the variant described in Table 2, the mentioned
shot blasting respectively shot peening took place before the
final superfinishing process. Details of the corresponding pro-
cess parameters are described in (Ref. 12). Figure 3 shows sam-
ple gear flanks after conventional grinding in the left picture and
superfinishing in the right picture.

Gear Documentation
The gear geometry, surface roughness, material characteristics
and micro-structure, the hardness profile and residual stress
profile were documented before each test.
The gear quality was measured according to DIN 3962 (Ref. 1)
Figure 2 FZG back-to-back gear test rig (Ref. 7).

Table 3 Gear variant

Symbol Pinion Wheel
Material 16MnCr5
Number of teeth z1,2 17 18
Face width b 10 mm
Normal module mn 5 mm
Profile shift x 0.514 0.407
coefficient
Normal pressure αn 20°
angle
Helix angle β 0°

Figure 3 Surface appearance.

60 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | March/April 2021

[www.geartechnology.com]
 Table 4 Roughness measurements
Gear variant Ra in μm Rz in μm
R1 0.34 2.11
RGS 0.12 0.77
ET1 0.15 0.96
ETT 0.06 0.48
EB 0.15 0.99
EV 0.18 1.13
GSL 0.07 0.46
02 0.07 0.39
Figure 4 Sample roughness profile of a superfinished gear.

Figure 5 Etched metallographic microsection of a Figure 6 Unetched metallographic microsection of the

representative test gear. variant ETT (before any testing).

using a gear measurement center Klingelnberg P40. Three teeth

of every gear were measured. All relevant gear quality values
were better than quality class 5, which is required for flank load-
carrying tests.
The roughness was measured using the Hommel T8000 pro-
filometer with applied high-pass filter according to DIN EN ISO
11562 (Ref. 3). Every gear was measured on three flanks evenly
distributed over the circumference. A sample measurement
report for a superfinished gear is documented in Figure 4. The
average values of the characteristic roughness parameters for
the investigated variants are shown in Table 4. Further details
as well as determined roughness parameters are documented
(Ref. 12).
To evaluate the microstructure of the gear variants, metal- Figure 7 Residual stress profiles, measured by x-ray diffraction at the
gear flank of the different test series in new condition.
lographic micro-sections were prepared for each variant. Since
all gears were manufactured from the same steel bar and in the
same heat treatment batch, all the gears should have the same for all investigated gears, the hardness depth profiles were close
microstructure. The typical microstructure in Figure 5 shows to identical for all variants. Surface hardness, core hardness and
martensitic structure near the surface with a limited amount CHD-values corresponded to the specifications of ISO 6336-5
of retained austenite, typical for case-hardened gears. As a (Ref. 8). Therefore, the influence of the hardness on the ZS factor
result, all variants fulfilled the requirements for the MQ mate- mentioned previously in Section 2 can be neglected for the test
rial quality class as specified in ISO 6336-5 (Ref. 8). Thus, the series investigated here.
microstructure is unlikely to have a negative impact on the pit- The residual stresses were measured using a Seifert XRD 3003
ting load-carrying capacity. Some undesired effects were only PTS x-ray diffractometer by repeatedly measuring and remov-
detected for the ETT variant. Obviously, the very intensive shot ing the surface layer with acid to obtain information about the
peening process resulted in small cracks on the surface before depth of the material. The measurement parameters are docu-
any testing was done, which can be seen in Figure 6. These mented in detail in (Ref. 12). The measurement results are pre-
small cracks are unusual for case-hardened and ground gears sented (Fig. 7). As intended, the variants show different residual
and therefore might influence the surface durability of this test stress depth profiles depending on the applied shot peening
series, as discussed later in this paper. treatment. It can be noted that the measurement results corre-
The hardness profile was measured for every investigated spond with the intended purpose described in Table 2.
variant. Since the heat treatment was performed in one batch

March/April 2021 | GEAR TECHNOLOGY 61

 technical
Calculation Results result, the surface factor ZS is solely influenced by the residual
To investigate if the experimental results are adequately repre- stress depth profile. The calculation according to the previous
sented by the previous calculation approaches in Section 2 the section results in the values shown in Table 5.
factors ZS an ZR,GS have to be calculated for every gear variant. Table 5 also shows the results of the roughness factor ZR,GS
Therefore the measurement results in section 4 are utilized. calculation based on the measured roughness values taken from
The surface factor ZS can be calculated according to Equation Table 4. The applicability of the calculation results for ZR,GS with
3 with the results of the hardness and residual stress measure- values up to 1.14 has been scientifically proven by König et al.
ments. As already mentioned, the hardness depth profiles do not (Ref. 11), based on the calculation approach in ISO 6336 (Ref. 9).
differ significantly for any variant, and therefore the ZS,HV factor Values for ZR,GS above 1.14 for even smoother gear flanks have
can be set equal to one for all test series investigated here. As a not been investigated until now.
Since the remaining boundary conditions influencing the fac-
Table 5 Calculated surface and roughness factors according to tors besides ZS and ZR,GS in Equation 2 are kept the same by the
Section 2 for the investigated test series manufacturing and test process, the product ZS · ZR,GS (Table 5)
Gear variant Zs ZR,GS Zs ∙ ZR,GS represents the theoretical expectation for the resulting pitting
RGS 1.07 1.10 1.18
ET1 1.06 1.10 1.16
durability. The applicability of the calculation model will be ver-
ETT 1.12 1.16 1.30 ified by experimental investigations in the following.
EB 1.05 1.09 1.14
EV 1.07 1.08 1.16 Experimental Results
GSL 1.07 1.16 1.24
To obtain the pitting load-carrying capacity of the investigated
02 1.0 1.17 1.17
gear variants, tests using the FZG back-to-back test rig were car-
Table 6 Experimental results for the pitting load-carrying ried out at different load stages. To determine the S-N-curve,
capacity (1) – not investigated) load stages in the regime of high cycle fatigue and fatigue limit
Variant Mean load cycles at σ were investigated. Figure 8 shows by way of example the test
H0∞,50% in N/mm
2
σH0 = 1750 N/mm2
RGS 62 million 1701 results for the variant EB in the double logarithmic diagram as
ET1 21 million 1716 triangular markers. Test runs that reached the limit of 100 mil-
ETT 48 million 1)
lion load cycles without pitting are shown with solid markers.
EB 21 million 1542
EV 24 million 1)
The tests were performed according to the FVA directive 563 I
GSL 1) 1877 (Ref. 14). For the following evaluations, the sustained mean load
02 1) 1746 cycles at a nominal contact pressure of σH0 = 1750 N/mm2 as well
as the nominal endurance strength for failure probability of 50
% (σH0∞,50%) are summarized (Table 6).
To investigate whether the reported reduction in micropitting
appearance with finer surface roughness of the gear flank can be
reproduced in the current scope of experiments, sampling tests
were carried out with a reference variant R1 that was manufac-
tured using a conventional grinding process. The mean rough-
ness value Ra was equal to 0.34 μm for this variant. During test
runs with such gears, micropitting occurred over major parts of
the gear flank starting in the area of negative sliding below the
pitch circle, as can be seen in Figure 9. Figure 10 shows a typi-
cal superfinished gear flank with scratch marks due to the initial
tooth contact after a test run. While most of the superfinished
gears only show micropittings as consequential damage around
Figure 8 S-N-curve of the variant EB.

Figure 9 R1 flank surface after test. Figure 10 RGS flank surface after test. Figure 11 EB flank surface after test.

62 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | March/April 2021

[www.geartechnology.com]
Figure 12 Mean load cycles until failure base on the test results at Figure 13 Calculated factors ZS, ZR,GS and the resulting product.
σH0 = 1750 N/mm2.

damaged flank regions due to the locally increased stress, the higher number of mean load cycles of the RGS variant is well
variant EB shows micropittings extending from the sides of the represented by the higher value of the product ZS · ZR,GS. The
flanks. This could be due to manufacturing deviations, which remaining variants ET1, EB and EV have similar mean load
lead to local bulges on the flank sides. cycles, while the product of the factors has a slightly lower value
In summary the results confirm the effects described in lit- for the EB variant. Since the ZS factor was originally created to
erature (Refs. 16–17) concerning the significant reduction of calculate the nominal endurance strength, such deviations were
micropitting occurrence if smooth surfaces without local geo- expected for a comparison of the mean load cycles in the load
metric deviations are guaranteed. region of high cycle fatigue. Nevertheless, it was proven that the
product of ZS and ZR,GS can be applied to qualitatively compare
Evaluation of Results the expecTable mean load cycles if the shot peening process
Variation in residual stress profile. To determine whether the does not result in a damaged gear surface.
ZR,GS and ZS factors can be used to qualitatively compare the Allowable stress number. Since all the investigated gears were
mean load cycles until failure in the load region of high cycle manufactured from one material and in one heat-treatment
fatigue, FZG back-to-back test rig tests were evaluated at the batch, the allowable pitting stress number σHlim should be simi-
nominal contact stress of 1750 N/mm2 for the variants RGS, lar. By applying the calculation approach based on ISO 6336-2
ET1, ETT, EB and EV. For each variant, the resulting mean load (Ref. 9), however, the results σHlim,ISO6336 show distinct deviations
cycles at that stress level and the calculated factors ZS, ZR,GS as (Table 7). This is due to the insufficient consideration of the
well as the product ZS · ZR,GS are summarized in Table 5 and compressive residual stress state and surface roughness for shot
Table 6. Figure 12 shows the resulting mean load cycles in a log- peened and superfinished gears in the current ISO standard.
arithmically scaled bar graph, while Figure 13 shows bar graphs Therefore, the aforementioned factors ZR,GS and ZS were applied.
of the calculated factors. By considering these factors in the calculation of σHlim, a signifi-
It is noticeable that the calculated factors for the ETT vari- cant reduction in the scattering of the results can be observed
ant obtain high values due to the distinct compressive residual for the investigated variants. For these allowable stress numbers,
stress profile and the very fine surface roughness. In contrast to labeled with σHlim,experiment (Table 7), only the EB variant shows
the resulting theoretical expectation, the ETT variant achieved a larger deviation. Some gear flanks of the EB variant showed
less load cycles in the test runs than the RGS variant. This might micropittings extending from the sides of the flank as shown
be due to the small surface cracks shown (Fig. 6), which were (Fig. 11). According to Felbermaier et al. (Ref. 4), micropittings,
caused during the manufacturing process. Therefore, the appli-
cation of the surface and roughness factor in the pitting lifetime Table 7 Experimental results
prediction is limited to manufacturing processes, which do not Variant σH0∞,50% σHlim,IS06336 σHlim,experiment
cause surface cracks. RGS 1701 N/mm2 1701 N/mm2 1583 N/mm2
The remaining variants RGS, ET1, EB and EV demonstrate a ET1 1716 N/mm2 1723 N/mm2 1631 N/mm2
good correspondence between the test results in Figure 12 and EB 1542 N/mm2 1552 N/mm2 1484 N/mm2
GSL 1877 N/mm2 1877 N/mm2 1656 N/mm2
the expectations based on the calculated factors (Fig. 13). The 02 1746 N/mm2 1746 N/mm2 1631 N/mm2

March/April 2021 | GEAR TECHNOLOGY 63

 technical
which arise during the tests, might reduce the pitting load- Conclusion
carrying capacity by about 7%. Taking this into account, the An extensive experimental study with differently shot peened
calculated allowable stress number for the EB variant aligns with and superfinished gears was carried out in order to investigate
the other test results. Since the results for the variants RGS, ET1, the applicability of the proposed surface factor ZS for different
GSL and O2 also match well, it is assumed that the effects of residual stress profiles and to extend the scope of application for
the peening and superfinishing processes are adequately repre- the roughness factor ZR,GS.
sented by the extended calculation factors. Superfinished variants showed significantly less micropit-
Extension of ZR,GS factor. For the extension of the upper limit ting appearance after testing compared to the conventionally
for ZR,GS, S-N-curves were determined for the variants GSL and ground variant. As root cause for this effect it is presumed that
O2. The gears of the GSL variant were shot-peened in accor- the superfinished flank surfaces are smooth and without bulges.
dance with the state of the art and then superfinished. The aver- If bulges are present, they may lead to a locally increased stress,
age surface roughness after superfinishing was Rz = 0.46 µm, which results in a higher probability of micropitting.
which results in a roughness factor of 1.16 according to the In order to investigate the resulting mean load cycles until
theoretical ZR curve. A roughness factor of 1.17 was calculated failure, numerous variants, which underwent different shot
for the variant O2. The classification of the test results with the peening processes and therefore showed different subsurface
allowable stress number according to the ISO standard, carried compressive residual stress profiles, were tested at the same load
out in section 7.2, shows that the application of the increased level in the region of high cycle fatigue. It was possible to show,
roughness factor correctly reflects the obtained test results, that the factors ZS and ZR,GS can be applied to qualitatively com-
independent of any previously applied shot peening. For the pare the different variants, provided that no surface damage was
increased roughness factor, a new limit value of ZR,GS,max = 1.17 caused by the shot peening treatment.
can therefore be applied on the basis of the documented test So far the calculation approach according to ISO 6336 (Ref. 9)
results. ZR,GS is on the slightly conservative side, especially for is based on investigations with conventionally manufactured,
variants with the finest surface roughness values. The scatter ground gears. Gears with increased compressive residual
range already existing in the ISO standard can also be applied stresses due to shot peening processes and smooth surfaces due
therefore to the newly set limit value. However, this range to superfinishing processes are not considered yet. By extend-
should not be used without further experimental verifica- ing the ISO 6336 (Ref. 9) calculation approach by the ZS fac-
tion. Following the approach of König et al. (Ref. 11) the upper tor as well as the ZR,GS factor according to König et al. (Ref. 11)
limit for ZR,GS in Table 1 can be set to 1.17 and the graph for the a good correlation results for the calculated allowable stress
roughness factor can be extended as shown in Figure 14. numbers. Therefore, it is assumed that the factor ZS and ZR,GS
are suiTable to take the positive effects of different shot peening
processes as well as superfinishing processes into account for
gearbox design and rating processes. Furthermore the rough-
ness factor for superfinished gears ZR,GS can be applied to higher
values than suggested by König et al. (Ref. 11). The new maxi-
mum value for ZR,GS resulting from the surface roughness of the
investigated gears is 1.17.
In summary, shot peening and superfinishing processes can
increase the surface durability of case hardened gears signifi-
cantly. To obtain the optimal effect, the superfinished gear sur-
face must be smooth without bulged flanks and without prior
damage originating from the shot peening process.
Acknowledgement. The presented results are based on
the research projects IGF no. 14908 N and IGF no. 17145 N
undertaken by the Research Association for Drive Technology
e.V. (FVA); supported partly by the FVA, the Stiftung
Stahlanwendungsforschung im Stifterverband für die Deutsche
Wissenschaft e.V. (AVIF) and through the German Federation
of Industrial Research Associations e.V. (AiF) in the framework
of the Industrial Collective Research Programme (IGF) by the
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi)
based on a decision taken by the German Bundestag. The
authors would like to thank for the sponsorship and support
received from the FVA, AVIF, AiF and the members of the proj-
Figure 14  Curves of the roughness factor ZR and the extension ZR,GS. ect committee.
For more information.
Questions or comments regarding this paper? Contact Dominik Kratzer
at [email protected].

64 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | March/April 2021

[www.geartechnology.com]
References Dominik Kratzer is since 2017 a Research
1. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., 1978, “Tolerances for Associate at the FZG Gear Research Centre of
Cylindrical Gears, Part 1 to 3 (in German)”, Norm DIN 3962. the Technical University of Munich. He graduated
Beuth Verlag, Berlin. from the Technical University of Munich with
2. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., 1987, “Calculation of a master’s degree in mechanical engineering.
load capacity of cylindrical gears - Part 2: calculation of pitting His research focuses on the impact of surface
resistance (in German)”, Norm DIN 3990-2. Beuth Verlag, Berlin. finishing processes and material treatments on the
3. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., 1998, “Surface texture: load-carrying capacity of gears.
Profile method - Metrological characteristics of phase correct
filters (in German)”, Norm DIN EN ISO 11562. Beuth Verlag,
Berlin.
4. Felbermaier, M., Tobie, T., and Stahl, K., 2014, „Micropitting
- Pitting II“. Influence of micropitting on the pitting durability
of case-hardened gears in the regime of high cycle fatigue and
Dr.-Ing. Johannes Koenig studied (2006–
2012) Mechanical Engineering at the Technical
fatigue limit (in German)” ,Project Nr. 459 II (IGF-Nr. 16088 N),
University of Munich (TUM). From 2012 to 2019
Final report, FVA magazine Nr. 1087, Frankfurt am Main.
5. Güntner, C., T. Tobie and K. Stahl, K. 2017, “Influence of the he worked as Research Associate, Team Leader
Residual Stress condition on the Load Carrying Capacity of Case “Materials and Processing” Department “Load
Hardened Gears,” American Gear Manufacturers Association, Carrying Capacity of Gears” at the Gear Research
AGMA Technical Paper, 17FTM20. Centre (FZG), Techncal University of Munich
6. Höhn, B.-R., Stahl, K., Oster, P., Tobie, T., Schwienbacher, S., and (TUM). He received his PhD in 2020. He currently is
Koller, P., 2012, “Grinding Burn on Gears - Correlation between an Engineer in the Gear Development Department
Flank-Load Carrying Capacity and Material Characteristics”, (Corporate R&D), focusing on Plastic Gear Design
The 4th International Conference on Power Transmission, & Strength Calculation for ZF Friedrichshafen AG,
pp.113–123 Friedrichshafen, Germany.
7. International Organization for Standardization, 2000, “Gears
- FZG test procedures - Part 1: FZG test method A/8,3/90 for
relative scuffing load-carrying capacity of oils”, Norm ISO Dr.-Ing. Thomas Tobie studied mechanical
14635-1 engineering at the Technical University of Munich
8. International Organization for Standardization, 2003, (TUM), Germany. Today he is head of the Load
“Calculation of load capacity of spur and helical gears – Part 5: Carrying Capacity of Cylindrical Gears department
Strength and quality of materials”, Norm ISO 6336-5:2003(E). at the Gear Research Centre (FZG), where he
Beuth Verlag, Berlin specializes in gear materials, heat treatment,
9. International Organization for Standardization, 2006, gear lubricants and gear load carrying capacity
“Calculation of load capacity of spur and helical gears – Part research. Concurrently, Tobie brings to that work a
2: Calculation of surface durability (pitting)”, Norm ISO 6336- particular focus on all relevant gear failure modes
2:2006(E). Beuth Verlag, Berlin such as tooth root breakage, pitting, micropitting
10. Kobayashi, M. and K. Hasegawa. 1990, “Effect of Shot Peening on
and wear, as well as sub-surface-initiated fatigue
the Pitting Fatigue Strength of Carburized Gears,” Proceedings of
failures.
the IV International Conference on Shot Peening,, pp.465–476
11. König, J., P. Koller, T. Tobie and K. Stahl. 2015, “Correlation of
Relevant Case Properties and the Flank Load Carrying Capacity Prof. Dr.-Ing. Karsten Stahl has since
of Case-Hardened Gears”, Proceedings of the ASME Design 2011 been Full Professor, Institute for Machine
Engineering Technical Conference, 10. Elements, Technical University of Munich, and
12. König, J., T. Tobie and K. Stahl. 2017, “Optimized flank the Director Gear Research Centre (FZG). He
load carrying capacity II,” Load capacity of shot peened and studied at the Technical University of Munich
superfinished gear flanks under considerations of the case (TUM) beginning in 1989, with a focus on design
properties and the lubrication condition (in German),” Project and development, receiving his Final Mechanical
Nr. 521 II (AiF-Nr. 17145), Final report, FVA-magazine Nr. 1245, Engineering Degree (Dr.-Ing) there in 1994. In
Frankfurt am Main. 2001, he received his Doctorate TUM with the
13. Schwienbacher, S., B. Wolter, T. Tobie, K. Stahl, B.-R Höhn,
topic: Pitting Resistance of Carburized Spur
B.-R. and M. Kröning. 2007, „Case properties - gear flank.“
and Helical Gears. Among his responsibilities
Investigation and characterization of case parameters and
properties and their influence on the flank load carrying capacity during his Professorship: 2009–2010 — Head
of case-hardened, grinded gears (in German),” Porject Nr. 453, of Advanced Engineering and Innovation
Final report, FVA-magazine Nr. 830, Frankfurt am Main. Management, Powertrain and Driving Dynamic Systems, BMW Group,
14. Tobie, T. and P. Matt. 2012, “Recommendations for the Munich; 2007–2009 — Head of Validation Driving Dynamics and Powertrain,
Standardization of Load Capacity Tests on Hardened and BMW Group, Oxford, UK; 2006–2007 — Head of Quality and QMT MINI
Tempered Cylindrical Gears,” FVA 563/I. Forschungsvereinigung Transmission, MINI Plant, BMW Group, Oxford, UK; 2003–2006 — Head of
Antriebstechnik e.V. (FVA), Frankfurt am Main. Prototyping, Gear Technology and Methods, BMW Group, Dingolfing; 2001–
15. Townsend, D. P. and E.V. Zaretsky. 1982, “Effect of Shot Peening 2003 — Development Engineer in Gear Production, BMW Group, Dingolfing; and
on Surface Fatigue Life of Carburized and Hardened AIS1 9310 1994–2000 — Scientific Research Assistant (Ph.D. candidate) at Gear Research
Spur Gears,” NASA Technical Paper, 2047. Centre (FZG), TUM. Prominent among his Professional Activities: Since 2020
16. Winkelmann, L., O. El-Saeed and M. Bell. 2009, “The Effect DFG: Member of Review Board 402-01; 2016–2018 AiF: Member of Review
of Superfinishing on Gear Micropitting,” Gear Technology, Board 4. His many honors and awards include (2019) VDMA Faculty Teaching
pp.60–65. Concept Award, “Bestes Maschinenhaus”; (2019) VDMA Faculty Teaching
17. [17] Zhang, J. and B.A. Shaw. 2011, “The Effect of Concept Award; and (2019) Student Award “Goldene Lehre,” Best course of
Superfinishing on the Contact Fatigue of Case Carburized lectures in MW-Bachelor; and (2005) VDI Ring of Honors Award; he has chaired
Gears,” Applied Mechanics and Materials, 86, pp.348–351 and participated in numerous international conferences, particularly for VDI
Gearing Conferences. Stahl’s Editorial and many other activities (too numerous
to list all here) include: Springer-Nature: Forschung im Ingenieurwesen, journal,
Editor in Chief ASME: Journal of Vibration and Acoustics (JVA), Associate
For Related Articles Search Editor Inderscience: International Journal of Powertrains (IJPT), Member of the
Editorial Board EDP Sciences: International Journal of Mechanics & Industry,
shot peening and Editor Tecniche Nuove: Organi di Trasmissione.
at www.geartechnology.com

March/April 2021 | GEAR TECHNOLOGY 65