Fatigue & Fracture of

Engineering Materials & Structures

doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2695.2008.01278.x

Influence of core hardness on bending strength of tooth in cylindrical

gears under quasistatic loading conditions
M. BOZCA
Yildiz Technical University, Mechanical Engineering Department, Machine Design Division, 34349 Yildiz, Istanbul, Turkey

Received in final form 18 August 2008

A B S T R A C T Dynamically loaded mechanical components can withstand overloading if they are de-
signed by considering sufficient safety of margin for the static strength. In this study, the
influence of core hardness on bending static strength of the tooth in cylindrical hardened
gears is investigated experimentally. For this purpose, shot peened and unpeened gears
having different core hardness and comparable surface hardness are tested on a pulsator
test rig, which provides a quasi-static loading condition by means of a servomotor. All
test gears are made of 20MnCr5 steel and have the same geometry (module m = 5 mm).
Average static load for fracture is measured. The relationship between the applied load
and bending stress is known. Hardness profiles from the surface to the core of the test
gears were measured. Strength is assumed to be a function of depth depending hardness to
justify fracture initiation on the surface under bending static load conditions. Tooth root
failures originating from the surface were observed experimentally. It is found that the
shot peening treatment and core hardness have no considerable influence on the bending
strength of the tooth under static loading conditions.

Keywords bending strength of tooth; core hardness; gears.

NOMENCLATURE b = face width [mm]

d a = tip diameter [mm]
d 0 = base circle diameter [mm]
F n = applied nominal load, normal to the line of contact [N]
h F = bending moment arm relevant to the load actual application at the flank (defined
by the contact point of 30◦ tangents) [mm]
K t = stress concentration factor [−]
m n = normal module
R z = surface roughness [μm]
S F = tooth-root chord at the critical section [mm]
S 0 = tooth thickness [mm]
Y S = stress correction factor (ISO 6336)
z = tooth number
α e = pressure angle [◦ ]
β = helix angle [◦ ]
σ F0 = tooth root bending stress [N/mm2 ]

INTRODUCTION strength. Gear strength is tested therefore by bending,

Gears are widely used in machines to transmit power
mechanically. Determination of service life and/or deter-
mination of strength of gears are crucial for gear manufac-
turers. Gear strength is defined by bending and contact
Correspondence: M. Bozca. E-mail: mbozca@yildiz.edu.tr
pitting, micropitting and wear tests. Surface treatments,
surface finishing and material properties play an impor-
tant role on gear strength. Surface hardness and core hard-
ness are effective parameters on gear strength. To this
end, the following results are presented in the literature:
Gears are case carburized to increase surface hardness,
improve wear resistance and achieve high contact and

902 
c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910
 INFLUENCE OF CORE HARDNESS ON BENDING STRENGTH 903

Table 1 Gear geometry On the other hand, machining can lead to compressive
residual stresses that have been proved to increase fa-
Gear parameter Notation Unit Value tigue initiation lives. Surface correction factors need to
be extracted from the same machining process through
Normal module mn [mm] 5 time-consuming fatigue testing.4
Face width b [mm] 30
Surface roughness, microstructure and residual stress
Pressure angle α Degree 20
Helix angle β Degree 0
distribution are regarded as parameters that influence
Tooth number z - 24 the fatigue process. By considering different surface con-
Tip diameter da [mm] 130 ditions, effects of internal oxidation, surface roughness
Base circle diameter d0 [mm] 120 and residual stresses on fatigue crack initiation and crack
Surface roughness Rz [μm] 10.4 ± 1.1 growth are assessed.5
Tooth-root chord SF [mm] 10.925 It is concluded that the static load causes appreciable
Bending moment arm hF [mm] 6
relaxation and that variable amplitude fatigue shows the
Stress correction factor YS [−] 2.0
Tooth thickness S0 [mm] 7.853
same degree of relaxation as the static load case, sug-
gesting that the fatigue relaxation occurs early during the
fatigue loading and is correlated to the maximum load in
bending strength. Failure modes of pitting and tooth root the spectrum.5
breakage are affected by the case depth. The bending Static strength is often regarded as correlated with dy-
strength of case carburized gears is influenced signifi- namic impact strength. Gears are supposed to have suffi-
cantly by the ratio of case depth to gear module. Test ciently high core hardness in order to deal with impacts
results show that the case depth influences both bend- which can occur during service.
ing and surface (contact) load capacity. An inappropriate In this study, the influence of core hardness on bending
case depth, smaller or larger than the optimum, leads to a strength of tooth in cylindrical gears under static loading
decrease in allowable load capacity.1 is investigated. Gears having different core hardness are
The fatigue life of machine elements may be increased tested to fracture under quasi-static load on a pulsator test
if compressive residual stresses are introduced.2 Among rig. The relationship between hardness profile and static
the treatments that can be applied to locally improve the bending strength of gears is shown.
material properties and to modify the stress field, a com-
bination of case hardening and shot peening is promising. TEST GEAR
Shot peening after case hardening contributes to an im-
provement both in the microstructure and the residual Gears having low core hardness, middle core hardness and
stress distribution.3 high core hardness are tested on a pulsator to determine
Fatigue strength of structures is highly dependent on the tooth root bending strength under static loading.
surface quality. Surface quality is known to affect crack
Gear geometry
initiation life substantially. Surface roughness introduces
microscopic stress increment that reduces the crack ini- Gear geometry is summarized in Table 1. The front view
tiation time compared with perfectly smooth specimens. of cylindrical gear is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Cylindrical gear.


c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910
904 M. BOZCA

Table 2 Element composition of 20MnCr5: measured mass-% compared with the specification (EN 10084)

20MnCr5 – Chemical composition

Element C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Ni Al Cu N
Mass-% 0.2 0.25 1.2 0.009 0.031 1.25 0.04 0.21 0.018 0.15 0.005
0.17 1.1- <0.0 <0.0 1.0
EN 10084 0.22 <0.4 1.4 35 35 1.3 - - - - -

Chemical composition of 20MnCr5 Shot peening

The gear material is steel 20MnCr5 whose composition
is given in Table 2.6
Heat treatment
The purpose of heat treatments is usually to provide sur-
faces with increased resistance to wearing and fatigue
strength.7 In powertrain engineering, case-hardened
gears are among the highest loaded components.5 Car-
burizing and nitriding are thermochemical processes that
add carbon or nitrogen to the surface layer during an
appropriate heat treatment. The resulting hardened skin
(or ‘case’), together with the compressive residual stresses
on the surface, can be very effective in increasing fatigue
strength.7
All gears tested in this study were case hardened. The
gears were low pressure carburized in an atmosphere of
4 mbar acetylen (ethyne) and quenched by gas. In order
to obtain different core hardness, different quench rates
were applied using different gases and gas-pressures. Low
core hardness is obtained under N 2 having 2 bar pressure,
middle core hardness is obtained under N 2 having 6 bar
pressure, and high core hardness is obtained under He
having 20 bar pressure.
Shot peening is a common and versatile cold-working
treatment, which is widely used with gears. In shot peen-
ing, the surface is bombarded with high-velocity iron or
steel particles that are shot discharged from a rotating
wheel or pneumatic nozzle. The lightly hammering or
peening effect tends to reduce the thickness and there-
fore increases the area of the exposed skin. Because the
bombarded area is resisted by the subsurface material,
residual compression stress is generated in the surface.
The highest compressive stresses occur slightly below the
surface and are commonly about the order of half of the
yield strength.7
Shot peening causes inhomogeneous plastic deforma-
tion of the near-surface layers that induces numer-
ous changes in the material state, including not only
residual stresses but also microhardness, dislocation
density, surface roughness, surface defects and phase
composition.8
Shot peening is a well-known process to improve fatigue
bending strength of gears. The high compression stress
induced in the surface layer is supposed to increase the
stress threshold for crack initiation.
Half of the test gears were exposed to a controlled shot
peening treatment after case hardening.

800,0

700,0

600,0
HARDNESS [HV1]

500,0
low core hardness
400,0 middle hardness
high hardness
300,0

200,0

100,0

0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Fig. 2 Depth-hardness relationship for
DEPTH [mm] gears 1, 3 and 5.


c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910
 INFLUENCE OF CORE HARDNESS ON BENDING STRENGTH 905

800,0

700,0

600,0

HARDNESS [HV1]
500,0
low core hardness
400,0 middle hardness
high hardness
300,0

200,0

100,0

0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Fig. 3 Depth-hardness relationship for
gears 2, 4 and 6. DEPTH [mm]

Hardness profiles
Test load
In this study, the influence of core hardness on bending
strength of tooth in cylindrical gears under quasistatic Clamp jaw
loading conditions was studied, therefore gears that have
the same surface hardness were used for all test. Thus, in-
fluence of core hardness is investigated by keeping surface
hardness constant.
The hardness profiles in the tooth root of the test gears
having different core hardness are shown in Figs 2 and 3
for gears without and with shot peening, respectively.
Surface hardness is 700 to 720 HV, case hardening depth Clamp jaw
at 550 HV is 0.78 to 0.91 mm. The shot peening treatment
shows no influence on the hardness profile.
Test load

TEST PROCEDURE Fig. 4 Tooth position of the gear during the tests on the pulsator
test rig.
Pulsator test machine
To determine bending strength of tooth, the gear tooth
were symmetrically clamped between two parallel contact where F n is applied nominal load that is normal to the line
jaws of a pulsator machine and loaded as shown in Figs 4 of contact [N], α e is the pressure angle [in degrees], h F
and 5 so that the load direction was tangential to the base is bending moment arm relevant to the load application
circle. The tests were continued until fracture of the gear (defined by the contact point of 30◦ tangents) [mm], Y S
tooth. is stress correction factor according to ISO 6336, b is face
width [mm] and S Fn is tooth-root chord at the critical
TEST RESULTS
section [mm], e.g. see Fig. 6. Plasticity effects are not taken
into account in this calculation, only elastic relationship
Failure loads and stresses between applied load and stress is considered.
According to the ISO 6336, shear stresses due to lateral
Table 3 shows the experimental results of the quasi-static
forces were not taken into consideration for the loading
bending tests. For every set, three tests were run and the
capacity of gear.9–12
average value is calculated and reported.
A tooth root bending fatigue fracture usually starts at the
Nominal tooth root stress σ F0 is calculated as follows9–11
30◦ tangent in the root.9–11,13
Fn cos α e Failure loads are comparable for all sets. In brief, no
σF 0 = 1
 2  h F YS (1)
6
b SF n influence of different core hardness or of the shot peen-


c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910
906 M. BOZCA

Fig. 6 Gear tooth.

Load stress equation can be written as follows

σload = K t σ F 0 , (2)

where K t is the stress concentration factor [−] obtained by

finite element method and σ F0 is the tooth root bending
stress [N/mm2 ] obtained experimentally.
Depth-stress profiles were calculated by means of finite
element method. The results were normalized by tensile
stress value on the surface.
For every test set the local strength profiles can be com-
Fig. 5 Pulsator machine. pared with the load stress profiles at fracture as shown in
Figs 7–12.
Table 3 Bending test results The figures show that the load stress exceeds the local
strength always at the surface; thus, the failure originates
Set Hardening Shot Static load Nominal tooth root always on the surface.
treatment peening at breakage stress at fracture In fact, the loads on notched parts are often sufficiently
F n [kN] σ F0 [N/mm2 ] high such that the local stress (load stress) calculated from
the nominal stress and the stress concentration factor by
1 2 bar N 2 no 128.39 2396
the formula σload = Kt σ F0 is considerably above the yield
2 2 bar N 2 yes 123.25 2300
3 6 bar N 2 no 129.94 2425 strength.14
4 6 bar N 2 yes 131.54 2454 With a sharply notched specimen or machine parts, it
5 20 bar He no 131.68 2457 is clear that even a moderate load may produce actual
6 20 bar He yes 131.85 2460 stresses at the root of the notch that exceed the yield
point of the material locally.15

Macrostructure of fracture surface

ing treatment can be recognized on the static bending
strength.
Results discussion
Based on the hardness profiles, it is possible to define local
tensile strength profiles. In Ref. [11], the conversion from
hardness [HV] to tensile strength [N/mm2 ] is provided
by interpolation.
Macrostructure of fracture surface of gears is observed
by ‘PROGRESS 3012 Digital optic camera’. View of
fracture surfaces are shown in Figs 13–19 for unpeened
and shot peened gears. Breakage surfaces appear as typical
static load failures with cracks originated on the surface
subjected to the maximum tensile stress.
It is shown in Fig. 13 that a tooth root bending fracture
starts at the 30◦ tangent in the root.


c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910
 INFLUENCE OF CORE HARDNESS ON BENDING STRENGTH 907

3000,0

2500,0

TENSILE STRENGTH [N/mm2]

2000,0

Strength
1500,0
Load stress

1000,0

500,0

0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Fig. 7 Tensile strength and load stress vs.
depth relationships for gear 1. DEPTH [mm]

3000,0

2500,0
TENSILE STRENGTH [N/mm2]

2000,0

Strength
1500,0
Load stress

1000,0

500,0

0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Fig. 8 Tensile strength and load stress vs.
depth relationships for gear 3. DEPTH [mm]

3000,0

2500,0
TENSILE STRENGTH [N/mm2]

2000,0

Strength
1500,0
Load stress

1000,0

500,0

0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Fig. 9 Tensile strength and load stress vs.
depth relationships for gears 5. DEPTH [mm]


c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910
908 M. BOZCA

TENSILE STRENGTH [N/mm2] 2500,0

2000,0

1500,0
Strength
load stress
1000,0

500,0

0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 Fig. 10 Tensile strength and load stress vs.
DEPTH [mm] depth relationships for gear 2.

3000,0

2500,0
TENSILE STRESS [N/mm2]

2000,0

Strength
1500,0
load stress

1000,0

500,0

0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5
Fig. 11 Tensile strength and load stress vs.
DEPTH [mm] depth relationships for gear 4.

3000,0

2500,0
TENSILE STRESS [N/mm2]

2000,0

Strength
1500,0
load stress

1000,0

500,0

0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Fig. 12 Tensile strength and load stress vs.
DEPTH [mm] depth relationships for gear 6.


c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910
 INFLUENCE OF CORE HARDNESS ON BENDING STRENGTH 909

Fig. 16 Fracture surface of high hardened gear without shot

peening.

Fig. 13 View of cylindrical gear tooth.

Fig. 17 Fracture surface of low hardened gear with shot peening.

Fig. 14 Fracture surface of low hardened gear without shot

peening.

Fig. 18 Fracture surface of middle hardened gear with shot

peening.

CONCLUSIONS
In this study, influence of core hardness on tooth root
bending strength of cylindrical gears under static load is
investigated experimentally. For this purpose, low core
Fig. 15 Fracture surface of middle hardened gear without shot hardness, middle core hardness and high core hardness
peening. gears are tested on a pulsator test rig.


c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910
910 M. BOZCA
Prof. Dr.-Ing. B. R. Höhn, Dr.-Ing. T. Tobie, Dipl.-
Ing. Alessandro Stenico, Dipl.-Ing. C. Lechner, Dipl.-
Ing. C. Ebner, Dipl.-Ing. S. Schwienbacher and Tech.
W. Leykamm for helpful co-operation.
REFERENCES
Fig. 19 Fracture surface of high hardened gear with shot peening.
Test results show that hardness provides a good refer-
ence for the evaluation of static bending strength of the
tooth. Hardness and local tensile strength decrease with
increasing depth due to case hardening.
Load stress decreases with increasing depth at a higher
rate than strength due to the bending loading case and
the notch effect of tooth root. Thus, no other side than
the surface is predictable for the failure initiation for the
present geometry and case hardening depth conditions.
Hence, core hardness does not influence the static bend-
ing strength of the investigated gears.
The calculated stresses stated in the paper are calculated
via elastic assumptions. However, for the case of a highly
local stress concentration the overall size and shape of
the stressed parts would not be significantly changed by
yielding in the region of stress concentration, whereas for
a widely distributed stress concentration the overall size
and shape of stressed part would be subject to signifi-
cant changes by virtue of yielding in the region of stress
concentration.15
By considering above explanations, it should be noted
that the value of K t is valid only for stress levels within the
elastic range, and it must be suitably modified if stresses
are in the plastic range.15
Although it is showed in literature that shot peening is
an effective technology to increase bending strength of
the tooth under variable loading condition, no influence
of shot peening on bending strength of the tooth under
static load condition was found in this study.
Acknowledgements
This research study is supported by FZG Gear Research
Center of Technical University of Munich. Author thanks

c 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
1 Höhn, B.-R., Oster, P. and Tobie, T. (2005) Systematic
investigations on the influence of case depth on the pitting
and bending strength of case carburized gears. Gear Technol.
July/August, 40–48.
2 Daniewicz, S. R. and Moore, D. H. (1998) Increasing the
bending fatigue resistance of spur gear tooth using a
presetting process. Int. J. Fatigue 20, 537–542.
3 Benedetti, M., Fontanari, V., Höhn, B.-R., Oster, P. and
Tobie, T. (2002) Influence of shot peening on bending tooth
fatigue limit of case hardened gears. Int. J. Fatigue 24,
1127–1136.
4 As, S. K., Scallerud, B., Tveiten, B. W. and Holme, B. (2005)
Fatigue life prediction of machined components using finite
element analysis of surface topology. Int. J. Fatigue 27,
1590–1596.
5 Laue, S., Bomas, H. and Hoffmann, F. (2006) Influence of
surface condition on the fatigue behaviour of specimens made
of a SAE 5115 case-hardened steel. Fatigue Fract. Engng.
Mater. Struct. 29, 229–241.
6 Höhn, B.-R., Mayr, H. P., Zoch, H.-W., Tobie, T.,
Hoffmann, F., Stenico, A., Vetterlein, J., Beyer, R. and
Wehming, O. (2006) Einfluss der Kernfestigkeit auf die
Zahnfußtragfaehigkeit einsatzgehaerteter Zahnraeder.
Forschunsvereiningung Antriebstechnik (FVA).
7 Juvinal, Robert C. and Marshek, Kurt M. (2000) Fundamentals
of Machine Component Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.A.
8 McClung, R. C. (2007) A literature survey on the stability and
significance of residual stresses during fatigue. Fatigue Fract.
Engng. Mater. Struct. 30, 173–205.
9 Niemann, G. and Winter, H. (2002) Maschinenelemente Band
II. Springer Verlag, Germany.
10 Roloff/Matek (2005) Mashinenelemente, Vieweg & Sohn
lag/GWV.Ver Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden.
11 ISO 6336–5, Calculation of load capacity of spur and helical
gears - Part 5: Strength and quality of materials, International
Organization for Standardization.
12 Cavallaro, G. P., Wilks, T. P., Subramanian, C., Strafford, K.
N., French, P. and Allison, J. E. (1995) Bending fatigue and
contact fatigue characteristics of carburized gears. Surf. Coat.
Technol. 71, 182–192.
13 Mackaldener, M. and Olsson, M. (2000) Interior fatigue of
gear teeth, fatigue. Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct. 23,
283–292.
14 Stephens, R. I., Fatemi, A., Stephens, R. R. and Fuchs, H. O.
(2001) Metal Fatigue in Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
U.S.A.
15 Collins, J. A. (1981) Failure of Materials in Mechanical Design.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.A.
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 31, 902–910