Estimation method for the fatigue limit of case hardened steels

K. Genel
*
Mechanical Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Engineering Faculty, Esentepe 54187, Sakarya, Turkey
Received 26 January 2004; accepted in revised form 30 April 2004
Available online 2 July 2004
Abstract
It is well known that estimation of fatigue limit and optimum effective case depth are an important area of interest to the design engineer.
In this study, simple expressions for the case hardened steels have been proposed to estimate the bending fatigue limit and optimum case
depth values. Validation of the proposed expression was carried out several nitrided low alloy and carburised steels with different case depths.
Results showed that the proposed analytical methods have good agreement with the experimental fatigue limit, and estimated optimum
effective case depth values are favourable from the practical point of view. In case of considering 23 different effective case depth values of
the steels with core hardness values are in range of 190290HB, the calculated absolute mean deviation in estimating fatigue limit is 5.5%.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fatigue limit estimation; Case hardened steel; Subsurface fatigue; Residual stress
1. Introduction
Case hardening methods such as nitriding and carburis-
ing have been successfully employed to improve fatigue
performance of steels for several decades [1]. The reason of
improvement in fatigue strength is explained by combina-
tion of strengthening and imparted compressive residual
stress of case region after the heat treatment [24]. Devel-
oped compressive residual stress in case region is counter-
acted by a tensile stress produced in the core, its magnitude
and distribution of residual stress in the section as well as
local strength determine position of fatigue crack origin.
Particularly in smooth components, residual stresses play
the main role on fatigue performance [4,5]. The improve-
ment in fatigue strength or life resulting from surface
treatment cannot be attributed to the maximum compressive
residual stress only, but also to its distribution [6,7]. Applied
any post treatment such as shot peening after case hardening
process, which changes residual stress profile in the case
region, enhances fatigue performance [7,8]. For a given
compressive residual stress at the surface, increasing the
effective case depth will alter the stress profile, and an
increase in the value of the tensile stress in the substrate
because of the reduced core area. It tends to decrease the
core strength. Detrimental effects of non-metallic inclusions
should also be considered as another argument with respect
to the crack initiation stage [9]. Spies [10] used local fatigue
strength in explanation of fatigue behaviour of case hard-
ened steels and recommended nitriding condition with
respect to the fatigue performance of steels. Landgraf and
Richman analyzed a carburized member subjected to bend-
ing. The member was assumed to be a composite consisting
of a high strength low ductility case and a low strength
ductile core. An analytical model was proposed to estimate
the case thickness of a bending member undergoing fatigue
loading [11]. Mittemeijer [12] discussed the role of residual
macro and micro stress on the fatigue of nitrided steels.
Estimation of the fatigue limit of case hardened steels by
using simple expression is important in fatigue design and in
selection of steel and its suitable heat treatment parameters.
In this study, a simple method was developed based on
the Basquin approach to estimate the bending fatigue limit
and optimum effective case depth for smooth case hardened
cylindrical specimens subjected to bending fatigue loads.
2. Model
Fatigue cracks initiation in the core region are general
characteristics of case hardened parts unless there are no
0257-8972/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2004.04.077
* Tel.: +90-264-346-0353x319; fax: +90-264-346-0351.
E-mail address: kgenel@sakarya.edu.tr (K. Genel).
www.elsevier.com/locate/surfcoat
Surface & Coatings Technology 194 (2005) 9195
discontinues on the surface of the components to act as
stress raisers [5,913]. This type of subsurface fatigue crack
formation is generally known as the fish eye phenome-
non due to its appearance. Crack initiation and propagation
strongly depends on the core properties of the specimen
[5,9]. In this state, surface hardness of specimen is not
critical unless unexpected low hardness does not occur after
heat treatment.
Fig. 1 depicts a schematic diagram showing stress
distribution and subsurface failure origin in a residual stress
free case hardened specimen and the effect of residual stress
on the net fatigue strength distribution in a cross section of
case hardened specimen subjected to bending. It can be seen
from Fig. 1b that failure originates in the case/core interface
at which the tensile stress value is critical. Accordingly,
increasing case depth shifts the crack initiation origin
towards the interior region, thus greater applied bending
stress is required to create a sufficiently high level of stress
for subsurface fatigue crack initiation.
The model involves some assumptions; firstly, the fa-
tigue failure site is in the core region; hence the fatigue limit
is controlled by core properties and at this stress level
inclusions do not stimulate fatigue crack initiation. Second-
ly, no relaxation in residual stress occurs during cyclic
loading. Finally, no propagating micro-cracks can exist.
Regardless of the residual stress effect, the relationship
between the fatigue limit of case hardened steels and the
effective case depth is described by Eq. (1), which has been
used by researchers in fatigue evaluation of thermo-chem-
ical surface treated specimens [5,9].
r
lim

D
D 2t
_ _
r
h
1
where r
lim
is the fatigue strength or limit, D is the specimen
diameter, t is the effective case depth and r
h
is the maximum
applied stress level in the core at the fatigue limit of case
hardened steels.
When the fatigue strength distribution in Fig. 1 is
taken into consideration, Eq. (1) can be obtained from
simple geometric consideration. (D/D2t) is considered
as a term reflecting the influence of case depth. As
mentioned previously, the fatigue performance of speci-
mens as well as subsurface fatigue crack formation is
determined by the fatigue strength of the core region. It is
closely related to the tensile residual stress. Therefore, the
magnitude of the tensile residual stress in the core region
should be considered in evaluating fatigue performance
[5,9].
There have been many equations proposed to describe
the S/N curve. One of the simplest ones is the Basquins
equation, which successfully describes the fatigue perfor-
mance of steels for the high cycle regime [2,7].
r
a
r
f
V
2N
f

b
2
where r
a
is the fatigue stress amplitude, r
f
V is the fatigue
strength coefficient taken as the intercept of the log(r
a
)
versus log(2N
f
) plot at 2N= 1, b is the fatigue strength
exponent taken as the slope of the log(r
a
) versus log(2N
f
)
plot, and varies between 0.05 and 0.12 for most metal.
2N
f
is the number of reversals to failure.
When the mean stress is not zero, Eq. (2) can also be
modified to account for mean stresses as follows [6,7,14]:
r
a
r
f
V r
m
2N
f

b
3
where r
m
is the mean stress. In this equation, tensile mean
stress is positive and compressive one is negative. Eq. (3) is
arranged with respect to the case hardened specimens. When
Fig. 1. Stress distribution and subsurface failure origin in residual stress free case hardened specimen (a); the effect of residual stress on the net stress
distribution in cross section of case hardened specimen (b).
K. Genel / Surface & Coatings Technology 194 (2005) 9195 92
(D/D2t) and the term related to tensile residual stress in
core region are introduced into Eq. (3),
r
a

D
D 2t
_ _
r
f
V
r
R core
2N
f

b
4
is obtained, where r
R core
is the core residual stress.
With regard to this equation for a given specimen size
and number of cycles, fatigue strength is proportional to the
effective case depth and fatigue strength coefficient of core
region. If a linear change of residual stresses through the
cross section of the specimen is assumed, the corresponding
residual stress in the core region must be in tensile mode and
it can simply be calculated by taking a force balance in the
cross section of specimens.
pd
2
4
_ _
r
R core

1
2
pDt
_ _
r
R surf
5
r
R core

2Dt
d
2
r
R surf
or
2Dt
D 2t
2
r
R surf
6
where d is the core diameter of case hardened specimens
(d = D2t). It is noticed in this equation that the magnitude
of core residual stresses changes with a ratio of case/core
area as well as level of the surface residual stresses.
Substitution of Eq. (6), instead of r
R core
term, into Eq.
(4) results in:
r
a

D
D 2t
_ _
r
f
V

2Dt
D 2t
2
r
R surf
_ _
2N
f

b
7
When the fatigue strength coefficient in terms of the
Brinell hardness scale using the relationship r
f
V =
4.25HB+ 225 as proposed by Roessle and Fatemi [15] is
considered, Eq. (7) is also stated in the following manner
r
a

D
D 2t
_ _
4:25HB 225
2Dt
D 2t
2
r
R surf
_ _
2N
f

b
8
where HB is the Brinell hardness value. This equation
enables the calculation of the fatigue strength of case hard-
ened smooth cylindrical parts for a certain number of reveals.
Table 1
Materials, details of heat treatment and comparisons between experimental and calculated fatigue data
Ref. Steel Surface
treatment
Specimen
diameter
(mm)
Effective
Case depth*
(Am)
Surface
Residual
stress (MPa)
Core
hardness
(HB)
Fatigue
limit
(MPa)
Calculated
fatigue limit
(MPa)
Deviation
(%)
[5] En 41B -Q and T Nitrided 3.81 120
a
257 645 669 + 3.7
(24CrMo13) 320 710 719 + 1.3
375 740 731 1.2
560 840 764 9.0
[9] 42CrMo4 -Q and T Nitrided 4 195 210 304 773 802 + 3.8
(AISI 4140) 310 330 816 830 + 1.7
355 370 865 838 3.1
470 300 954 886 7.1
[10] 20MnCr 5- N Nitrided 7 420 365 190 490 538 + 9.8
[10] 20MnCr 5 -Q and T Nitrided 7 240 360 247 640 649 + 1.4
440 430 238 670 647 3.4
560 235 238 745 684 8.2
[10] C 45 -Q and T Nitrided 7 600 140 238 760 704 7.4
[13] SCM 415 ( c16CrMo4) Carburised 9 1100 280
b
290 950 859 9.6
[16] SCM 435 -Q and T Nitrided 5.5 100
a
278 680 702 + 3.2
( c34CrMo4) 120 700 705 + 0.7
390 820 757 7.7
740 935 817 12.6
[17] B-Mn steel -Q and T Nitrided 10 550 600 260 670 680 + 1.5
[18] En 19 -Q and T
( c AISI 4135)
Nitrided 3.81 500 498 290 900 801 11.0
[19] Ni-Cr-Mo -Q and T Nitrided 12 475
a
260 750 684 8.8
[20] 21NiCrMo 2 ( cAISI 8620) Carburised 10 1500 220
c
274 825 870 + 5.5
[21] AISI 4135 -Q and T Nitrocarburised 6.7 300 250 285 780 751 3.7
Q and T: quenched and tempered, N:normalized. * Determined base on hardness values (for the nitrided specimens: core hardness + 30 Hv, for carburized
specimens: 550 Hv) : Residual stress is not reported.
a
It is assumed to be 350 MPa for nitrided specimens.
b
It is value of residual stress in 25 Am in depth.
c
It is assumed to be 220 MPa for carburised specimens.
K. Genel / Surface & Coatings Technology 194 (2005) 9195 93
3. Results and discussion
Eq. (8) was validated on several nitrided low alloy and
carburised steels. For the nitrided steels, the effective case
depth based on hardness values that were 30 Hv above the
core hardness was determined. The distance from the
surface where hardness equals 550 Hv is defined as the
effective case depth values for the carburised specimens.
The number of cycles (N) is 10
7
, where the corresponding
stress is assumed to be the fatigue limit. In order to
determine the value of the fatigue strength exponent (b),
the data source having S/N plots available in the literature
listed in Table 1, are regarded. The result from evaluating
the slopes of the all plots on loglog coordinates indicated
that a value of 0.043 provides satisfactory agreement
between experimental and estimated fatigue strength of
thermo-chemical treated specimens. Heat treatment details
and fatigue limit values [5,9,10,13,1621] used in evalua-
tion of Eq. (8) are given in Table 1 together with the
calculated fatigue limit. A common characteristic of tabu-
lated fatigue data (in Table 1) is that they showed subsurface
fatigue crack formation at high cycle region. Fatigue data of
surface finished carburised specimens are only considered,
although the amount of data is very limited. This is because
in the case of as-carburised specimens (without polishing or
grinding), all are fractured from the surface due to the
presence of structural anomalies such as internal oxidation,
etc. [13]. Regarding 23 different effective case depth values
of the steels with core hardness values in the range of 190
290 HB, the absolute mean deviation in estimating fatigue
limit is 5.5%. It is concluded from comparison results that
estimation accuracy is satisfactory in terms of engineering
purposes. For a given diameter, proposed method requires
only surface residual stress, core hardness as well as
effective case depth. It is very important and useful partic-
ularly from the perspective of the manufacturers in practice
and for selecting the appropriate heat treatment parameters
with respect to fatigue strength. In order to evaluate change
of fatigue limit with case depth for various core hardness
values, Fig. 2a and b was produced by taking 220 and
350 MPa for the residual stress values at the surface
carburised and nitrided specimens, respectively. These val-
ues are typical measured residual stress values for the two
thermo-chemical surface treatments. As can be seen from
Fig. 2, the estimated fatigue limit is increased with increas-
ing effective case depth. After reaching maximum values,
variations in fatigue limit tend to decrease. This behaviour
can be explained as follows; initially, the beneficial effect of
case depth is predominant. For the thicker case depth,
tensile residual stress in the core increases and its detrimen-
tal effect is predominant. As a result, the fatigue limit
decreases dramatically for a value that is thicker than the
critical value of effective case depth. The studies on fatigue
behaviour of case hardening steels pointed out that fatigue
performance of specimens depends on the magnitude of
residual stresses in the core region [3,5,9,10]. In the
literature, it is recommended that the ratio of effective case
depth to specimen diameter value should be kept in the
range of 0.10 and 0.15 and never exceeds 0.20 for nitrided
components [3,22]. For carburised components, this recom-
mended ratio may slightly increase [22]. When the change
in fatigue limit with t/D in Fig. 2 and the above recommen-
dation are considered, the proposed method is in good
agreement with experimental results. As noted previously,
the change of the residual stress through the cross section of
the specimen is assumed to be linear. It is known that the
value of surface residual stress might take lower than stress
in any depth in case of the presence of non martensitic
structure at the surface of carburised specimen [13] and long
treatment time in the nitriding process due to coarsening of
precipitates [23]. For this reason, the residual stress profile
might be important for the fatigue behaviour of the speci-
men. However, since the case area is generally much
smaller than the core area, the effect of variation in residual
stress values with depth on magnitude of the core residual
stress is not critical.









Fig. 2. Change of fatigue limit with effective case depth for various core
hardness values for the surface residual stresses (a) 220 MPa for the
carburising, (b) 350 MPa for the nitriding.
K. Genel / Surface & Coatings Technology 194 (2005) 9195 94
Construction of a simple expression for the quantitative
estimation of optimum effective depth depending on size of
specimens, core hardness and case hardening process is
possible. It is also most useful from the practical point of
view. If the Eq. (7) is derived with respect to the case depth
(t) and equalized to zero (df/dt = 0), then solving of equation
gives to Eq. (9).
t
opt

D
2
r
f
V r
R surf

3r
f
Vr
R surf
r
2
R surf

_
r
f
V
_
_
_
_
9
Graphical presentation of optimum effective case depth
for 5 and 10 mm in diameter of specimens is given in Fig. 3
as function of the core hardness and surface compressive
residual stress. It is seen that optimum effective case depth
increases with increasing size of specimen in particularly at
low surface compressive residual stresses.
4. Conclusions
In this study, a simple analytical method for estimation of
bending fatigue limit of case hardened specimen on the bases
of the effective case dept, core hardness and the residual stress
was proposed. When the low degree of mean deviation
(5.5%) in the estimation is considered, it is possible to claim
that, for a given diameter, the proposed method can be
employed successfully in estimating fatigue limit of case
hardened specimens of which core hardness values are in the
range of 190290HB. The results of analysis are in agree-
ment with experimental findings about the beneficial effect of
case depth and the compressive residual stress on fatigue limit
of case hardened steels. Moreover, regarding the subsurface
fatigue crack initiation for a given core hardness value and
specimen diameter, there would be a critical effective case
depth depending on the magnitude of surface residual stress.
Considering 220 and 350 MPa for the residual stress
values at the surface of carburised and nitrided specimens,
respectively, the obtained critical or optimum values of the
effective case depth are reasonable compared to recommen-
ded values quoted in the literature.
References
[1] Metals Handbook, 9th edition, Heat Treating, vol. 4, American Soci-
ety for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1991, p. 266.
[2] H.O. Fuchs, R.I. Stephens, Metal Fatigue in Engineering, Wiley-Inter-
science, New York, 1980.
[3] R.G. Luther, T.R.G. Williams, Metall. Met. Form. 41 (1974) 72.
[4] K. Genel, M. Demirkol, Int. J. Fatigue 21 (1999) 207.
[5] T. Bell, N. Loh, J. Heat Treat. 2 (1982) 232.
[6] G.A. Webster, A.N. Ezeilo, Int. J. Fatigue 23 (2001) S375.
[7] Metals Handbook, Fatigue and Fracture, vol. 19, American Society
for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1996, p. 688.
[8] Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No:880666, 1988.
[9] K. Genel, M. Demirkol, M. Capa, Mater. Sci. Eng. 279 (2000) 207.
[10] H.-J. Spies, Steel Res. 64 (1993) 441.
[11] R.W. Landgraf, R.H. Richman, ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. 569 (1975)
130.
[12] E.J. Mittemeijer, J. Heat Treat. 3 (1983) 114.
[13] T. Naito, T.H. Ueda, M. Kikuchi, Metall. Trans. 15A (1984) 1431.
[14] N.E. Dowling, Mechanical Behaviour of Materials, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, 1993.
[15] M.L. Roessle, A. Fatemi, Int. J. Fatigue 22 (2000) 495.
[16] K. Tokaji, S. Takahashi, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 26 (2003)
215.
[17] P. de la Cruz, T. Ericsson, Mater. Sci. Eng. A242 (1998) 181.
[18] C.X. Li, Y. Sun, T. Bell, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 19 (2000) 1793.
[19] M.M. Tosic, I. Terzic, R. Gligorijevic, M. Ognnjanovic, Surf. Coat.
Technol. 63 (1994) 73.
[20] S. Gungor, S. Bor, Proceedings of Fourth National Metallurgy Con-
gress and Exhibition, Chamber of Metallurgical Engineers of Turkey
Publ., Istanbul, 1986, p. 392.
[21] M.K. Khani, D. Dengel, Metall. Trans., A 27 (1996) 1333.
[22] H. Taucher, Fatigue Strength of Steels and Cast Irons (in German),
Fachbuchverlag, Leipzig, 1978.
[23] P.C. Van Wiggen, H.C.F. Rozendaal, E.J. Mittemeijer, J. Mater. Sci.
20 (1985) 4561.



Fig. 3. Change of optimum effective case depth with core hardness and
surface compressive residual stress for 5 and 10 mm specimen diameters.
K. Genel / Surface & Coatings Technology 194 (2005) 9195 95