The Role of Retained Austenite PDF

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
Hie quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margin^
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wiD indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
A Bell & Howell information Com pany

300 North Z eeb Roacf. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
313.'76l-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Role of Retained Austenite and Residual
Stresses in Rolling Contact
by
Yiming Xu
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of
The Graduate College in the University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
for the Degree of Philosophy
Major: Interdepartmental Area of Engineering
(Chemical and Materials Engineering)
Under the Supervision of Professor William N. Weins
Lincoln, Nebraska
December 1993
UMI Number: 9611077
OMI Microform 9611077

Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
DISSERTATION TITLE
The R o le o f R e ta in e d A u s te n ite
and R e s id u a l S t r e s s e s in R o llin g C o n ta c t
BY
Yiming Xu
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:
APPROVED DATE
<2 12- 6 - 9 3
Sigr\ature
R u s s e ll C. N elson
Typed Name
12- 6 - 9 3
Signature
W illia m N ^W ein s
Typed Nami
12- 6 - 9 3
Signature
R o b e rt J . lie A n g e lis
12- 6 - 9 3
Signature
//
D onald L. Johnson
Typed Name
- t 12- 6 - 9 3
Signature
L io u , Sy-Hwang
Typed Name
Signature
Typed Name
11 GRADUATE COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA
The role of Retained Austenite and Residual Stress in Rolling Contact
Yiming Xu, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, 1993
Adviser. William N. Weins
The effects of rolling contact on the microstructure of case carburized bearing steel
have been studied experimentally, and the results examined, along with a review of the
current literature and theories which are used to explain the observed phenomena.
All experimental work utilized tapered rollers from 6.5 x 12 tapered roller bearings
as used in the rail industry. Retained austenite, residual stress, texture and particle size at
the roller surface were measured using X-ray diffraction technique. These parameters
along with hardness and microstructure were also studied as a function of load-miles on
new rollers, and profiles in addition these same parameters were measured as a function of
depth in the case carburized layer of several samples. These characteristics were also
studied as a function of the finish grinding operation, and rollers returned from long
service were annealed in order to study the extent to which the changes were related to
reversible processes. With all studies, whenever possible, measurements were carried out
sequentially and at the same location on the rollers.
Results of this research has shown that the retained austenite decreases at the
surface with service mileage and load, and the residual stresses in the martensite and
austenite phases become more compressive. Texture and particle size measurements along
with the annealing behavior of the rollers indicated that the most significant contribution
to the residual stress is from the transformation of austenite to martensite, although there
is evidence that work hardening of austenite is occurring. There appears to be an early
limit for most of the transformation of austenite to martensite which appears to be due to
the fact that the austenite has become strengthened which then makes further
transformation difficult. The behavior of the retained austenite is further classified
according to three stages known as shake down, steady state and unstable.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is indebted to Dr. William N. Weins for his invaluable advice and
patient review of all my dissertation reports and this dissertation. Also the author thanks
Dr. William N. Weins for offering the research assistantships which made this research
possible. Special thanks to Dr. Robert J. De Angelis for his advice about X-Ray
diffraction and his help for setting up the X-ray diffraction unit. Special thanks are
extended to Dr. Russell C. Nelson, Dr. Donald Johnson and Dr Liou, Sy-Hwang.
The author wants to express appreciation to Brenco Incorporated for their financial
and material support during this research project and to fellow graduate student, Dana
Medlin, for his collaborated research effort.
Gratitude is expressed to the Department of Mechanical Engineering for providing
teaching assistantships.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family, whose love and support has
made everything possible.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. In tro d u ctio n .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. Theory and Literature R ev iew ..................................................................................................8
A. Iron-Iron Carbide System ........................................................................................ 8
B. Non-Equilibrium S y s te m ........................................................................................... 16
1. Martensite Formation ................................................................................. 16
2. Retained A u ste n ite ........................................................................................ 24
a. M„ Mf and Tq Temperature .............................................................24
b. Tempering ........................................................................................ 29
c. Plastic D eform ation...........................................................................31
d. Effects of Retained A u ste n ite ........................................................ 31
3. Carburization ..................................................................................................32
C. Rolling Contact P henom ena...................................................................................... 34
1. Type of Contact ............................................................................................. 34
2. Rolling Contact Stress and Deformation ....................................................38
3. Sliding Friction and Deformation ............................................................... 46
D. Residual S tress............................................................................................................. 51
1. Mechanical Processes .................................................................................... 52
2. Thermal Processes........................................................................................... 54
3. Metallurgical Residual Stresses ....................................................................55
4. Chemical P rocesses........................................................................................ 61
5. Rolling C ontact................................................................................................63
E. Correlation Between Retained Austenite and Residual S tresses.......................... 64
F. Rolling Contact F a tig u e ............................................................................................. 66
1. Inclusion Origin F a tig u e .............................................................................. 67
2. Geometric Stress Concentration................................................................... 68
3. Point Surface O r ig in ..................................................................................... 70
4. P e e lin g ............................................................................................................ 70
5. Subcase F atigue...............................................................................................70
III. X-Ray T h e o ry ........................................................................................................................72
A. Retained Austenite M easurem ent............................................................................ 72
B. Residual Stresses M easurem ent.................................................................................83
1. Stress-Strain Relations .................................................................................83
2. Relation of Strain Equation to X -ray Stress A nalysis...............................87
a. Basic E q u atio n s.................................................................................87
b. The relation of stress and angle s h i f t ............................................ 94
c. Selection of diffraction peak for stress measurement .................98
d. Instrumental error in stress analysis...............................................98
(1). Error due to Variation of the Focal Point with 6 and ip

..........................................................................................99
(2). Error due to Specimen D isplacem ent........................ 102
(3). Error due to the Effect of Specimen Curvature . . . 103
C. Determination ofDiffraction Particle Size and Dislocation D ensity............... 105
D. Texture Analysis .......................................................................................... 110
IV. Experimental Results and D iscussion ............................................................................ 115
A. Equipm ent.............................................................................................................. 117
B. X -ray Depth of Penetration .............................................................................. 127
C. Retained Austenite and Residual Stress as a Function of Grinding Operation
................................................................................................................................ 131
D. Correlation of Retained Austenite, Residual Stress and Rolling Contact . . . 134
E. Residual Stress and Retained Austenite Distribution on the Surface of Rollers
................................................................................................................................. 141
1. 0 Mile O peration....................................................................................... 141
2. 2422 Miles Operation .............................................................................. 159
3. 5432 Miles Operation .............................................................................. 169
4. 13,413 Miles Operation and S u m m ary................................................... 178
F. Retained Austenite and Residual Stresses Profiles as Function of Operation
................................................................................................................................... 190
G. The Change of Diffraction Particle Size as a Function of Operational Mileage
................................................................................................................................... 195
H. Texture Development as Function of Operational M ile a g e ...............................200
I. Microstructure Investigation................................................................................ 208
J. Annealing S tu d ies................................................................................................... 212
VI. C onclusions....................................................................................................................... 214
VII. Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 217
VIII. References ..................................................................................................................... 220
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Schematic drawing of a railroad tapered roller journal b e a rin g .......................................... 6
2. The picture of a b earin g.............................................................................................................7
3. The Fe-C equilibrium and Fe-Fe3C non-equilibrium diagram ..........................................9
4. a.BCC s tru c tu re ...................................................................................................................... 12
b.FCC stru c tu re ...................................................................................................................... 13
5. Effect of substitutional alloying elements on transformation temperature in steel . . . 15
6. Effect of substitutional alloying elements on the eutectoid carbon content in steel . . 16
7. Relationship between body centered tetragonalcell and austenite c e l l ........................... 17
8. Change in c and a parameters of martensite with carbon content in iron-carbon alloys
.................................................................................................................................................. 19
9. Schematic of shear and surface tilt associated with formation of a martensite plate . . 20
10. Retained austenite as a function of carbon content in the Fe-C allo y s.......................... 21
11. The effect of carbon on the martensite start temperature ...............................................23
12. Correct curves ........................................................................................................................ 25
13. The effect of carbon on M, tem p eratu re.............................................................................26
14. Correlation between measured and calculated retained a u ste n ite ................................... 28
15. Transformation of retained austenite as a function of time and te m p e ra tu re 30
16. Surface compressive stress d istrib u tio n ............................................................................... 35
17. Line c o n ta c t............................................................................................................................. 36
18. Spherical (fully crowned and Partially crowned cylindrical ro lle rs.................................37
19. Geometry o f loading ........................................................................................................ 39
20. a.Illustration of r ^ with .......................................................................................... 42
b. The location and direction of shear stresses in the contact zone ...............................43
c. Strength vs. stress considerations for crushing of a carburized c a s e ..........................43
vii
21. Roller-raceway contact showing bulge due to tangential fo rc e s ......................................45
22. Roller-raceway contact; generatrix of motion pierces contact surface ..........................46
23. Resolution of angular velocities into rolling and spinning m o tio n ................................. 47
24. Contact ellipse showing sliding lines and point of pure rolling ......................................47
25. Roller-raceway contact showing harmonic mean radius and points o f rolling ............ 48
26. Sliding lines in contact area of Figure 25 .......................................................................... 49
27. Typical residual stress distributions after gentle and normal grinding ..........................53
28. Idealized residual stress patterns found in shallow-drawn rods(no phase
transformation) ................................................................................................................. 55
29. Cooling curves of the case and core of carburized steel relative to their TTT diagrams
............................................................................................................................................... 58
30. Influence of carbon potential and nickel content on the case properties of various
carburizing steel grades ........................................................................................................ 59
31. Specific volumes of steel phases various carbon content ................................................. 60
32. Retained austenite decomposition versus number of revolutions for different maximum
contact stresses ......................................................................................................................64
33. Residual stress and retained austenite distributions through a carburized c a s e 65
34. Retained austenite m easurem ent.......................................................................................... 73
35. Ellipsoids of stress and strain using units employed in X -ray diffraction stress analysis
86
36. Stress in a biaxial system ......................................................................................................88
37. Schematic showing orientation of measured lattice planes with respect to specimen
s u rfa c e ......................................................................................................................................90
38. sinhp technique........................................................................................................................93
39. Correlation between tensile stress and angle s h i f t .............................................................96
40. Correlation between compressive stress and angle s h i f t ................................................... 97
viii
41. Focusing geometry for a specimen of ideal curvature for ^ = 0 ................................... 100
42. Focusing geometry for a divergent beam when a specimen of idealcurvature is
rotated ^-degree form the normal focusing position................................................... 101

43. Schematic of the effect of the sample displacement on the peak position when the
specimen is rotated rp d e g re e s .......................................................................................... 101

44. The variation of the peak shift due to sample displacement of 0.0254 mm back from
its proper p o sitio n ............................................................................................................ 102
45. Schematic representation of diffraction from a cylindrical specimen in
^-goniometer g eo m etry ................................................................................................... 104

46. Effect of fine particle size on diffraction curves(schematic)..................................... 106
47. Texture formation by solid state processes and texture-property relation .............. 110
48. d-sin2^ for a gold coating(linear relationship).............................................................. 114
49. Non-linear d-sin2V>observed in cold rolled s t e e l .......................................................... 114
50. Calculation of lattice parameter of LaB6 standard 660 .............................................. 120
51. Picture of the Picker U nit .............................................................................................. 121
52. Effect of curvature ondiffracted peak position-0 t i l t ................................................. 122
53. Effect of curvature ondiffracted peak position-26.6 t i l t ............................................. 123
56. Residual stress of stress free iron p o w d e r ..................................................................... 126
57. Depth of X -ray penetration for residual stress measurement of martensite ............ 129
58. Depth of X -ray penetration for residual stress measurement of retained austenite
............................................................................................................................................. 130
59. The grinding effect on retained austenite and residual stresses ................................ 132
60. The texture investigation for grinding processes.......................................................... 133
61. Residual stresses as function of operational m ile s ........................................................ 138
62. Residual stresses and retained austenite as function of operational miles ................. 139
63. Hardness profiles for different operational miles ........................................................ 140
64. A schematic indicating the positions and locations at which measurements were
carried out ........................................................................................................................ 144
65. Retained austenite measurement at Top-0 for 0 mile r u n n in g ................................... 145
66. Retained austenite measurement at Center-0 for 0 mile ru n n in g .............................. 146
67. Retained austenite measurement at Bottom-0 for 0 mile running ............................ 147
68. Residual stress in martensite at Top-0 for 0 mile ru n n in g .......................................... 148
69. Residual stress in retained austenite at Top-0 for 0 mile running ............................ 149
70. Residual stress in martensite at Center-0 for 0 mile ru n n in g .................................... 150
71. Residual stress in retained austenite at Center-0 for 0 mile running ...................... 151
72. Residual stress in martensite at Bottom-0 for 0 mile running ................................. 152
73. Residual stress in retained austenite at Bottom-0 for 0 mile ru n n in g ...................... 153
74. Hardness profile along the roller surface-0 mile ru n n in g ............................................ 154
75. Residual stresses and retained austenite along the roller surface-0 mile running . . 156
76. Residual stresses and hardness along the roller surface-0 mile running ................... 157
77. Retained austenite and hardness along the roller surface-0 mile ru n n in g ................ 158
78. Retained austenite measurement at Center for 2422 miles running .......................... 161
79. Residual stress in martensite at Center-0 for 2422 miles ru n n in g .............................. 162
80. Residual stress in retained austenite at Center-0 for 2422 miles ru n n in g ................ 163
81. Hardness profile along the roller surface-2422 miles running ................................... 164
82. Residual stresses and retained austenite along the roller surface-2422 miles running
166
83. Residual stresses and hardness along the roller surface-2422 miles ru n n in g 167
84. Retained austenite and hardness along the roller surface-2422 miles running . . . . 168
85. Residual stress in martensite at Center-0 for 5432 miles ru n n in g .............................. 171
86. Residual stress in retained austenite at Center-0 for 5432 miles ru n n in g ................ 172
X
87. Hardness profile along the roller surface-5432 miles running.... ................................ 174
88. Residual stresses and retained austenite along the roller surface-5432 miles
ru n n in g ............................................................................................................................... 175
89. Residual stresses and hardness along the roller surface-5432 milesru n n in g 176
90. Retained austenite and hardness along the roller surface-5432 miles running . . . . 177
91. Residual stresses and retained austenite along the roller surface-13413 miles
ru n n in g ............................................................................................................................... 180
92. Hardness profile along the roller surface-13413 miles running ................................. 181
93. Hardness along the roller surface for different running m ile s ................................... 184
94. Residual stress in martensite distribution ...................................................................... 185
95. Residual stress in retained austenite distribution.......................................................... 186
96. Residual stresses in martensite and retained austenite vs running m ile s ................... 187
97. Residual stresses in retained austenite and retained austenite vs running miles . . . 188
98. Residual stresses vs running m iles................................................................................... 189
99. Particle size of M(200) and M(211) as function of running m iles............................... 191
100. Particle size of R(200) and (220) as function of running m ile s................................. 192
101. Dislocation density of M(200) and M(211) as function of running miles .............. 193
102. Dislocation density of R(200) and R(220) as function of running m ile s ................. 194
103. Texture investigation of 0,26045 and 52240 miles running ...................................... 196
104. Texture investigation of 0,2422,5432 and 13413 miles of operation at T o p 197
105. Texture investigation of 0,2422,5432 and 13413 miles of operation at Center . . . 198
106. Texture investigation of 0,2422,5432 and 13413 miles of operation at Bottom . . . 199
107. Residual stresses and retained austenite profiles of Roller #6 ...................................202
108. Residual stresses and retained austenite profiles of Roller #22 .............................. 203
109. Comparison of residual stresses in martensite and retained austenite of Roller
#6 and #22 ........................................................................................................................ 204
xi
110. Comparison of residual stresses in retained austenite and the amount of retained
austenite of Roller #6 and #22 ..................................................................................... 205
111. Residual stresses and retained austenite profiles of Roller #6 and Roller #22 . . . 206
112. The change of residual stresses and retained austenite as function of miles ............ 207
113. The grain size of 4320 bearing steel ...............................................................................209
114. The microstructure of Roller #6-0 mile ........................................................................ 210
115. The microstructure of Roller #23-13413 miles .............................................................210
116. The microstructure of Roller F I2-0 mile ......................................................................211
117. The microstructure of Roller F4-26,045 m iles............................................................ 211
118. The microstructure of Roller F8-52,240 m iles...............................................................212
119. The picture of rollers after electropolished................................................................... 212
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. The alloy elements and their limits for ASSI-SAE 4 3 2 0 H ................................................... 5
2. Multiplicity f a c t o r .................................................................................................................... 80
3. The effect of grinding processes on the residual stresses and retained austenite . . . . 131
4. The residual stresses and retained austenite as function of running miles
(0,26,045 and 5 2 ,2 4 0 )................................................................................................... 137
5. The initial residual stresses and retained austenite d istrib u tio n ................................... 155
6. The residual stresses and retained austenite distribution after 2422 mile running . . . 165
7. The residual stresses and retained austenite distribution after 5432 mile running . . . 173
8. The residual stresses and retained austenite distribution after 13413 mile running . . 179
9. The effect of annealing and eletropolishing on the residual stresses and retained
au sten ite...............................................................................................................................212
10. The maximum stresses vs the load distribution factors .................................................217
1
I. INTRODUCTION
The machine elements that support a rotating shaft (or the rotor) against a
stationary housing (or the stator) of a rotating machinery system are commonly known as
bearings, which, simply by the nature of their function, have proven to be the most
critical elements governing overall system performance. A rolling bearing basically
consists of three fundamental parts: a number of rolling elements, the outer and inner
races, and the cage. Depending on the type of bearing, the roller elements may be balls,
cylindrical rollers, spherical rollers, tapered rollers or spherical tapered rollers. The
geometry of the races and cage varies with the type of bearing. Of the many bearing
types, tapered roller bearings have been popular because of their low power consumption,
high stiffness, high load support capabilities and their ability to support radial as well as
thrust loads.
As shown in Figure 1 tapered roller bearings have the ability to carry combinations
of large radial and thrust loads or to carry thrust load only. Terminology referring to
tapered roller bearings is such that the outer ring is referred to as the cup and the inner
ring as the cone. In this investigation, 6ixl2 bearings were studied, which are commonly
used as sets of eight on 200 ton gross load cars. Each bearing cone assembly (Figure 2)
contains 23 identical rollers which are constructed from 4320H steel. These rollers are case
carburized to an effective depth (50RC) of approximately 0.070"-0.080" and have a surface
hardness of 58-62 RC. The microstructure of the roller is largely tempered martensite and
retained austenite in which the retained austenite may vary from 20%-40%. In this
investigation, rollers were run in full bearing sets on simulated testing equipment in which
the temperature, load, speed and mileage of the test could be varied.
2
Loads acting between the rolling elements and raceways in rolling bearings develop
only small areas of contact between the mating members. Consequently, although the
elemental loading may only be moderate, stresses induced on the surfaces of the rolling
elements and race-ways are usually large. It is not uncommon for rolling bearings to
operate continuously with normal stresses exceeding 200,000 psi compression on the rolling
surfaces. In some applications and during endurance testing normal stresses on rolling
surfaces may exceed 500,000 psi compression. There are two major factors which
determine the nature of failure of case carburized rolling members. First, since the
effective area over which the load is supported rapidly increases with depth below the
rolling surface, the high compressive stress occurring at the surface does not permeate the
entire rolling member. Second, residual stresses usually exist on the rolling elements and
the maximum residual compressive stresses are usually at subsurface in rolling members
because of the nature of the carbon gradient and consequently the retained austenite
gradient.
Contact stresses cause contact deformations. There are two kinds of deformations
introduced to rolling members during rolling contact. First, When elastic bodies roll
together under a force pressing them together, contact between them takes place over an
area whose size and shape is closely defined by the classical theory of Hertz. Because of
the rigid nature of the rolling members, these deformations are generally of a low order of
magnitude, for example, 0.001 inch or less in steel bearings. This kind of deformation is
caused by Hertz compression. Second, even if the bodies are rolling without overall
sliding, it is possible that micro-slip may be taking place between the surfaces moving
together without slip. Thus, under these conditions, the contact area is divided into a
region or regions of slip and a "locked" region of no-slip. The surfaces at which slip
induces tangential frictional traction on the interface cause elastic deformation of the two
3
bodies in addition to their deformation under the Hertzian compression.
' The deformations resulting from the Hertzian compression and slip not only
change the residual stress state of rolling components, such as cones and rollers, but also
become the driving force for phase transformations such as the change of retained
austenite to martensite which also changes the residual stress state in a component and
causes dimensional change due to the volume expansion introduced from the phase
transformation of retained austenite to martensite.
The mechanical properties and service performance of a case carburized steel used
in rolling contact applications depends on many factors including the hardness,
microstructure, retained austenite and residual stress of the material. These parameters are
related to and dependent upon each other, and changes in any one will affect the others.
The complication is that some of these parameters change during rolling contact
performance. Whenever the external stresses along with the residual stresses are larger
than the strength of material, it will result in cracking. It is important to know if/how
these parameters change and what are the consequences. In particular, the microstructure
of case carburized steels is generally composed of a mixture of tempered martensite,
retained austenite and minor carbide phases. While much work has been devoted to the
role of the stable martensite and carbide phases111, there have been few systematic studies
what attempt to explain the role of the retained austenite in rolling contact fatigue. It is
generally reported that a given level of retained austenite is desirable; and contact fatigue,
impact resistance and material toughness are apparently improved by its addition121. It is
also known that it decreases the hardness of a microstructure, and since it is unstable,
transformation of retained austenite to martensite during service can cause dimensional
instability in the structure. In addition, since the austenite is soft and ductile, it will
generally deform and work harden significantly during service. Transformation and work
hardening will change both the hardness and residual stress in the component. The amount
and distribution o f retained austenite in a component are thus important factors for the
service life of a component used in rolling contact service. Little is known, however, as to
the mechanism by which its addition apparently increases the service life of a component.
The purpose of this research is to experimentally measure the changes in retained
austenite and residual stress which take place in a tempered martensite, retained austenite
microstructure during rolling contact service, and to explain these changes using accepted
as well as postulated theories. An understanding of these factors will be used to explain
both the beneficial and negative effects of retained austenite on service life and to
optimize performance through control of its amount.
Background:
The rollers investigated in this study were from 61 x 12 tapered roller bearings.
The steel used in these rollers was AISI-SAE 4320H. The alloying elements and their
limits are shown in table 1P). In manufacturing, these rollers are cold headed from wire.
Carburizing is done in a soaking pit with 1% potential carbon gas at 1800°F(982°C) for 8
hours. The rollers are quenched from the carburizing temperature. The rollers are then
austenitized at 1525°F(830°) for an hour followed by quenching in oil at 150°F(65°C). The

rollers are then tempered at 350°F(176°C) for 1.5 hours. The thermal treatment typically
provides a structure with an ASTM grain size of 9 to 10, a surface hardness of 58-62
Rockwell C, and a effective case depth of 0.080 inches. The surfaces of rollers are ground
to final dimension by three grinding steps named first, second and finished grinding.
5
Table 1 the alloying elements and their range for AISI-SAE 4320H
Element Nickel Manganese Chromium Molybdenum Silicon Carbon
Minimum 1.65% 0.45% 0.40% 0.20% 0.15% 0.17%
Maximum 2.00% 0.65% 0.60% 0.30% 0.35% 0.22%
GREASE SEAL
ROLLER
VENT
C A G E -\
END CA P - BACKING RING
BOLT — ' SEAL WEAR RING

SPACER
LOCKING PL A T E —
FREIGHT CAR ROLLER BEARING ASSEMBLY
Figure 1. Schematic drawing of a railroad tapered roller journal bearing
Figure 2 Typical Bearing Shown Cone, Cage and Rollers
8
II. THEORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
A. IRON-IRON CARBIDE SYSTEM
The iron-carbon equilibrium phase diagram is the foundation on which all heat
treatment of steel is based. This diagram defines the temperature-composition regions
where the various phases in steel are stable, as well as the equilibrium boundaries between
phase fields. The iron-carbon diagram should be considered only a guide, however,
because most steels contain other elements that modify the positions of phase boundaries.
The effects of alloying elements on the phase relations will be discussed later. However,
the diagram is useful as a rough guide for predicting phase transformations under
equilibrium Fe-Fe3C conditions when using an alloy steel. Use of the iron-carbon diagram
is further limited because some heat treatments are specifically intended to produce non
equilibrium structures whereas others barely approach equilibrium. Nevertheless,
knowledge of the changes that take place in a steel as equilibrium is approached in given
phase field, or of those that result from phase transformations, provides the scientific basis
for the heat treatment of steels. Figure 3 shows the Fe-C equilibrium diagram (solid lines)
for carbon content up to 6.67% and the equilibrium between Fe3C and the several phase of
iron (dashed lines). Graphite is more stable form of carbon than Fe3C and, given very
long periods of time, Fe3C will decompose to graphite. Graphitization, however, rarely
occurs in steels, and thus the Fe-Fe3C diagram is the more pertinent for understanding the
heat treatment of steel.
9
1700
1600
153®*
1500
(5-Fe) / Solubility ol
o n p h r tt in
liquid F t
1400
1300
4.26
1200 2.08
(•y-Fe)
Austenite 4.30 6.69
1100
1000
Cem entite
F e 3C )
O
0.68
Temperature,
800
770* '•
738*
700 0.77
600
500
(?-F e)
Ferrite
400
300
200
100
Weight Percentage Carbon
Figure 3.The F e-C equilibrium diagram for up to 7% carbon. Solid lines indicate Fe-Fe3C
diagram; dashed lines indicate Fe-graphite diagram w
10
The Fe-Fe3C phase diagram contains four solid phases: a ferrite, austenite,
cementite (Fe3C), and 6 ferrite, a ferrite is the solid solution of carbon in iron and has a
body-centered cubic (BCC) crystal structure. The cubic crystal system has all three axes
equal in length (a=b=c) and all angles 90° to each other. The lattice parameter, "a" is 2.867
A at room temperature151. There are a total of two atoms per unit cell-the body-centered
atom with coordinates a /2,a/2,a /2, and the atom at the origin o f the unit cell with
coordinates 0,0,0. The latter atom represents all of the equivalent corner atoms of the unit
cell, each of which is shared by eight unit cells that come together at a corner. The one-
eighth atom per corner times the eight corners of the unit cell therefore accounts for one
of the two atoms in a BCC unit cell. The body diagonals o f the unit cell, corresponding to
<111> directions, are the directions in which the iron atoms are in contact in the BCC
structure. Figure 4a shows that the body-centered atom has eight nearest neighbor atoms at
a center-to-center distance of one-half a body diagonal. Crystal structures in which the
atoms are packed as closely together as possible have twelve nearest neighbor atoms, and
therefore the BCC form of iron is a more open, or less dense structure than the gamma
iron structure described below. The atomic packing factor, which is a fraction
representing how efficiently the atoms are arranged in the unit cell, is 0.68 for the BCC
crystal structure. The difference in atomic packing factors between phases is responsible
for the volume change caused by phase transformation. The phase diagram indicates that
carbon is only slightly soluble in ferrite since the maximum solid solubility of carbon in a
ferrite is 0.02 percent at 723°C. The solubility of carbon in a ferrite decreases with
decreasing temperature until it is about 0.008 percent at 0°C. The carbon atoms, because
of their small size, are located in the interstitial spaces in the iron crystal lattice. The
interstitial voids in ferrite are considerably smaller than those of the austenite lattice.
Carbon atoms tend to place themselves in the smaller octahedral sites that have a radius of
0.19 A. They have only two nearest neighbor iron atoms rather than the larger tetrahedral
11
sites which are 0.36 A in radius and four nearest neighbor iron atoms. Because the
insertion of a carbon atom into the smaller sites of the BCC structure requires so much
energy, it results in (1) low solubility of carbon and (2) a distortion of the lattice in the
<100> direction. The two nearest neighbor atoms are displaced 0.53 A thus forming a
tetragonal distortion of the BCC unit cell.
Austenite is a solid solution of carbon in 7 iron. It has a FCC crystal structure and
a much greater solid solubility for carbon than a ferrite. The reason that austenite has
higher carbon solubility limit is due to the size difference of the interstitial voids in the
FCC and BCC lattices. The radius of a carbon atom is 0.8 A. The largest interstitial voids
in austenite are the octahedral sites which have a radius of 0.52 A. The carbon atoms
reside in these voids even though they are smaller than the size of the carbon atom. The
consequence of this difference in size is an expansion of the austenite unit cell as a
function of the amount of carbon. The following empirical formula can be used to
calculate the lattice parameter of austenite[3]:
a - 3 . 5 5 5 + 0 .044%C wt% E q . (1 )
The solubility of carbon in austenite reaches a maximum of 2.08 percent at 1148°C and
then decreases to 0.8 percent at 723°C. As in the case of a ferrite, the carbon atoms are
dissolved interstitially, but to a much greater extent in the FCC lattice. Figure 4b shows a
FCC crystal structure. There are a total of four atoms per unit cell with coordinates 0,0,0;
0,a /2,a/2; a /2,a/2,0; a /2,0,a /2, corresponding to a corner atom and an center of each face
of the unit cell. Each face atom is shared by two adjacent unit cells; the six faces of the
cubic cell thus contribute three atoms. As described above for the BCC cell, the eight
corners together contribute only one atom. The close-packed structure and the four atoms
per unit cell make th e density o f austenite greater than that of ferrite. The atomic packing
factor is 0.74. Since the atoms in the FCC (austenite) are packed more efficiently than the
BCC (a ferrite) arrangement there is a sudden increases in volume during the phase
transformation from FCC (austenite) to BCC (a ferrite).
ORIG IN
0 = 3 .5 7 A
F a c e -c e n te re d cubic: F d 3 m
C cF8 (diamond) ■
Figure 4a.BCC structure 141
13
O RIG IN
0 = 3 .5 7 A
F a c e -c e n te re d cubic: F dZm
C cF8 ( d ia m o n d ) ------
Figure 4b. FCC structure [41
Cementite is the intermetallic Fe-C compound Fe3C. Iron carbide (Fe3C) has
negligible solubility limits and by weight contains 6.67% C and 93.3% Fe. Cementite,
which is a hard and brittle compound, has an orthorhombic crystal structure with 12 iron
atoms and four carbon atoms per unit cell.
5-ferrite is the solid solution of carbon in 5-iron. It has a BCC crystal structure,
but with a different lattice parameter than a ferrite. The maximum solid solubility of
carbon in 5-ferrite is 0.09 percent at 1495°C.
The addition of alloying elements shift the boundaries of the region where
austenite is stable. Some of the elements present in steels are austenite stabilizers, such as
14
manganese and nickel, some are ferrite stabilizers, such as, silicon, chromium, niobium,
and some are strong carbide formers, such as, titanium, niobium, molybdenum and
chromium'71 (if present in sufficient quantity). Ferrite and austenite stabilizers expand the
respective phase fields. One measure of the effect of an alloying element on the Fe-C
phase diagram is whether or not the eutectoid temperature is raised or lowered by an
alloying addition. Austenite stabilizers lower the eutectoid temperature and thereby
expand the temperature range over which austenite is stable. Figure 5 shows the change in
eutectoid temperature with increasing amounts of several common alloying elements.
Figure 6 shows a related effect of alloying elements on carbon content of austenite of the
eutectoid composition.
cj
1300 "1—i- r -
g 1200 1 ✓ -M olybdenum L i-
\
2200 Jw
-Tit<iniun i ( /
- 3
Io . I 100 / o
2000 C
Sl
E ^ -T u ng st en
1000 I /-
A
- •
1800 c
o
o 900 un co n
E
J 1600 |
-
o
f 800 (/»
oW V-C hr omiu m - 1400 p
Z 700
o /-M o n g o n e se . 1200 £
£ 600 f'-C 1
3
LJ
Nicl cel —
> 1000 ^
500 1 \ L V .
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Alloying e le m e n t, wt %
Figure 5.Effect of substitutional alloying elements on eutectoid transformation
temperature in steel[8)
0.80
0.70
3 0.60
C 0.50
Chromium
0.40
S ilicon
0.30
Manganese
H0.20 Tungsten
LJ ■Molybdenum
0.10 Titanium
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 '16 18
Alloying e le m e n t, wt %
Figure (i, Effect of substitutional alloying elements on the eutectoid carbon content in
steel181
16
B. NON-EQUILIBRIUM SYSTEM
1. MARTENSITE FORMATION
Steel that is cooled at a sufficiently rapid rate from the austenite region forms
martensite. The martensitic transformation is diffusionless, and, therefore, the martensite
has exactly the same carbon composition as does its parent austenite. Since diffusion is
suppressed, usually by rapid cooling, the carbon atoms are trapped in the octahedral sites
of a body-centered cubic structure, thus producing a new phase, martensite. The
solubility of carbon in a BCC structure is greatly exceeded when martensite forms; hence
martensite assumes a body-centered tetragonal (BCT) unit cell (see Figure 7) in which the
c parameter of the unit cell is greater than the other two a parameters. Carbon atoms are
trapped in one set (z) of interstitial octahedral sites. The x and y sites are unoccupied191.
With higher carbon concentrations of the martensite, more interstitial sites are
filled, and the tetragonality increases. The ratio of c over a can be calculated from 131:
c/a-1.000+0.45wtf&C Ecl ( 2)
Figure 8 shows the change in c and a parameters of martensite with carbon content
in iron-carbon alloys.
17
[001b
4 [001]a
[010]a
>—
[100]a
(a)
(b)
Figure 7a A.body-centered tetragonal cell in austenite is identified by the <100>„ axes.
Figure 7b. the bet cell before (lift) and after (right) the lattice deformation (Bain Strain)
from austenite to martensite1101
18
3.05
3.00
c-axis
c
- 2.95
e 2.90
a-axis
2.85
2.80.
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6
Carbon, %
Figure 8.Change in c and a parameters of martensite with carbon content in iron-carbon
alloys'111
19
Martensite forms by a shear mechanism. Many atoms move cooperatively and
almost simultaneously to affect the transformation, a mechanism very much in contrast to
atom-by atom movement across interfaces during diffusion-dependent transformations.
Figure 9 shows schematically a number of features of the shear or displacive
transformation of austenite to martensite.
Figure 9 schematically shows the shear and surface tilt associated with the
formation of a martensite plate1121. The arrows point in the directions of shear on opposite
sides of the plane on which the transformation was initiated. The martensite crystal
formed is displaced partly above and partly below the surface of the austenite by the
shear. As shown in Figure 9, the originally horizontal surface of the parent phase is
rotated or tilted into a new orientation by the shear transformation. Surface tilting is an
important characteristic of a shear-type or martensitic transformation. Figure 9 also
shows that considerable flow or plastic deformation of the parent austenite must
accompany the formation of a martensite crystal. Eventually the constraints of austenite
limit the width of a martensite lath, and further transformation can proceed only by the
nucleation of new plates. If the parent austenite could not accommodate the shape change
produced by the martensite shears, separation or cracking at the martensite and parent
austenite phase interface would occur. Fortunately, austenite has sufficient ductility to
accommodate martensite formation. Martensite crystals are ideally planar interfaces with
the parent austenite (see Figure 9). The preferred crystal planes of the austenite on which
the martensite crystals form are designated as habit planes. The habit planes vary
according to alloy composition. The midrib shown in Figure 9 is generally considered to
be the starting plane for the formation of a plate of martensite and may in fact have a
different fine structure than other parts of the plate.
20
R egion of plastic
accom m odation
in austenite
Tilted Original
m artensite austenite
su rface surface
Austenite
Midrib
Habit
plane
Martensite
Figure 9 Schematic of shear and surface tilt associated with formation of a martensite
plate1'21
21
There are two major types of martensite formed in steels. They are lath martensite
and plate martensite, the type depending upon the carbon content. The lath martensite is
predominate. Lath type martensite consists of domains that have groups of laths separated
by low-angle or high-angle grain boundaries. The structure within the martensitic laths is
highly distorted, consisting of regions with high densities of dislocation tangles. The
structure of low-carbon lath martensite consists of a regular repetition of laths of different
but limited orientation through a whole domain of martensite. The formation of a lath
domain is believed to be the result of a phase front that has propagated through a whole
region of austenite matrix, resulting in the almost complete transformation of the parent
austenite to martensite1131. As a result, only a small amount of retained austenite is present
at room temperature in the low-carbon lath-type martensite (Figure 10).
B 50
C.S. ROBERTS (Ref. 3.10)
• MARDER AND KRAUSS (Ref. 3.11) •
£ 15
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

WEIGHT PERCENT CARBON
Figure 10. Retained austenite as a function of carbon content in the Fe-C alloys1141
22
Steels with carbon of 1.0% or greater contain predominantly plate type martensite.
This type o f martensite is made up of needle-like plates, often in a matrix of retained
austenite. There is a transition lath-to plate-type martensite between 0.6 and 1.0% C in
Fe-C alloys1141. As the carbon content is increased, the size and frequency of the
martensite plates increases and the amount of lath martensite decreases.
The amount of martensite formed in carbon and low alloy steels is dependent not
on the time at temperature but rather the temperature itself. Once nucleated the
martensite platelet will continue to grow until an obstacle, such as a grain boundary or
another martensite plate, is reached. Once stopped these plates will become slightly
thicker, but no more growth occurs since there are no more plates nucleated and the
existing plates do not grow further. The growth of martensite plates is so fast that the
nucleation process is the controlling factor of the martensite transformation1151. The
stabilization of the austenite phase occurs very quickly even though the free energy of
austenite is still large and negative. There is a certain amount of under cooling needed to
restart the martensite transformation. When the austenite starts to transform again, the
strain of the new martensite creates many other nuclei to grow. This will be shown by an
increase of amount of martensite. If the austenite is allowed to stabilize and cooled to a
final temperature, it will contain less martensite than if it were cooled directly to that final
temperature1"51.
The start of martensite formation (M.) is the temperature at which the diffusionless
transformation of austenite to martensite begins. The lower the M, temperature the higher
the amount of austenite will be retained after quenching. The martensite start temperature
(M.) is a function of the composition of the alloys. The martensite start temperature for
low alloy steels can be calculated from the following empirical equation1171:
23
Affl- 5 6 1 - 4 7 4 ‘C -3 3 'M n -Y l‘N i - 1 7 * C r - 2 1 'Mo E q. (3 )
From the above equation it is apparent that carbon has the greatest influence on the
martensite start temperature (see Figure 11). Most of the alloying elements, even the
ferritic stabilizers, decrease the M, temperature. Reference 7 summarizes the formulas for
M, calculation from alloy composition.
W GRENINGER (8)
O TROIANO AND GRENINGER (10)
• COHEN ET AL (24)
DIGGES (25)
* GRENINGER AND TROIANO (26)
£ KAUFMAN AND COHEN (27)
17 ESSER ET A l (28)
□ BIBBY AND PARR (29)
MIXED
PLATE
0.6 0.8 1.0

WEIGHT PERCENT CARBON
Figure 11. The effect of carbon on martensite start temperature'141
24
2. RETAINED AUSTENITE
a. M„ Mf and T, Temperature
In steels, austenite is stable at temperatures above the Ac3 and A ^ phase
boundaries. On cooling from these temperatures it becomes unstable and decomposes to
some new constituent, the type of which depends upon the chemical composition of the
steel and the rate of cooling. When the transformation involves diffusion processes, i.e. to
form ferrite, pearlite or bainite, it will be total and no austenite will survive. If, on the
other hand, the reaction produces martensite, it is possible for some austenite to remain in
the final microstructure. Generally, if a part of the martensite transformation range (M.-
Mf) lies below 20°C, the presence of untransformed austenite is to be expected because the
reaction has not been allowed to reach completion when cooling to room temperature only.
However, small amounts of retained austenite have been detected in quenched steels even
though their Mf temperatures were above ambient'181. This suggests that austenite can
become stable during the course of a conventional quench. Therefore, in considering
further the retention of austenite in case-hardened surfaces, there are two aspects to take
into account. One is concerned with the position of the M,-Mf range relative to the
ambient temperature, and the second involves austenite stabilization. For case carburized
steels, a consequence of developing a carbon gradient in the surface of steel components is
that the martensite transformation start temperature (M.) falls as the carbon content
increases. An indication of the efficiency of carbon to modify the M, temperature can be
obtained from Equation 3. This formula is reasonably accurate for steels containing up to
0.5%CU1. In greater quantities than this, the efficiency of carbon to lower M, is reduced
and the correction curves of Figure 12 are required for assessment. Ignoring this
complication for the moment, it will be noted from the equation that all the elements
25
shown lower the M, temperature according to the amount added and the value of the
factor shown. The factor for carbon is 474 and therefore a 0.1% carbon increase will
lower the M, temperature by 47°C (less at the higher carbon levelers). For alloying
elements to have the same effect would require an increase of about 1.5% manganese, or
nearly 3% nickel, or slightly over 2% molybdenum. It will be appreciated, therefore, how
carbon contents typical of carburizing (up to around 1%) can significantly alter the M,
temperature throughout the case. Figure 13 is an example for a 3.5% Nickel-chromium
steel.
160 I n c o m p le te ly a u s te n itis e d s te e ls
tre a te d fro m A c i + 1 0 0 °C ( ± 3 0 )
S te e ls w ith
< 1*1% ( C r + M o )
S te e ls w ith
> 1 -1 % (C r + M o)
oV W>
8 ? 80
o«
in
F u lly a u s te n i tis e d s te e ls _
0 -5 0 -7 0 -9
% C a rb o n
Figure 12.Correct curves1171
26
500
B a se s te e l c o m p o s itio n , %
Mn
M in . 0 -1 2 0 -3 0 3 0 OGO
M ax . 0 -1 8 0 -6 0 3 -7 5 M0
400
□ .3 0 0
200
M in . I A u s t e n i t i s e d
M a x .) a t 8 0 0 ° C .
100
A u s te n itis e d
at 865°C t
0 04 0-8 1-2
% C a rb o n
Figure 13. The effect of carbon on M, transformation temperature1171
The Mf temperature, which defines the temperature at which the martensitic
reaction ceases, lies approximately 215°C below the M, temperature071. Assuming that the
difference between M, and M{remains essentially constant, at high carbon levels
incomplete transformation will result when some part of the transformation range lies
below the quenchant’s temperature. The amount of transformation or, alternatively, the
27
volume of retained austenite (VT) is therefore related to both the M, temperature and the
quenchant temperature (T,). The volume of retained austenite can be calculated
approximately from the following equation11*1:
y e -i.io xu r* w .-T j E q . (4 )
Figure 14 shows the comparison of retained austenite calculated based on Equation 4
and that measured for most of standard high carbon and carburizing steels. However,
equation 4 cannot be used for highly alloyed steels such as high chromium (>5.0%) die
steels and high speed steels1171. Additionally, it cannot provide accurate retained austenite
values even for the standard steels covered in Figure 14 when the rate of cooling to
martensite and through the M,-Mf range differs greatly from that of transformation
stresses. Therefore, less retained austenite than calculated is observed in water-quenched
microstructures. The severity of quenching also affects the final amount of retained
austenite. Slower cooling rates promote the retention of austenite, while faster cooling
rates promote martensite. The transformation of the austenite to martensite is
accompanied by a volume increase which increases with carbon content, due to the fact
that the atomic packing densities of austenite (FCC) and martensite (BCC) are different.
This increases in volume may be as large as three to four percent in the higher carbon
steels, which causes a considerable amount of stress and deformation in the much more
ductile austenite. If the stress caused by this volume increase along with the thermal
stresses of the quenching process are larger than the strength of the material, it will result
in quench-cracking.
28
V
70
1 1 1 1 "
O R o se a n d H o u g a rd y
• n .-w iH R rn w n G e a r I n d u s t r i e s
60 + K r o t i n e e t a l.
A O th e rs
u0) / ()
| 50 ►
u
<
u0
^1 j
n
O
£40
cV
§30
*0)o ci
c i Aso*
/
*» o
1 20 + j
y /
10
0
n 10 20 30 40
X R e ta in e d a u s te n ite -
50
m easu red
60 70
Figure 14. Correlation between measured and calculated retained austenite|l9J
A fter quenching, two additional factors, tempering and cold deformation, will
generally reduce the amount of retained austenite.
29
b. Tempering
Martensite is quite hard but it is also extremely brittle. All steels that quenched
are subjected to a subcritical heat treatment referred to as tempering. Tempering
improves the toughness of as-quenched martensitic microstructures but lowers strength
and hardness to some extent. Any temperature up to the lower critical may be used for
tempering. Thus an extremely wide variation in properties and microstructure can be
produced by tempering. Carbon atoms trapped in the octahedral sites of martensite, which
distorted the lattices and made martensite brittle, diffuse within the microstructure and
form carbides during tempering. The forms of carbides depend upon the tempering time
and temperature. The transformation of retained austenite also can be caused by
tempering. Figure 15 shows the rate of transformation of the retained austenite in an Fe-
1.22C alloy at three different temperatures. Other important processes that occur during
tempering are the relief of residual stresses that are formed during the quenching step.
30
100
o
cn
C
CD
©
C
©
C
3O
co
*D
p© Fe-1.2C
n
©
o 180 9C
c
u© C 200 °C
©
CL
105
Time (seconds)
Figure 15, Transformation of retained austenite in an Fe-1.22C alloy as a function of time
at three tempering temperatures1201
31
c. Plastic Deformation
Plastic deformation caused by rolling contact or any other mechanical process will
accommodate plastically the shape strain of transforming from retained austenite to
martensite and activate the transformation. The amount of retained austenite that can be
transformed depends upon the severity of plastic deformation and previous stress
condition. There is a limit for the transformation. It is believed that the strengthening of
austenite by plastic deformation makes further transformation more difficult.
d. Effects of Retained Austenite
Retained austenite in martensitic microstructures provides both positive and
negative effects with respect to the general properties and processing characteristics of the
base steel composition. The desirable amounts of retained austenite varies from one
component to an other depending upon the function of the component. Generally, the
most significant positive effects are:
(1) It improves contact fatigue life in bearings and gears made from
carburizing or homogeneous high carbon steels1'11211.
(2) It improves impact fatigue strength of the same steels at all retained
austenite levels1221.
(3) It generally improves bending fatigue resistance of the same steels1221,1231.
However, there is a maximum retained austenite content above which
bending fatigue resistance suffers; in such cases plastic deformation such as
by shot penning or surface rolling can be applied to harden the austenite1'1
and to improve its bend strength and fatigue resistance.
32
(4) It improves ductility and fracture toughness at high strength levels in
maraging, trip, and standard high strength steels1241,1251,12®1.
(5) It improves the corrosion resistance of martensitic high-carbon steels1271.
The important negative effects of retained austenite in hardened microstructures
are:
(1) It may cause undesirable growth of dimensions in finished bearings, gears
and tools during service if such items are subjected to temperatures at
which retained austenite can transform isothermally or are deformed
plastically111,t28].
(2) Retained austenite lowers the aggregate compressive yield and ultimate
strengths and thereby the load carrying capacity of martensitic/austenitic
structures1291.
(3) It lowers aggregate hardness and resistance to scuffing and indentation1291.
(4) It increases susceptibility to burn and heat checking in grinding
operations1291,1301.
The desirable amount of retained austenite is based on the function of a
component.
3. CARBURIZATION
Carburizing is a process in which austenitized ferritic metal is brought into contact
with an environment of sufficient carbon potential to cause absorption of carbon at the
surface and, by diffusion, to create a carbon-concentration gradient between the surface
33
and the interior of the metal. As this definition clearly indicates, two factors may control
carburization. Either the carbon-absorption reaction at the surface or the diffusion of
carbon in the metal will determine the rate of carburization. Carburization is done at
elevated temperature, generally in the range of 850 to 950°C (about 1550 to 1750°F). The
purpose of carburization is to produce a hard and high wear resistant surface in a state of
residual compressive stress, while maintaining a relative soft, tough core that provides
fracture resistance. In gas carburizing, the furnace atmosphere is a mixture of carburizing
and decarburizing agents, the gases most often present being carbon monoxide, hydrogen,
carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrogen. The principal reactions involved in
the transfer of carbon to iron steel are1311:
Fe+2 CO+Fe ( C )+C02 E q . (5 )
Fe+ C H ^ F e (C) +2H2 E q . (6)
Fe+ CO+H2T*Fe ( C)+H20 E q . (7)
where Fe(C) represents carbon in solution in gamma iron (austenite). Hydrocarbon gases
provide large quantities of available carbon. Because of the difference in carbon content,
carbon will diffuse into the surface of the steel. The rates of these reactions control the
rate of carburizing. According to Equation 3 and Equation 4, the retained austenite is a
strong function of carbon content (see Figure 10). Since the carburizing process produces
a carbon gradient through the case, the amount of retained austenite will vary at any given
depth.
34
C. ROLLING CONTACT PHENOMENA
1. TYPE OF CONTACT
Basically, two hypothetical types o f contact can be defined under conditions of
zero load. These are:
(1) Point contact, that is, two surfaces touch at a single point.
(2) Line contact, that is, two surfaces touch along a straight or curved line of zero width.
Obviously, after a load is applied to the contacting bodies the point expands to an
ellipse and the line to a rectangle in ideal line contact, that is, the bodies have equal
length. Figure 16 illustrates the surface compressive stress distribution which occurs in
each case.
When a roller of finite length contacts a raceway of greater length, the axial stress
distribution along the roller is altered from that of Figure 16. Since the material in the
raceway is in tension at the roller ends because of depression of the raceway outside of the
roller ends, the roller ends compressive stress tends to be higher than that in the center of
contact. Figure 17 demonstrates this condition of edge loading. In fact, when the
effective length of a roller is less than the track width, or vice versa, the ends of the
contact area are more highly stressed than other parts of the area, the reason being that in
this region work is done in compressing the material laterally as shown at a and b (Figure
17), as well as in the direction of rolling.
This effect is of greater importance than is generally realized, for it has been
35
proved by experiment that the edge stress may amount to at least 1.5 times the calculated
value of the mean stress pm. The load-carrying capacity o f a bearing is thus seriously
affected.
C o n t a c t e ll i p s e
Contact rectangle
Figure 16. Surface compressive stress distribution (a) Point contact, (b) Ideal line contact1321
36
S B
T e n s io n T e n s io n
A c tu a l a r e a A p p a re n t a re a
of c o n ta c t' r o f c o n ta c t
(c)
Figure 17. Line contact, (a) Roller contacting a surface of infinite length, (b) Roller
raceway compressive stress distribution, (c) Contact ellipse. 1321
To counteract this condition, cylindrical rollers (or the raceways) may be crowned
as shown by Figure 18, to avoid edge loading. The stress distribution is thereby made
more uniform depending upon the applied load. If the applied load is increased
37
significantly, edge loading will occur once again.
Steps have been taken to avoid the sharp change in shape of the ends of the contact
area, and to distribute the stress uniformly by making the sectional profile of the roller
slightly convex, this being a more logical procedure than simply chamfering the ends. The
convexity o f rollers may be changed during the rolling contact, consequently, the stress
distribution pattern will be changed too. It is very important to investigate the change of
the stress distribution at roller surfaces as function of the operation of a bearing in order
to estimate the change in load-carrying capacity.
(a)
Figure 18. (a) Spherical roller (fully crowned), (b) Partially crowned cylindrical roller
(crown radius is greatly exaggerated for clarity)1”1.
38
2. ROLLING CONTACT STRESS AND DEFORMATION
The maximum compressive stress between a roller and cone or a roller and cup for
ideal line contact can be determined from the following equation1321:
. jjfU x Eq>
n ib
where
Qh^ is normal force between the rolling element and the raceway;
I is roller effective length which can be determined by 1=1,-2rc. 1, is the length of
the roller. rc isthe roller corner radius or the grinding undercut, whichever is
larger.
b is the semiminor axis of the projected contact ellipse. For steel roller bearings it
may be approximately calculated by:
O —
b - 2 . 7 8 x l 0 - 4 (-g ? £ -) 2 Eq.(9)
where Ep is curvature sum which can be obtained from following equation1321:
£ H i [T-YV c(i-T :n Eq-(10)

where D is the roller diameter.
y is determined from (D*Cosa)/dm. a is the contact angle and dmis the pitch
diameter which is equal to 0.5(d;+do).
r, is raceway groove curvature radius.
R is roller contour radius.
The contact deformation for a line-contact condition was determined subsequent to
the Hertz analysis. Palmgren1321 gives for steel on steel:
39
8 - 4 . 3 6 x l C T 7x -•^0.8
£^i E -a
q . *(1 1 )'
To calculate the contact stress and contact deformation, it is necessary to calculate the
load. For equilibrium to exist (Figure 19):
•or
Figure 19 geometry of loading1
Fc + 0 l z - e oi E q . (1 2 )
Fg+Qi •COSai - Q 0r Eq. (13)
Where Fc is the centrifugal force for a steel roller rotating about a bearing axis
( F ^ S .n x lO ^ D ^ d ^ 2. ^ is the cage speed). The normalload betweena cone and a roller
40
can be calculated from Equation 3:
q - 1 ° k - F sL Eq. (14)
1 COSOj
In this study a—8.1°. From Figure 19 the normal load between a cup and a roller also can
be calculated by:
0 o- — Eq. (15)
° COSO0
In this study c*o=100. Substituting a ;= 8 .1 ° a n d c*o=10°and comparing Equation 14 and 15, it
is obvious that Q0 > Qi. So the maximum load on the roller is between the contact surface
of the cup and a roller, and it can be calculated from Equation 15. In this study, the load
on the set of the bearing is 33500 lb. Since there were two bearings in this set, the load
on each bearing was 16750 lb. Note that this load was distributed on more than one roller.
The maximum load on the roller between a roller and a cup is a function o f the load
distribution factor (e) which is related to the clearance of a bearing. The calculation of
the maximum load on the roller between a roller and a cup for the different load
distribution factors is showed in Appendix 1.
In this study, the pitch diameter is dm= 0.5(do+di)=0.5(8.9921+7.1319)=8.0620 inch,
and the roller diameter D=8.8606 inch. The roller effective length is 1.85 inches. By
substituting these values into Equations 10, 9, and 8, the maximum contact stresses on the
roller surface were calculated as shown in Appendix 1.
The roller is very heavily loaded and crowning is required to avoid edge loading.
The contact deformation can be calculated from Equation 11. For example, if the load
distribution factor is 0.1, and calculated Q„»= 5831.98 lb, the deformation will be:
41
6 - 4 . 3 6 x 1 0 -7x 5 8 3 1 . 908. 80-9 0 . 0 0 0 6 5 3 ( i n c h e s )

1 .85
Experimental evidence indicated that failure of rolling bearings always occurs by
fatigue that started below the stressed surface. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the
magnitude of the subsurface stresses. The maximum shear stress on the 2 axis below the
contact surface can be determined by Mohr’s circles1321:
* y z - \ ( S x- S y) E q . (1 6 )
where Sx and Sy are the principal stresses occurring along the Z axis at any depth below the
contact surface. The maximum shear stress occurs at various depths Z, below the contact
surface, being at 0.467b for simple point contact and 0.7866b for line contact1321. Figure
20al33) shows schematically the shear stress below the rolling contact surface and Figure
20bl33) gave an equation to calculate the maximum shear stress below the contact rolling
surface from the maximum contact stress at the contact surface. In Figure 20a and 20b,
"a" is equivalent to "b" which is the semiminor axis of the projected contact ellipse and p0
is the maximum contact stress at surface.
Using the b value calculated previously and the relationship between b, the depth
of maximum shear stress given above and the relationship between maximum shear stress
and maximum contact stress, the maximum shear stress is about 0.0197 inches below the
contact surface and the maximum shear stress is 49503 psi (£=0.3).
Fatigue cracks will start wherever the 745. stress due to the applied contact load
exceeds the shear fatigue strength of the material. The variation of chemical and phase
42
composition determines the shape of the shear fatigue strength curve below the rolling
contact surface. Failure zone is determined by the curves of the shear fatigue strength of
the material and the curve of the stress due to the applied contact load as shown in
Figure 20cp3). In the theory that has been agreed upon by most researchers, the residual
compressive stress below the rolling contact surface will reduce the speed of crack
propagation or stop it.
O e p tft o f m a iim jm
s n e a r fo r lo c d P ,
o!
I/*
v»
D is ta n c e
fro m tn e
su rface
-O 5
Figure 20a. Illustration of comparing the distribution of rm shear stress with the
stress1331
43
D riv e r
D riven
T0rtho ^>SN.
— 0.5 a
............... 0.786 a
= 0 .3 0 4 P,
, = 0 .2 5 P.
2a- -
Figure 20b. The location and direction of shear stresses in the contact zone1331
M
M
« t 4S s tre s s
CO du e to th e
o p p lie d c o n ta c t
to o d
D is ta n c e fro m th e su rfa c e
Figure 20c. Strength Vs. stress considerations for crushing of a carburized case1331
44
Based on plastic alterations detected in sub-surface material by transmission
electronic microscopy1341, significant amounts of material alteration occurred at
approximately 0.75b where there was about the same depth of the maximum shear stress
(0.786b for line contact). Therefore the maximum shear stress is the most likely cause of
fatigue failure of a rolling element, if it is not the only cause.
Nominally, the balls or rollers in a roller bearing are subjected to loads that are
perpendicular to the tangent plane at each contact surface. Because of these normal loads
the rolling elements and raceways are deformed at each contact, producing, according to
Hertz, a radius of curvature of the contacting surface equal to the harmonic mean of the
radii of the contacting bodies. Hence for a roller of diameter D, bearing on a cylindrical
raceway of diameter d„ the radius of curvature of the contact surface can be obtained
from following Equation1321
Eq- (i7)
Because of the deformation indicated above and because of the rolling motion of the roller
over the raceway, which requires a tangential force to overcome rolling resistance,
raceway material is squeezed up wards to form a bulge in the forward portion of the
contact, as shown in Figure 21. A subsequent depression is formed in the rear of the
contact area. Thus, an additional tangential force is required to overcome the resistance
force of the bulge. Figure 21 only shows schematically the deformation of the raceway
and the roller . Rollers at each contact surface are deformed to some extent, although the
amount of the deformation of the rollers is different from that of the raceway because of
the difference in the diameters. This amount of deformation may not affect the bearing
performance directly, but it may activate the retained austenite to martensite
transformation, which not only causes dimensional instability, but also increases the
residual compressive stresses. Although a certain amount of residual compressive stress
beneficial in preventing contact fatigue cracking from occuring, when external stresses
along with residual stresses are larger than the strength of the material, it will result in
cracking.
Figure 21, Roller-raceway contact showing bulge due to tangential forces1321.
46
3. SLIDING FRICTION AND DEFORMATION
The only conditions that can sustain pure rolling between two contacting surfaces
are:
(1). Mathematical line contact under zero load
(2). Line contact in which the contacting bodies are identical in length
(3). Mathematical point contact under zero load
Even when the forgoing conditions are met, it is possible to have sliding. Sliding is
considered a condition of overall relative movement of the rolling body over the contact
area.
The motion of a rolling element with respect to the raceway consists of a rotation
about the generatrix of motion. If the contact surface is a straight line in one of the
principal directions, the generatrix of motion may intersect in contact surface at one point
only, as in Figure 22. The component uRof angular velocity co, which acts in the plane of
the contact surface, produces rolling motion. As shown in Figure 22, the component w, of
angular velocity w which acts normal to the surface cause a spinning motion about a point
of pure rolling O. The instantaneous direction of sliding in the contact zone is shown in
Figure 23.
Generatrix
Figure 22. Roller-raceway contact; generatrix of motion pierces contact surface1321.
47
Generatrix
Figure 23JR.esolution of angular velocities into rolling and spinning motion1331.
O -P ure rolling
Figure 24, Contact ellipse showing sliding lines and points of pure rolling1331
48
Even when the generatrix of motion apparently lies in the plane of the contact
surface, as for radial cylindrical roller bearings, sliding on the contact surface can occur
when a roller is under load. In accordance with the Hertzian radius of the contact surface
in the direction transverse to motion, the contact surface has the harmonic mean profile
radius R , which means that the contact surface is not straight, but generally curved as
shown by Figure 25. The generatrix o f motion is parallel to the tangent plane of the
center of the contact surface at two points at which, rolling occurs. Since the right rolling
element rotates with a singular angular velocity about its axis, surface points at different
radii from the axis have different surface velocities only two of which being
symmetrically disposed about the roller geometrical center, can exhibit pure rolling
motion. In Figure 25, points within area A-A slide backwards with regard to the direction
of rolling and points outside of A-A slide forward with respect to the direction of rolling.
Figure 26 shows the pattern of sliding lines in the elliptical contact area.
Figure 25. Roller-raceway contact showing harmonic mean radius and points of rolling A-
A 1321
Figure 26. Sliding lines in contact area of Figure 25l3:i
Rolling contact induces both residual stresses and plastic deformation to rollers and
raceways of bearings. Since retained austenite is an unstable phase, the residual stresses
caused by rolling contact promotes the transformation from retained austenite to
martensite from martensitic nucleation sites, which are present in the parent phase, and
the plastic deformation caused by rolling contact causes the transformation by creating
new nucleations sites. Theoretically, for a stress-induced transformation, the yield
strength in tension increases sharply with increasing temperature, while for a strain-
induced (plastic deformation-induced) transformation , the yield strength in tension
decreases with increasing temperature. The initial yield behavior of the steel can be used
to indicate if stress-induced or strain-induced transformation occurs. However, with
further deformation, the distinction between stress-induced and strain-induced
transformation becomes less apparent. Without distinguishing the transformation cause, it
is clear that rolling contact can cause the transformation of retained austenite (FCC) to
martensite (BCT). A volume expansion is associated with this transformation because the
50
atomic packing density of retained austenite is larger that of martensite, causes instability
in the bearing. For example, a volume expansion in the case-carburized cone of a railroad
bearing can cause the cone to overcome the press fit on the axle journal and become
loose1351.
Retained austenite is relatively soft, although it is saturated with carbon, and its
presence in co-existence with hard martensite will reduce the overall hardness of the
structure containing them both to below that of the structure containing only martensite.
Since retained austenite is more soft and ductile than martensite, it is possible that a
textured microstructure will be developed under rolling contact. It is necessary to
investigate the texture behavior of the material under the rolling contact to truly
understand how the retained austenite is altered as a function of the operatiing conditions.
51
D. RESIDUAL STRESSES
There are two kinds of stress to which an object may be subjected:
(1). Applied stress, due to external forces acting on the object.
(2). Residual stress, which remains after all applied forces have been removed.
The basic cause of residual stress is non-uniform plastic flow due to some
previously performed operation. Some specific causes are welding, casting, quenching,
and nonuniform cold working, such as bending, twisting, grinding, shot penning and
rolling contact. Residual stress may be decreased or eliminated by annealing or by certain
mechanical treatments. Residual stresses must form a balanced force system within the
object, which means that the residual compressive stress in one part of the object must be
accompanied by a residual tensile stress in another part. This is the reason why case-
carburized bearing cones become loose from the axle journal during service.
Residual stress may be harmful or beneficial. Residual tensile stress at the surface
of an object is usually harmful since it causes crack propagation. On the other hand,
compressive residual stress at the surface normally increase fatigue strength.
Since residual stresses contribute to the total stress on a system, it must be true
that the sum of residual and applied stresses don’t exceed the elastic limit of the material
or deformation will occur.
Residual stresses are introduced into metals and other materials by any process-
mechanical, thermal, or chemical that results in a permanent, nonuniform change in shape
or volume.
52
1. MECHANICAL PROCESSES
In surface working operations such as shot penning, surface rolling, polishing etc.,
the penetration is shallow, thus deforming the surface more than the interior. The
distended surface is held in compression by the interior, while the less worked interior is
placed in tension by the heavier worked surface. As is well known, this residual stress
pattern is highly desirable in springs, shafts, gears, and bearings where high tensile stresses
develop at the surface in fatigue service. The compressive stresses in the worked surface,
in effect, reduce the magnitude of the service stress.
With gentle grinding or good machining practice (turning, milling, etc.), metal is
not only removed but the surface stress is changed as well because of cold working1341. As
in the case of surface working operations, the surface is distended, resulting in the same
type of surface residual stress pattern in compression and extending to a depth of a few
thousandths of an inch with the interior in tension as shown at Figure 27.
With abusive grinding practice (dull wheel, heavier cuts, inadequate coolant),
which very often is the normal practice, a thermal effect may also be introduced that
places the surface in tension, as shown in Figure 27.
53
120
.2
100
80
60
\ ABU SIVE
40
CONVENTIONAL
-2 0
■40
■60
0 0.002 0004 0.CC6 0008 OOiO 00(2
depth BELOW s u r f a c e , in
GRINDING C C N O T iC N S
gentle c o n v e n t io n a l A BUSIVE
W H EEL A 46H V A 4SK V A 45M V
W H EEL S P E E D .
F T /.M 'N 2000 6C C 0 6C 00
OCWN F E E D .
"l s " OCCi OOC2
IN /P A S S
GRINDING FLW O SU LF S C L C 'L CRT
OIL (1 2 0 )
Figure 27. Typical residual stress distributions after gentle and normal grinding of
hardened steel1373
54
2. THERMAL PROCESSES
Residual stress arising from thermal processes may be classified as those arising
from a thermal gradient alone, as in quenching a hot solid with no phase transformation
taking place, and those from a thermal gradient in combination with a phase
transformation, as in heat treating steel.
Thermal gradients determine where residual stresses develop because of a thermal
gradient on cooling and include quenching, casting and welding processes. The general
type of residual stress pattern found in quenched cylinders is shown in Figure 28A. The
pattern arises as follows: on quenching in the absence of a phase transformation, length
changes are proportional to temperature changes. Thus, after a short time, the surface
during the quench contracts more than the interior, creating a pressure against the core.
Since the core does not contract by the same amount, this contraction creates a condition
of tension in the rigid outer shell and compression in the core. Irreversible plastic flow
then occurs. This condition is only temporary because, as cooling continues, the core cools
through a greater temperature range than the outer shell, and the transient situation of the
first part of the cooling is reversed. Due to this temperature lag, the core contracts more
than the outer shell. Consequently, the core is placed in tension since the rigid outer shell
prevents complete contraction, while the outer shell is in compression. This state is purely
the result of thermal changes and accompanying plastic deformation with no phase
transformation. Most steels quenched from below about 1200°F would exhibit the residual
stress pattern of Figure 28A. The actual value of the peak stresses reached on quenching
increases with an increase in the following factors: quenching temperature, quenching
power of the coolant, section size, modulus of elasticity, yield strength and coefficient of
thermal expansion. As peak stresses decrease, the thermal diffusivity of the part is lowered.
55
L O N G IT U D IN A L T A N G E N T IA L R A D IA L
Vi
uj
c ,
s 1
o
A' SH A LLO W P E N E T R A T IO N
z
o
(/»
zu
0
z
o
to
to
u
£2
ou
B - 0£E P P E N T R A T IO N
Figure 28. Idealized residual stress pattern in quenched cylinders (no phase
transformation)1381
3. METALLURGICAL RESIDUAL STRESSES
Metallurgically induced residual stresses are caused primarily by nonuniform
expansion during the hardening process of martensite in steel. The 3 to 4 percent
volumetric expansion of martensite when it forms from austenite is responsible for these
stresses1391.
In many applications where wear resistance must be combined with high fatigue
resistance, carburized steel is used to develop compression surface stresses by controlling
56
the time sequence of the austenite to martensite transformation throughout the part. The
carburization process used to surface harden steels involves heating the steels to
temperature above their critical allotropic phase transformation temperatures, and then
subsequently cooling them at various rates (including direct quenching) to ambient
temperatures. In such heat treatments, the transformation of the high temperature
allotropic form of the steel, austenite, into the appropriate decomposition phases, or phase
mixture (ferrite, carbide, pearlite, bainite, and/or martensite) is accompanied by volume
changes of the steels. Because of the presence of a composition gradient within the steel,
notable that of the carbon content, different parts of the steel component will tend to
undergo the phase transformation at different temperatures, and therefore at different
times, in the cooling portion of the heat treatment. The time lag of transformation within
the steel gives rise to internal compatibility strains, and the concomitant generation of
residual stresses. It is this source of residual stresses that normally comes to mind when
one considers the possible origins of the stresses. Although is true that the time lag in the
gamma (austenite) phase transformation is a major source of residual stress generation, it is
by no means the only source. Any metallic material, which is cooled rapidly from an
elevated temperature, and which has substantial thickness, will be prone to generate
residual stresses on normal cool-down, even in the absence of volumetric changes
associated with allotropic phase changes. This behavior is particularly true of steels, which
have a relatively low thermal conductivity, and for which the yield strength is quite
temperature dependent. These residual stresses will generally be additive to those created
by the phase transformations. Hence, each of the two sources of the residual stresses
(transformation and thermally induced) must be considered independently.
57
a. Residual Stresses Generated on Normal Cool-Down
Using a cylindrical sample as a example, the residual stresses generated by normal
cool-down can be described. Since the surface o f the cylindrical sample cools faster than
the center, it will tend to undergo its normal thermal shrinkage at a faster rate than the
center. The hotter (and therefore relatively larger) center of the cylindrical sample will
not permit the outer shell to undergo the contraction which it would see as a free body.
Consequently, tension stresses are generated in the axial and circumferential directions of
the cooling shell1*1. However, since this contraction is occurring at an elevated
temperature where the flow stress of the material and its elastic modulus is low, the full
intensity of the stresses will not develop. The more rapid shrinking rate of the cooler
outer surfaces of the cylinder (in comparison to that of the inner core) has a tendency to
"extrude" the hotter (and therefore softer) inner core in the axial direction. At the same
time, the resistance of the core to the deformation tendency will cause some permanent
plastic stretching of the outer surfaces. As cooling continues, the warmer core or central
section of the cylinder eventually cools down and undergoes its normal contraction. In so
doing, however, it meets resistance to contraction from the now cool, and rigid, outer
shell. Finally, when the entire cylinder reaches ambient temperature a central section will
have been inhibited from undergoing its full contraction by the outer sections of the
cylinder. The net result is that the core is longer than it should be if it were unencumbered
by the outer shell, and hence is under tension. Reactively, the outer shell is shorter than it
would be as a free body, because of the tension exerted upon it by the central section, and
hence, it is under compression.
b. Residual Stresses Generated by Phase Transformations in Case Carburized Steels
For example, with a homogenous direct-hardening steel, the surface transforms
58
first during the quenching period; however, by diffusing carbon into the surface before or
during the austenitizing step, the process could be reversed and the surface caused to
transform last1381. This behivior may be illustrated by considering the cooling curves of the
surface and core regions, superimposed on their TTT diagrams as shown in Figure 29. As
indicated in Figure 29, the core transforms first to hard martensite due to its higher M,
temperature because it has lower carbon content. Its volumetric extension is taken up by
yielding of the relatively soft, warmer austenite at the surface. Finally, as the temperature
o f the surface falls further, the surface material transforms, with its expansion being
opposed by the hard martensite core. This transformation places the surface layers in
compression, which is desirable for fatigue resistance in rotating parts like bearings and
gears. The core is thus in tension.
CORE CASE
t P E A R L IT E P E A R L IT E
Ui
a.
D B A IN IT E
5cc
U J
Q.
2
Ui \ M . (C C R E)
B A IN IT E
M . (C A S E )
T IM E
Figure 29. Cooling curves o f the case and core of carburized steel relative to their TTT
diagrams1411
59
The as-quenched structure of direct-hardening or carburizing steel usually consists
of fresh martensite, retained austenite, and precipitates such as carbides (assuming that no
high-temperature products such as bainite or pearlite formed on the quench). The amount
of the retained austenite present is a function of alloy content and carbon level (as shown
in Equation 4). Figure 30 shows the influence of carbon potential and nickel content on
the case properties of various carburizing steel grades.
A- C A R S O N P O T E N T I A L 1 .1 %
P A C K C A R B U R lZ E 1 7 0 0 F . 0 0
RETAINED
AUSTENITE
t/> S O • I .C O f -
HARCNESS
SU R FA C E
CARBON
U .8 0
CONTENT
C A R S O N P O T E N T IA L 0 . 9 %
G A S C A R B U R lZ E 1 7 0 0 F.
in SO E 1 .3 0 D I F F U S I O N A N N E A L 1 5 2 5 F, 0 0
£ 1.10— HA RCN ESS
<n 1 . 0 0
R E T A IN E D
. A U S T E N IT E
SU RFA CE
CARSON
CONTENT
2 3 4 5 6 7
N IC K E L C O N T E N T - P E R C E N T
Figure 30. Influence of carbon potential and nickel content on the case properties of
various carburized steel grades[42)
60
All quenched structures are metallurgically metastable. The amounts and
composition of the phase in these structure can be changed by thermal means, such as
tempering. Figure 15 shows the transformation of retained austenite in an Fe-1.22C alloy
as a function of time at three tempering temperature. These microstructural changes can
lead to changes in the macro-residual stresses as well since the volumes of the initial
phases in the as-hardened structure differ from the final phases. Figure 31 shows the
specific volumes of steel phases versus carbon content.
.132
LO W -C AR30N MARTENSITE
AND EPSILON CARBIDE
.130
FERRITE AND EPSILON

CARBIDE \ ^
FERRITE AND CEMENTITE
.126
in .124
AUSTENITE
.122
.120
20
CARBON CONTENT. PERCENT
Figure 31. Specific volumes of steel phases versus carbon content'411
61
During tempering, there are at least five opportunities for residual stress and other
properties to change upon the tempering of a quench-hardened steel:
(1) With no phase transformation, considering the thermal effect alone,
residual stresses can be relieved by plastic yielding on heating for
tempering.
(2) The actual tempering reaction, such as the decomposition of martensite,
leads to contraction (Figure 31).
(3) The tempering of any retained austenite in the structure leads to expansion
from precipitation of alloy carbides from this phase.
(4) Cooling after tempering, particularly if quenching is used, may develop
compressive stresses, since the surface layers cool faster than the core.
(5) On cooling after tempering, retained austenite, which has been conditioned
by the precipitation of alloy carbides during tempering and is thus less
stable, may transform to martensite. This phase transformation is
associated with a volume expansion1411.
The combined tempering effects change the mechanical properties, residual stress
state, amount of phases and the volume of the components.
3. CHEMICAL PROCESSES
Oxidation, corrosion and electroplating are sources of residual stresses,. Large
residual stress may be generated by the formation of an oxidized scale or the reaction
product on the surface of a metal during oxidation or corrosion. In oxidation, for
example, stresses arise because the oxide usually has a larger volume than that of the metal
from which it was formed. If the oxide maintains crystallographic coherency with the
62
underlying metal, then the oxide is in compression, and the metal is placed in tension.
These stresses often assume a major role in the oxidation process by influencing spalling,
warping, and even the dimensional stability of the metal. Residual stresses may also be
produced in electroplated coatings if the electroplate maintains coherency with the
underlying substrate. The crystalline structure of the plate may be distorted or even
modified as the two structures(plate and substrate) attempt to adjust to one another.
Another source of stress in the electroplate is believed due to the nonuniform distribution
of hydrogen and/or incorporation of impurities from the plating bath1411. Residual stresses
in electroplate may be compressive or tensile, depending on the material and plating
conditions.
In summary, the residual stress state developed in a material is not readily
interpretable when mechanical, thermal, and chemical effects are combined during
processing. In carburized steels and many high alloy steels, austenite may be present in
substantial amounts as the minor phase, or as the matrix phase, in stainless steels. The
retained austenite is not metallurgically stable. Both external stress and radiation1431 may
transfer the retained austenite into martensite. Thermal means are not necessary. The
resulting volume change, of course, can alter the existing residual stress pattern. Changes
in the residual stresses can affect dimensional stability1441.
Residual stresses in case carburized steels stem from two major sources, both of
which are associated with the (rapid) cooling of the steels from elevated temperature. The
first source is the more rapid cooling rate of the surface (case) of the body, as compared
with the rate of the interior (core). The second is the time lag in the transformation of the
austenite on cooling between the high carbon (case) and low carbon (core) portions of the
carburized body.
63
4. ROLLING CONTACT
Rolling contact of components during service can also introduce residual stresses
because of the deformation and possible thermal effect caused by rolling contact.
Several innate characteristics of carburized cases in steels, notable the strain-
induced transformation of retained austenite in the case, create dynamic changes in the
effective residual stresses in the case carburized component. Rolling contact operation of
carburized bearings causes cold working of the surface and transformation of retained
austenite. If the bearings are operated at relative high temperature, a thermal effect may
also exist to some extent. In the past, only the residual stress in the martensite phase has
been considered as being important in the correlation with fatigue, dimensional stability,
and stress corrosion cracking. It would seem that in two-phase structures, which are
metallurgically unstable, the austenite content should be examined as well because failures
may originate in this phase, or in the martensite, or at the interface between the two
phases where the stress gradient may be higher.
64
E. CORRELATION BETWEEN RETAINED AUSTENITE AND RESIDUAL STRESSES
The high hydrostatic pressure field, derived from rolling contact loading induces
three-dimensional stress fields in during each rolling contact load cycle, and allows
substantial microplastic deformation to be accommodated in the subsurface layers1431. This
microplastic deformation is accompanied by the transformation of retained austenite
which develops residual stresses and will probably develop texture in the material as
well1451. Under rolling contact loading, retained austenite undergoes three stages1431: (1)
shakedown; (2) steady-state, and (3) instability. Figure 32 represents the relative
percentage change of the retained austenite in the microstructure, observed at a depth of
0.2 mm below the raceway of 6309 DGBB inner rings, tested at different loads and at
various numbers of shaft revolutions. With these quantitative measures of material
response to rolling contact loading, it is possible to compare and analyze the effect of
different combinations of loading and testing conditions on material response and failure
occurrence. The three stages will be explained in detail in a later discussion.
ttllf 2 (itUBf m u )
1900 _________________________________________
3000
3800
5300'
lb JULiLLf
O (S N A C I 80W 1)
oz
40
tA
O
o.
%
oO
ID
o
100
.8
10'
.3
to* 10' 10' to1 10'
REVS.
Figure 32. Retained austenite decomposition versus number of revolutions for different
maximum contact stresses1431
65
The volume fraction of retained austenite is a very sensitive monitor of magnitude
of residual stresses. In case carburized steels, the amount of retained austenite influences
most strongly on the residual stress distribution, as shown in Figure 33™.
30
SAE 8 6 2 0
25
20 -10
S tre s s /
-20
•a
-3 0
-4 0
-5 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
D e p t h B e lo w S u r f a c e t l O ' s i n .)
Figure 33. Residual stress and retained austenite distributions through a carburized case
on SAE 8620 steel™
From the above Figure, except for the first 0.002 inches (because the surface was
decarburized, retained austenite was lower at the surfaec.), the retained austenite content
of the case decreases in a smooth curve to the nominal case depth (0.005 inches) and then
becomes constant in the core. A close correlation between the amount o f retained
austenite and the magnitude of residual stress was clearly observed. The reason for this
corelation is that the transformation during the quenching process is a major source of
residual stress. The greater the extent of transformation to martensite, the greater the
compressive stress.
66
F. ROLLING CONTACT FATIGUE
The fatigue of hardened steel under cyclic rolling stress has been subjected to
intensive study using analytical and experimental methods.
Regardless of the failure modes of rolling elements under rolling contact stress, the
development o f residual stress caused by the retained austenite to martensite
transformation, which is activated by microplastic deformation resulting from rolling
contact loading, is the essential reason.
To characterize the various modes of failure, W. E. Littmann and R. L. Widner
listed modes of failure according to their origin as follows1471:
(1). Inclusion type
(2). Geometric stress concentration
(3). Point surface origin
(4). Peeling (general superficial pitting)
(5). Subcase fatigue (for carburized components)
F. J. Wren and C. A. Moyer1481 have added a "transverse-cracking" mode to the
above list. The transverse-cracking mode consists of radial propagation of a crack from
the rolling contact surface through the section of bearing components. When rig and
bearing tests are compared, the general appearance of the spall is often taken as sufficient
evident that the mode of failure is similar.
R. E. Denning and S. L. Rice1491 have classified contact fatigue on the basis of the
location of origin as: (1) Surface fatigue; (2) Subsurface fatigue; (3) Case-crushing fatigue.
Different failure modes can start from the same location or different locations
67
depending upon stress condition.
1. Inclusion Origin Fatigue
Inclusion origin fatigue is normally initiated at nonmetallic inclusions below the
contact surface and is the primary mode of contact fatigue failure. It is believed that
initiation and propagation of fatigue cracks are the results of cyclic stresses that are locally
intensified by the shape, size, and distribution of nonmetallic inclusions in steels.
Furthermore, the lower the frequency and severity of nonmetallic oxide inclusions, the
longer will be the fatigue life of a steels.
It has been concluded that only oxide types of nonmetallic inclusions (alumina,
silicate and complex oxides resulting from refractory reactions) are the origin of fatigue
failure on many bearings as well as points of stress concentration. The oxide inclusions are
often present as "stringers" or elongated aggregated of particles that provide a much
greater chance for a point of high stress concentration to be in an unfavorable position
with respect to the applied stress. It is most likely that cracks initiate at the interfaces of
inclusions and the matrix where there is not only a location of high stress concentration,
but also a location of microstructural mismatch.
Propagation of inclusion-origin fatigue takes several forms as follows:
(1). Subsurface propagation from the origin
(2). Spalling or surface pitting after short propagation to the surface
(3). Propagation by hydraulic-pressure propagation giving the appearance of point
surface-origin fatigue.
68
Once a fatigue crack is formed at a nonmetallic inclusion in a bearing component
operating with line contact, the early macroscopic propagation of the cracking takes on a
characteristic pattern. Many branching subsurface cracks are formed around the inclusion
with propagation often being most rapid perpendicular to the rolling direction. The
resulting incipient spall is elliptical in shape and is typical of inclusion fatigue on many
bearing components. In some cases the cracked material around the inclusions spalls out
early and further propagation is very slow, leaving a small spall with very few subsurface
cracks to cause further propagation. In other situations, subsurface propagation continues
perpendicular to the rolling direction, across the raceway, undermining appreciable
surface area before removal of the material detached by fatigue cracking. When such a
spall propagates to the point where loose chips are released, the debris contribute to
further propagation. Even at this stage of propagation it was possible to confirm the
inclusion origin of the fatigue1471.
A number of papers clearly showed the relation of inclusions to the fatigue
cracking in addition to the large number of the those showing indirect evidence such as
improved life obtained with some of the induction-vacuum-melted or consumable-
electrode-vacuum-remelted steels. At least 12 references have shown improved life by
factors ranging from 1 to 11 at the LI0 (10 percent probability of failure'471) and from 2 to
20 at the L* for samples of bearings made from premium-priced vacuum-melted or CV-
remelted steels when compared with basic electric-arc or other air-melted steels'471.
2. Geometric Stress Concentration
When the contact geometry, deflection under applied loads, and prevailing
alignment cause the contact stress to be higher at the end of "line contact", fatigue occurs
69
within the narrow band in which the contact stresses are more severe. The crowning of
rollers or other geometric modification in "line-contact" situation have been effective in
prolonging life or preventing this mode of failure. A first-order approximation for
computation of the end of roller stress-concentration effect introduced by C. A. Moyer
and H. R. Neifert1501 has been shown to be useful to estimate the geometric effect on
critical contact stresses. The fact that geometric stress concentration fatigue can occur
simultaneously at both ends of a line contact indicates that the failure is the result of end
contact geometry and not simply misalignment. F. J. Wren and C. A. Moyer and R. E.
McKelvey and C. A. Moyer gave examples of such failures at both ends of line contact in
their paper1481,15'1. When critical stresses are balanced between the end and the rest of the
contact so that a mixture of geometric stress concentration and other modes are observed
in a given application, the life has probably been maximized for the range of loads being
carried in a given environment. For a narrow range of expected loads, a crown or end of
contact geometry can be designed to avoid this mode of failure completely. Most bearings
operate over a range of loads and some compromise is used to avoid loss of effective
contact length.
There is evidence that the earliest stages of geometric stress concentration fatigue
have cracks extending to the surface, but it is not clear whether the first cracks always
originate at the surface or slightly subsurface. The origins are rarely related to nonmetallic
inclusions, but occasionally an inclusion at the end of contact will serve as the nucleus for
geometric stress concentration fatigue failure1471.
3. Point Surface Origin
S. Way1521, W. E. Littmann1531and R. E. Denning1541 described point surface origin
70
failure in their papers. The major features which characterize this mode of failure are as
follows: (1). Arrowhead shape of spall always associated with sliding or tractive forces at
the surface; (2). Earliest stages of cracking are open to the surface. In its advanced stages
of propagation , this mode of failure shows a brittle appearance on the spalled surface and
propagation is rapid in both area and depth. The cracks are at depths having no obvious
relation to the subsurface contact stress distribution. When conditions are favorable for
point surface origin fatigue, the origin shows no tendency to be associated with
nonmetallic inclusions although inclusion type fatigue sometimes propagate rapidly and
after some spalling are remarkably similar in appearance to point surface origin fatigue.
Although there are a lots of factors having influence on point surface origin fatigue, it is
clear that localized increase in contact stress leads to point surface origin type spall. In
order to avoid point surface origin fatigue, any factor that can cause localized increase in
contact stress must be eliminated or minimized.
4. Peeling
Peeling is characterized by shallow depth of surface spalling caused by lubrication
problems. In this case, fatigue cracks propagation over areas rather than to depth. W. E.
Littmann and C. A. Moyert53) revealed that fatigue cracks propagate parallel to the surface
at depths from 0.0002 to O.000S inches and rarely as deep as 0.001 inches. From the all
observations, peeling tends to occur when the surface finish has many asperities which are
greater than the film thickness under the conditions of service or test. There is other
evidence to suggest that a localized loss of hydrodynamic-film pressure can produce
peeling.
71
S. Subcase Fatigue
R. Pederson and S. L. Rice described case crushing in their paper1551 in detail. This
mode of failure is most troublesome in the heavily loaded bearings of case-carburized
steels. One experiment was carried out by W. E. Littmann and R. L. Widner1471. In this
experiment, the loading roller surface in contact with the raceway, which had been
polished to avoid peeling and subsurface fatigue, failure finally broke through the surface
at 1.65xl09cycles. It is hard to tell how much of its life was spent in nucleation and how
much in propagation. It is obvious that subsurface fatigue relates to low core harness and
thin case depth.
72
III. X-Ray Theory:
A. RETAINED AUSTENITE MEASUREMENT
Many different techniques have been applied successfully to the measurement of
retained austenite in two-phase structures. Quantitative optical microscopy is generally
satisfactory as long as the austenite content is high1561,1571. However, optical microscopy
becomes unsatisfactory when retained austenite is below 15% in many steels, due to
etching and resolution difficulties. The most accurate retained austenite measurement
technique is the x-ray diffraction method. It is essentially absolute and independent of
external calibration and can be used to easily measure low austenite contents (s2%)with
excellent precision. The biggest advantage is its simplicity. By using automatic
equipment, only short times are required for a single determination. Normally, accurate
results can be obtained in less than a half-hour using either recorded traces of the
diffraction pattern or electronic scan-counting of peak intensities obtained from the
specimen.
When a crystalline substance is irradiated by x-rays it produces a characteristic
diffraction pattern which is determined by the crystal structure of all phases existing
within that substance1581,1”1. Figure 34 shows a typical diffraction pattern for an as-
hardened and tempered steel. Specific reflection peaks of tempered martensite and
retained austenite have been indicated respectively.
Retained Austenite
Retained Austenite %=31.2
1200
M a r te n s tta (211)
1000-
800-
Intensity
M a rte n s lte ( 200)
R e t a in e d A u s te n ite (20CI)
400-
(
R e t a ln e d A u s te n ite 220 )
46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
A ngle2theta
Figure 34 Diffraction pattern of an as-hardened and tempered sample
74
Since the X -ray intensity diffracted from each phase is proportional to the volume
fraction of that phase, quantitative determination of the relative volume fractions of
martensite and austenite can be made from such x-ray diffraction charts. Furthermore if
it is assumed that the phase contains a completely random arrangement of crystals and is of
infinite thickness, so that x-ray can not pass through the sample, the diffracted intensity
from any single crystal plane (hkl) within that phase is also proportional to the volume
fraction of that phase. That means that on the diffraction chart the integrated intensity
of just one austenite and one martensite peak can be used to determined the volume
fraction of each phase accurately. But if preferred orientation or texture exists within the
sample, the determination of volume fraction may have to be based on at least four
austenite and martensite peaks in order to minimize the error caused by preferred
orientation or texture1591.
The integrated intensity per particular (hkl) reflection in the martensitic (or a)
phase can be expressed as1591:
( ^ - ) ± [ \ f f \ v L P - e ~ ZM] A m ( V * ) E q . (1 8 )
m e 3 2 jtr v2
where:
Im11": integrated intensity per unit length of diffraction line (hkl) in the martensitic
(or a) phase.
I,; intensity of incident beam.
e,m: charge and mass of the electron.
r: radius or the diffractometer.
c: velocity of light.
k wavelength of the incident radiation.
75
A: cross sectional area of the incident beam.
v: volume of the unit cell. 1/v2 defines the number of cells diffracting in the
specimen.
| FF | : structure factor times its complex conjugate,

p: multiplicity factor of the (hkl) reflection.
LP: Lorenz-polarization factor. It is equal to (l+cos220)/sin20-cos for normal
diffractometric analysis, but becomes (1 +cos22a-cos220)/sin20-cos'-( 1+cos22a)when a
monochromator is used; 2a is the diffraction angle of the monochomator crystal.

e_2M: Debye-Waller or temperature factor.
A(0): absorption factor. It is a function of 0 and enters as1/2 n where p is the

linear absorption coefficient of the material for the specific x-ray radiation used.
0: angle of diffraction.
VM: volume fraction of the martensitic-phase.
The above equation can be simplified by introducing factors:
E q . (19)
where
E q . (20)
^ l\F F \-p'L P -e-2lT] E q . (21)

v2
K is a constant which depends only on the selection of instrumentation geometry and
radiation (or wavelength) but is completely independent of the nature of the specimen. R
is a factor which depends on hkl, 0, and the crystal structure and composition of the
76
specimen or phase being measured. R can be calculated from basic principles. The
significance of R1*1is that it is proportional to the integrated intensity which should be
diffracted by a specific (hkl) reflection, when 100% of that phase exists and no preferred
orientation is present. For the case of the steel where two phases generally exist, the above
simplified equation can be written more correctly as:
V-.J3 h k l. t /
j- h k l M M Eq> ( 2 2 )
2 Ji (tf+y)
where /t<M+T) is the linear absorption coefficient for the mixture of martensite and
austenite. A similar equation applies to the austenite. One can then write for any pair of
hkl lines:
M - M u E q . (23)
t hkl p hkl.Tr
Y ■£Vy V1
or
y t M l R Mhkl
____
_ _ L - _ _ 2 _ E q . (24)
V,M -lr mh k l hkl
where is integrated intensity per unit length of diffraction line (hkl) in the retained
austenite phase.
Vr*volume fraction of the retained austenite phase.
If martensite and austenite are the only phases present in a steel, they must make up 100%
by volume. Therefore,
VM+ VT= 1 = 100%
If a third phase -carbide- is present, the above equation is written as:
77
v M+ vT+ Vc - 1 = 100%
where V^ volume fraction of the carbide phase.
According to above equations, the volume fraction of austenite in a randomly orientation
steel is given by:
V.- 1- ' ro
' i +A . J « E q . ( 25)
If martensite and austenite are the only phases in steel, the volume fraction of austenite
can be calculated from the following equation:
V>
Y i | X y1* 1 ■I » hkl E q . (26)
ft hkl j hkl
M Y
The above equation can be written in the following form if several martensite and
austenite peaks are used:
Vv---------------------------- xl 0 0 %
Y hkl V " \ T hkl n _ _ fr>n\
1+ ( t ) •( 0' m \ / ^ y \ Eq . ( 2 7 )
nM
nTand nMare the number of austenite and martensite peaks.
In this study two martensite (200 and 211) and two austenite peaks (200 and 220) are used
to calculate the percentage of retained austenite. The equation is:
78
Y ( % ) ----------- ------ — — X lO O %
l . i e -f Im‘ Im‘ ) Eg. ( 28 )

X K T 200 . T 220 '
-Lr xr
where y is percentage of retained austenite and
d 200 . n 220
R -J h fh E q . (29)
T RM200+RM211
and
R **1— — [\F F \'P 'L P 'e-2W] Eq . ( 3 0 )

v2
where
V is the volume of the unit cell.
|FF| is the structure factor,

p is multiplicity factor.
LP is Lorentz Polarization factor.
e-2Mis temperature factor.
IUd is the integrated intensity of the particular hkl. The reason for using integrated
intensity instead of maximum intensity is that the peaks both in shape and maximum
intensity may vary due to the surface conditions of a specimen. In this experiment,
retained austenite is determined by using integrated intensity instead of maximum
intensity to overcome this problem because the integrated intensity is directly proportional
to the volume percent of each phase present in the steel.
79
The constant R x contains the atomic scattering factors, temperature factors and
geometric factors. Although it is recommended that general R-factors calculated from a
common of average steel composition will provide acceptable accuracy if used for all
steels1591, the RT factor was calculated carefully for this study to ensure the accuracy of the
measurement.
1/V2:
The factor V is the volume of the unit cell. Since both retained austenite and
tempered martensite have a cubic structure, V=a3. The lattice parameter of the austenite
phase is a function of carbon content and is calculated by Equation 1:
a = 3.555 + 0.044* %C
For the tempered martensite phase the lattice parameter, a=2.872, is averaged from body-
centered tetragonal martensite that contains approximately 0.2% carbon1591.
Structure Factor |FF|:
The structure factor is calculated from the atomic scattering factor which is
defined as the ratio of the amplitude of the wave scattered by an atom to the amplitude of
the wave scattered by a free electron. The atomic scattering factor decreases as the value
of (sin0)/X increases. The atomic scattering factors are calculated on the assumption that
the electronic binding energy is so small compared with the energy of the X -ray photon
that the scattering power of a bound electron may be greater than or less than that of a
free electron, and the phases of the scattered wave may be different. These effects are
taken into account by representing the atomic scattering factor f as a complex number:
f=f0 + AF+iAf”
where AT and AT* are called the real and imaginary dispersion correction. The atomic
scattering factor f multiplied by the number o f atoms in the unit cell and squared is the
structure factor |F F |.
Multiplicity Factor p:
The multiplicity factor p may be defined as the number o f planes in a crystal that
have the same d spacing, and therefore will diffract at the same 2y angle. The multiplicity
factors for the four peaks used to determine the retained austenite are shown in the table
2.
Table 2 Multiplicity Factor
Peaks Retained Retained Tempered Tempered
Austenite (200) Austenite (220) Martensite (200) Martensite (211)
Multiplicity 6 12 6 24
Factor p
Lorentz Polarization Factor
The essential form of the Lorentz Polarization Factor (LP) is:
1 + C o s2 (28)
S i n 2QCosd
81
Considering the case of a diffractometer with a variable divergent slit instead of a constant
divergent slit, the Lorentz Polarization Factor has the form:
L P - 1 +C~ s 2J 2 ®'> Eq. (31)

SinQ C osQ
Since a monochromator at angle oc=13.32° was used in this study, the Lorentz Polarization
Factor can further been modified to:
LP - —^ +Cos2 (20) C o s 2 (2oc) Ecj>

5 iii0 C o s 6 [1 +C o s 2 ( 2 a ) ]
Temperature Factor
A crystal cannot be considered as a collection of atoms located at fixed points in
the lattice. Actually, the atoms undergo thermal vibration about their mean positions even
at the absolute zero of temperature, and the amplitude of this vibration increases as the
temperature increases. As the result of an increase in temperature, the vibration
increases. It has three main effects1®1:
(1) The unit cell expands, causing changes in plane spacings d and therefore in
the 2y positions of the diffraction lines.
(2) The intensities of the diffraction lines decrease.
(3) The intensity of the background scattering between lines increases.
Because the intensity of any line depends on f2, calculated intensities must be
multiplied by e'2Mto allow for thermal vibration. The quantity M depends on both the
amplitude n of thermal vibration and the scattering angle 2y.
where p2 is the mean square displacement of the atom in a direction normal to the
reflecting planes. The exact calculation of p2 as a function of temperature is extremely
difficult, which means that M or B is hard to determine accurately. The constant B was
determined from the International Tables for X-Ray Crystallography (Volume III) and
weighted with the composition of the metal being measured. The value of B for 4320H
steel is 0.35 which was used to calculated temperature factors for the peaks that used to
measure retained austenite.
Table 3 of Reference [59] gives all the information to calculate R factors for the
various martensite and austenite peaks produced with four different radiations, Cr,Co,Cu
and Mo for steels without considering the effects of composition. Considering the effect
of composition of the steel, first R-factors of 4320H steel for Retained austenite (200)
and (220), Martensite (200) and (211) were determined, respectively. The R factor used in
this study was determined based on R-factors calculated above (Rf=0.8274)
The equation and the R-factor used in this experiment to determine retained
austenite were checked against National Bureau of Standard stainless steel standards No.
485a, 486, and 487 which contain 5%, 15% and 30% austenite in ferrite respectively. Since
each standard was of slightly different chemical composition, RT factors were calculated
separately. Accuracy was measured to be within ±1%.
83
B. RESIDUAL STRESSES MEASUREMENT
I. STRESS-STRAIN RELATION
From the theory of elasticity, Hooke’s law states that stress ( a j is related to strain
(ej by the modulus of elasticity (E).
o x-E-ex Eq. (34)
The tensile force producing the stress in the x-direction produces not only a linear strain
in that direction, but also a strain perperdicular to the longitudinal strain which is related
by a constant called Posion’s ratio (v). Thus:
e y- e z — v e ]? Eq. (35)
For a triaxial stress system existing in a body, Hooke’s law states that the strain along any
principal direction is due to the stress acting along that axis, plus the superimposed strains
resulting from the Poison effect of principal stresses acting along the other two axes.
Taking into account the transverse strains in addition to the longitudinal strains in the
directions of principal axes, the following stress-strain relationships are obtained for a
triaxial stress system:
[Oi-v (a2+o3) ] Eq. (36)

is
84
e2— | [<>2-V ( ° 3 + ° l ) J E q . (37)
e3- - |; [a3-v (ax+a2) ] Eq. (38)

El
For a biaxial state of stress, or plane stress, where <r3 = 0, the Equation 36, 37 and 38
reduce to:
Ei—| ( o 1- v a 2) Eq. (39)
e 2 —| ( o 2’ v ®i) Eq. (40)
e3” - - ^ ( a 1+ o 2) Eq. (41)
It may be noted from the preceding equation that even when the stress along the third axis
is zero, the strain along that axis is not zero unless a, = -<r2. In the case of plane strain, «3
= 0 and the preceding stress-strain relationships become
Gi ” — [ ( 1 - v ) o 1~ v o 2] Eq. (42)
Et
G2“ - ^ 5 T [ ( 1 - v ) o 2- v o J Eq. (43)

El
85
A more elegant treatment of stress in an isotropic medium is to use a spherical rather that
a cubic element o f volume. In general, under the action of stresses, a spherical element of
volume will be distorted into an ellipsoid. If the principal stresses or strains are taken
parallel to a set of orthogonal axes x, y, and z, the equation for the strain ellipsoid may be
written as:
V^ z^
— + +—— 1 Eq. (4 4 )
®1 ®2 ®3
Any point x,, y,, z, on the ellipsoid surface represents the component of normal strain,
whose direction and magnitude are approximately but not precisely those of the radius
vector to this point. Figure 35 shows e++is a normal strain vector of this sort, and a
general relation for its determination, as expressed in terms of the principal strains £,, e2
and e3, is
e 4>t"e i a i 2+e2a 22 + e 3a 32 Eq. (45)
where:
ai = Cos^Sin^
a2 = Sin^Cosi/'
a 3= Cos^=(l-SinV)1/J
86
v,'i, t,
Figure 35. Ellipsoids of stress and strain using units employed in x-ray diffraction stress
analysis1411
There are the direction cosines of the strain vector with respect to the
directions of the principal strains e„ e2, £3, which define the strain ellipsoid. In a similar
manner, a stress ellipsoid for which the normal stress is given can be defined by the
relation
87
a ^ ’~a1a 12+a2a22+a2a 22 E q . (4 6 )
where:
a„ a2, and a3 = Direction cosines of stress ait, with respect to the principal axes.
Since stress cannot be measured directly but must be computed from strain measurements,
the strain ellipsoid, Equation 45, is much more useful in calculating stresses. Substituting
values for the principal strains given in Equation 39, 40 and 41 into Equation 45 for the
strain ellipsoid, the general equation relating strains in any direction 0, \p within a body to
the acting principal stresses is obtained as shown:
( c 1a 12+ a 2a 22+ a 3a 32) - - 1 ( o ^ t ^ + a.,) E q . (47)
2. RELATION OF STRAIN EQUATION TO X-RAY STRESS ANALYSIS
a. Basic Equation
Under the surface of a stressed specimen, each element of volume will be
subjected to or acted upon by three principal stresses: <r„ a2, and a3. At the surface , to
which X-ray diffraction measurements are confined, plane stress conditions are assumed
to exist, and only two principal stresses, <r, and a2, lying within the plane of the surface,
are possible since ait normal to the surface , is considered to be zero. Nevertheless, as
noted before, there are lateral contractions due to Possion’s ratio and there will always be a
component of strain t3 in the direction of the surface normal.
88
90 DEG
O’,
Figure 36. Stress in a biaxial system1411
Consider Figure 36, which illustrates part of a flat metal surface in which a2 and a2
are the principal stresses; e2 and t3 are the principal strains; and c3 is equal to zero. The
general expression for the strain in a direction making angles and ip with o3 and a2,
respectively, is given from Equation 48
e^—^fC T jO ^+ O ja^-lfaj+ O j) Eq.(48)

E E
Putting in the approximate values for direction cosines, a2 = Cos^Sin^ and a2 = Sin<pSinp,
the working equation for the strain vector ew may be written as
Again from Figure 36, it is observed that when 0= 90°, the surface stress component a* is
given by
o )J, - o 1C o s 2(|)+ o25ri r 2 2<|> Eq. (50)
Therefore, substituting Equation 50 into Equation 49,
a*s i n 2 ty~-^ ( a i + ° 2 > Eq. (51)
This is the basic equation relating lattice strains to stresses in the X -ray diffraction method
of stress measurement, and it can be utilized to determine the surface stress a* in any
direction on the surface of the specimen.
The direction of the surface stress can be made to coincide with the
longitudinal, transverse, circumferential, or any other arbitrarily designated direction.
Therefore,if the stress in the longitudinal direction of a tube is desired, thetube is
positioned on the x-ray stress stage or specimen holder so that the longitudinal0 is parallel
to the plane of the goniometer table rotation and perpendicular to the goniometer axis of
rotation. Then at least two measurements of lattice plane spacings for a particular set of
hkl planes are required which are one of strain perpendicular to the surface (0 = 0°) and
the second at a rotated angle 0, preferably 45° or greater, to the surface normal as shown
in Figure 37l4l). Note that the planes being measured are always perpendicular to the
incident and diffracted beam bisector, while the measured strains are always along the
beam bisector. The stress thus determined is in the direction 0 on the surface.
90
(A ) M E A S U R IN G PLA N ES \
PA RA LLEL TO THE J
SU RFA CE ?g \ , IN T E R P L A N A R
f.O . ° \ S P A C IN G
^ D IR E C T IO N
OF S T R E SS *
> X J
/
\\
\
S P E C IM E N
SU RFA CE
/ — V— D if f r a c t io n n o r m a l
0 IF F R A C T E 0 f \ IN C ID E N T
X-RAY BEAM / \ X-RAY BEAM
(3 ) M E A S U R IN G PLANES \ S P E C IM E N
AT THE ANGLE ti A SURFACE
TO T H E S U R F A C E ,
, dd, , IN T E R P L A N A R
r S P A C IN G
D IF F R A C T IO N NORM AL
O IR E C T IO N INCIDENT
O F STRESS X 'R A r BEAM
X-RAY BE A M
Figure 37. Schematic showing orientation of measured lattice planes with respect to
specimen surface: (A) specimen at 0° (B) specimen rotated
91
In the back reflection region, with the incident beam perpendicular to the surface
of the specimen, the planes which reflect lie almost parallel to the surface. The measured
spacing dx is, therefore in the approximate direction of the surface normal. If d0 is
interplanar spacing corresponding to the unstressed condition, the effective strain normal
to the specimen surface will be
Eq- (52>
Since the angle $ = 0° for ex, from Equation 51:
Substituting Equation 53 into Equation 51 the following simplified form results:
Eq. (54)
or
1+v E q . (55)
e4»* € j.‘
The strain is equivalent to the difference in interplanar spacing of the atomic planes
which lie perpendicular to ^ in the stressed and unstressed condition. If d0 is considered as
the unstressed lattice spacing, it follows that
92
_ < V do
Eq . ( 5 6 )
Combining Equation 52 and Equation 56:
Eq. (57)
” do d0 do
Based on the fact that, for most materials, elastic strains may introduce at most, 0.1%
difference between the true d( and dx at any since d, is a multiplier to the slope, the
total error introduced by this assumption in the final stress value is less than 0.1%, which
is negligible compared to the error introduced by other sources1611. By substituting d x for
d( in the denominator of the above expression, the following equation is obtained:
E q - (5 8 )
Substituting Equation 58 into Equation 55, a more convenient form of that equation results
for obtaining the stress in any surface direction as a function of changes in interplanar
spacings:
- ^ ^ “ ( ^ ) V3'i722i|r Eq. (59)

~±.
According to Equation 59, a plot of (df- d i ) /d 1 vs SinY> the stress ( a j can be determined
from the slope of the graph. This study used the SinV technique to determine the stress
(a+) (Figure 38).
93
Residual Stress Measurement 15mA-35KV

M(310)
- 0 .0 0 0 5 - Stress = (S lo p e)/(E )
E: elastic constant of m aterial

normal
(D tilt-D normal)/D
-o.002-
Slope = -0 .0 0 6 3 8
Stress = - 1 4 8 7 6 8 psi
- 0 .0 0 3 -
0.1 02 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 38 Sin2ip technique for stress determination.
94
b. The Relation of the Stress type and the Direction of Diffraction Angle shifting
From Figure 37 the shifting of the direction of the diffraction peaks,
corresponding to the tilting angles of the a specimen, respect to the stress type on the
surface o f the specimen can be observed from following explanation.
d£
Co s i | r - i * — Eq. ( 6 0 )
eo d±~do dx~do
do
or
d f - d 0+Costy (dx- d 0) Eq. (61)
It is obvious that the interplanar spacing will increase if a compressive stress is applied on
the surface of the specimen. So dx > d„
d t - d 0+Cost|f |C| Eq. (62)
where C is the value of d x - d„. As the tilt angle ^ ( 0°<^<90° ) increases, the value of
Cos^ decreases resulting in d# decreases. According to Bragg law,
\-2dS in d E q . (63)
For constant if interplanar spacing decreases, the diffraction angle increases and the
diffraction angles shift to the higher angle side.
If a tensile stress is on the surface of the specimen, the interplanar spacing will be
95
decreased. So d A < d(
d+- d 0-C o s i|r|C | E q . (6 4 )
where C is the value of ds - d A. As tilt angle increases ( 0<^<90°), Cos^ deceases and then
df increases. According to Bragg’s law, the diffraction angle decreases if the interplanar
spacing increases and the diffraction angle shifts to the lower angle side.
Summarizing the above discussion, the compressive stress on the surface of a
specimen will cause the diffraction angles to shift to higher angles and the tensile stress on
the surface of a specimen will cause the diffraction angle to shift to lower angles. Figure
39 and Figure 40 show the shift with respect to the types of stresses on the surface of the
specimens, respectively.
96
Residual Stress Measurement

Cone section 71-1 Austenite(420)
1100 -
Otllt 3 3 .2 tilt
1050-
18 .4 tilt 3 9 .2 tilt
1000 - 2 6 .6 tilt
45 tilt
Intensity
950-
900-
850-
800-
750-
142 144 146 148 150
143 145 147 149 1 51
2th eta
------ 0 tilt — — 18.4 tilt — — 26.6 tilt

------ 33.2 tilt — — 39.2 tilt — — 45.0 tilt
Figure 39 The diffraction angle shift with respect to residual tensile stress
97

F18 52,240 Miles 15mA-35KV
1100
0 tilt 33.2 tilt
1050- 18.4 tilt 39.2 tilt

26.6 tilt 45 tilt
1000 - -
Intensity
950-
900- 1
850-
800-
144 148 148 150

143 145 147 149 151
2theta
----- 0 tilt — — 18.4 tilt — — 26.6 tilt

------ 33.2 tilt — — 39.2 tilt —— 45.0 tilt
Figure 40 The diffraction angle shift with respect to residual compressive stress
98
c. Selection o f Diffraction Peak for Stress Measurement
From differentiating Bragg’s law: nX=2dsin0
O -2 d -c o s0 * 5 0 + 2 A d * sin 0 E q . (65)
on
S0--e*tan0 E q . (66)
Eq. (67)
Since tan0 is larger for larger 0, the term A0 is larger for a given stress. It may be seen
from the above equation that for a given strain in an steel specimen examined with Copper
radiation, the peak shift of the retained austenite peak (420) at 20=146.22° will be 1.99
times as much as the peak shift of the retained austenite peak (400) at 20=117.71° and
2.98 times as much as the peak shift of the retained austenite peak (222) at 20=95.67.
According to above analysis, generally the peak at the higher 20 is preferred for routine
stress measurement because the peaks at high 20 values are more sensitive to
strain/stresses, i.e., for a given stress, a high angle peak will display a larger shift in 20.
d. Instrumental Errors in Residual Stress Analysis
Errors from stress measurement using X -Ray diffraction depend on the particular
configuration and instrument parameters used in the measurement of the line profiles.
99
They may be broadly classified into two groups: (1) errors depend on beam optics and (2)
errors due to alignment error. Only some parameters will be discussed.
(1). Errors due to Variation of the Focal Point with 6 and ^[61]
It was observed that the diffracted intensity decreased as tilting angle increased (as
shown in Figure 39 and Figure 40). This was caused by defocusing.
In a diffractiometer operated in the focusing condition (Figure 41), the divergent
rays produced by the tube D will diffract from the specimen S and focus at a point A on
the goniometer circle, which is then scanned by the receiving slit and detector. The radius
of the focusing circle (Rrc) is related to the radius of the goniometer circle (Rcc) by the
equation
R FC~ - R ? ° a Eq. (68)

FC 2 s i n 0
for ^=0. The correct focusing position is maintained in a diffractiometer by the 1:2 ratio
of 6/26 movement at all times. If, however, the specimen is rotated around the center of
the diffractiometer such that (Figure 42), as in a stress measurement, the above
equation becomes
r E q. (69)
FC 2(sm0+t|f)
Since the radius of the focusing circle changes with the rays arriving at A will be
defocused and the mean position of the maximum intensity will shift, creating an error in
26. This deforcing also results in lower diffracted intensity received at the detector. This
100
explains why the diffracted intensity is reduced when tilting angle $ is not equal to zero as
shown in Figure 39 and Figure 40. In fact, the reason that this error was discussed was to
understand the decrease of diffracted intensity as tilting angle increased. If and only if an
unit is aligned perfectly, one should be able to see this.
One method of avoiding this error is to move the receiving slit to the focusing
point B. The distance from the sample to B is given by
c ^ M 9O-0^ Eq(7Q)
' cos{i|r-(9O-0)}
This procedure is called the "parafocusing method". It is not always practical to use.
Figure 41 shows the focusing geometry for a specimen of ideal curvature for tf=0. Here
GC is the goniometer circle and FC is the focusing circle. Figure 42 shows the focusing
geometry for a divergent beam.
GC
S P E C IM E N
■FC
E
*■ 0
Figure 41. Focusing Geometry for a Specimen of Ideal Curvature for ^=01611
101
.G C
S P E C IM E N
FC
E
^ r 4»
Figure 42. Focusing Geometry for a Divergent Beamf6lJ
CORRECT
SAM PIE
ro s n iO N
'90-0
pea k s h if t
F R O M «+»« o
TO
Figure 43. Schematic of the effect o f sample displacement on the peak position when the
specimen is rotated rj) degrees'611
102
(2). Errors due to specimen displacement1611
If the effective diffracting volume is not located at the center of the
diffractometer, there is a relative peak shift between ^=0 and This is shown
schematically in Figure 43. The shift in degrees, 20, is given by
8(A20)W-A20t ^ - A 2 6 ^ Eq.(71)
8(A20)a)---6^>A— 0- — -] Eq.(72)
" k Roc RPsin(0+»|O
Here AX is the sample displacement, RP is given by Equation 70 and Rcc is the
goniometer radius. The peak shift due to this effect is shown as a function of 0 and f in
Figure 44 for AX=-0.025 mm:
.02
CD
CVI
Ol
■30*
130 ICO
20
Figure 44. The variation of the peak shift due to sample displacement of 0.0254 mm back
from its proper position over the center of the diffractiometer ( A=-0.025 mm)1611
103
As shown in Figure 44, such a small displacement can cause a diffracted peak shift.
In order to eliminate the error due to specimen displacement, a special specimen holder
was used.
(3). Errors due to the effect of specimen curvature1611
This effect is due to the deviation of the specimen surface from the focusing
circle. For flat specimens, the error in 20 is given by
A(20)--^ • S2 /1q ^ i \ 0,2 E q . ( 73)

12 s m 2 (0+T|f)
where a is the horizontal divergence of the x-ray beam.
In the case of cylindrical geometry Figure 45, the displacement of the x-ray peak
due to this effect is
A (20) - X ( 3 ) • c o s 0 - ( ^ - c o s t |r ^ - 1 ~4 s i n 2 9 s i n 2 ,|f }
3 R z rr s in 0
A -A
+ — l - c o s 0 s i n t |r E q . ( 74)
GC
Where
X(3) - E q. (75)
(Ai+Aj)
104
Where the terms are defined in Figure 45. The peak shift error between two ^ tilts, ^=0
and is given by:
6(A 2 0 ) - 4 f ® . ^ ( - l - - l ) Eq.(76)
3Rg,; Rt cost
where Z is half the high of the irradiated region.
D ilfra c lo m e le r
C irc le »-
F o c u s in g C irc le
S p e c im e n
Figure 45. Schematic representation of diffraction from a cylindrical specimen in
goniometer geometry1611
As discussed above, the variation of focal point, sample displacement and
curvature surface will cause diffracted peak shift. For residual stress measurement by the
X -ray diffraction technique, the only parameters measured are the positions of diffracted
peaks for selected tilting angles. Everything which can cause diffracted peak shift except
the strain in the material must be eliminated to obtain dependable measurement results. In
the section of Experimental Results and Discussion, it will be discussed in detail the
methods to eliminate these errors plus instrumental errors.
105
C. DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE AND DISLOCATION DENSITY
The intensity from a single small parallelopiped in the crystal is given by
I _I 2 s in 2 ( n/ X) (s - s 0) 'N1a1 sin2 (rc/A) ( s - s 0) 'N2a2

0 sin2 (ti/A) ( s - s 0) ‘a± sin 2 (tt/A) ( s - s Q) *a2
sin2 (n/A) (s s 0)-N3a3

sin2 (ti/A) ( s - s 0 ) -a3
where N„N2, N3 are the numbers of unit cells along the a„ a2, a, directions1621. In general,
Nu Nj, Nj are such large numbers that each of the three quotients differs from zero only if
the three Laue equations are closely satisfied, and hence the powder pattern reflections are
sharp. For very small crystals where Nt, N2, N3 are small, the three quotients broaden, and
the smaller the crystals the broader the powder pattern reflections. The peak breadth can
be expressed in terms of the crystallite size, and hence a measurement of peak breadth
gives a simple method for determining crystallite size in the size range to about 1000 A.
When the size of the individual crystals is less than about 0.1 /tin (1000 A), the
term "particle size" is usually used. Crystals in this size range cause broadening of
diffraction lines, the extent of the broadening being given by equation1601;
s(2 6 )--M^ Eq-(78)
where B(26)=broadening of diffraction line measured at half its maximum intensity
(radian) (Figure 46) and t=diameter of crystal particle. All diffraction lines have a
106
measurable breadth, even when the crystal size exceeds 1000 A. The breadth B(26) in the
equation refers to the extra breadth, or broadening, due to the particle-size effect alone.
In other words, B is essentially zero when the particle size exceeds about 1000 A.
2 9 ---------------- ► 2 9 ------------------
(a) (b)
Figure 46. Effect of fine particle size on diffraction curves (schematic)'601
Figure 46(a). Shows the effect of fine particle size on diffraction curves. In
contrast to Figure 46(a), Figure 44(b) illustrates the hypothetical case of diffraction
occurring only at the exact Bragg angle.
The chief problem in determining particle size from line breadths is to determine
B from the measured breadth BMof the diffraction line. Of the many methods proposed,
Warren’s is the simplest'601. The unknown is mixed with a standard which has a particle
107
size greater than 1000 A, and which produces a diffraction line near that line from the
unknown which is to be used in the determination. A diffraction pattern is made of the
mixture in either a Debye camera or, preferably, a diffractometer. The pattern will
contain sharp lines from the standard and broad lines from the unknown, assumed to
consist of fine particles. Let Bs be the measured breadth , at half-maximum intensity, of
the line from the standard. Then B is given, not simply by the difference between BMand
Bs, but by the equation:
B 2- B 2- B 2 Eq. (79)
This equation results from the assumption that the diffraction line has the shape of
an error curve1®1. Once B has been obtained from equation 79, it can be inserted into
equation 78 to yield the particle size t.
The Standard Reference Material (SRM) 660[63], which is a lanthanum hexaboride
fine powder, was used as a standard for determination of particle size. BMand Bs can be
obtained from the diffraction scans of a measured specimen and the standard (LaB(). The
following equations were used to calculate the diffraction particle size.
Eq. (80)
^ 0. 9 k
c — Eq. ( 8 1 )
C O S Q m^ B 2- B 2
The evidence from micro beam experiments indicates that the metal is broken up
into blocks, the dislocation lying in the boundaries between the blocks. The diffraction
108
particle size calculated may be used for calculating the dislocation density. If there are n
dislocations per block face the total length of dislocation line per block is 6nD/2 (since
each face is shared by 2 blocks) where D is the dimension of the block which is same as
the diffraction particle size (t). The number of blocks per unit volume is 1/D3 and thus
the dislocation density calculated from the particle size is1®41
E q. (82)
2 ‘D 2 D2
To utilize this equation the value of n must be determined or assumed. The value n=l
gives a minimum dislocation density and could apply to annealed metals and to very
severely deformed metals, in which state the dislocation may be very nearly random.
In deriving Equation 82, p has been defined as the total length of dislocation line
in unit volume. With this definition p is independent of the dislocation distribution.
Densities expressed as the number of dislocation lines cutting unit area are usually
equivalent, but an alternative interpretation of this has been employed which is not
equivalent to Equation 82. Gay, Hirsch and Kelly1641 (1953), for example, have given
values in terms of the effective numbers of dislocations cutting unit area with the Burgers
vector lying in the surface of the area. Using this definition one would obtain, instead of
Equation 82 , that p=n/D21641.
Another factor that increases the breadth of the diffraction peaks is strain
broadening, which is the condition of nonuniform strain in the sub-grains1651. This
nonuniform strain causes a difference in the interplanar spacing from one subgrain to the
next. Since each subgrain varies in interplanar spacing, each will be different at a
different angle. Thus the sum of all the individual lines from each subgrain will produce a
109
broadened peak.
The last factor that broadens the diffraction peak is that which is due to the x-ray
diffraction equipment itself, and is called instrument broadening. The incident x-ray
beam is not perfectly monochromatic, as the sharp lines of the Ka actually have a with of
approximately 0.001 A. The effect of this beam with on peak broadness is proportional to
the tangent of 0, and has the greatest influence on high angle peaks. Along with
broadening due to variations in wavelength, the beam is also not parallel. The effect of
this may be reduced somewhat by the use of finer slits. The broadening caused by the
instrument can be eliminated by using Equation 78.
110
D. TEXTURE ANALYSIS
Texture formation is generally due to virtually all kinds of anisotropic solid state
processes as shown in Figure 47[66].
Texture formation
by
Solid state processes Materials properties
-Crystallization TEXTURE -Macroanisotropy
-Plastic deformation (structure) -Microheterogeneity
-Recrystallization -Boundary heterogeneity
-Phase transformation
-Ridid rotation
Figure 47. Texture formation by solid state processes and texture-property relations
In this study, cold work introduced by rolling contact not only may trigger
austenite to martensite phase transformation, but also might cause preferred orientation of
retained austenite and martensite. There were three reasons to investigate the
crystallographic texture. First, since certain orientations of retained austenite or
martensite may have low fatigue resistance, it was necessary to investigate the orientation
change at the surface of rollers. Second, the composition of retained austenite and
martensite were measured by integrated area of the diffraction peaks of retained austenite
(200) and (220), and martensite (200) and (211). It is critical to pursue texture analysis
to make sure the phase composition measured represented the true composition. Third, the
crystallographic texture affects the results of residual stress measurement by X -ray
diffraction.
Ill
The three major reflection peaks for retained austenite are (111), (200) and (220).
The three major reflection peaks for martensite are (110), (200) and (211). The
deviation of the peak height ratio from that for random orientation corresponds to the
strength of a texture1671. The calculation was based on two assumptions: (a) each peak
height is proportional to the respective portion of crystal volume in the specimen, (b) only
(111), (200) and (220) orientation are considered for retained austenite; only (110), (200)
and (211) orientation are considered for martensite. The calculated portions for these six
reflection planes do not contain any information on the distribution o f planes oriented
otherwise.
For retained austenite, if the peak heights are expressed as a percentage of the
height of (111) peaks, the following equations are obtained1671
■^(220)^(200) E q . (83)
•^ (200) ^ ( 220) +h ( 2 0 0 ) ^ ( 220) *^{200)^(220)
E q . (84)
■ ^ (2 0 0 ) ^ ( 2 2 0 ) + - ^ ( 2 0 0 ) - ^ ( 2 2 0 ) + ^ ( 2 0 0 ) ^ ( 2 2 0 )
^(111)"^- ^(200) -^(220) E q . (85)
where
texture coefficients, the relative portion of (hkl)-orientated crystal planes;
peak height for texture-free austenite, normalized to h(111)=100%;
h^,: measured peak height of retained austenite, normalized to h(111)=100%.
112
For martensite if the peak heights are expressed as a percentage of the height of
(110) peaks, the following equations are obtained
P (200)------------r ---------. (211) (20°?-------------------- Eg. (86)

H i? * . > + H / - > n n l 11
r> _ (200) (211) fan\

<211> ~R h Th M +R M E q.(8/)
(2 00) (2 1 1 ) (200) (2 1 1 ) (2 0 0 ) ( 211)
^ ( i i o ) - l ■^’(2 0 0 ) -^(2 1 1 ) E q . (8 8)
where
P^m: texture coefficients, the relative portion of (hkl)-orientated crystal planes;
H ^ ' peak height for texture-free martensite, normalized to h(lll)=100%;
h ^ ; measured peak height of martensite, normalized to h(UI)=100%.
Using the above equations, the portion of certain oriented plane of retained
austenite or martensite can be calculated. Also the crystallographic texture could be
evaluated by comparing the intensity ratio of peaks.
The crystallographic texture influences the mechanical elastic constants of the
material. The ordinary Young’s modulus and Poison coefficients are really only suitable
for isotropic materials, in other words for materials that at most have a weak
crystallographic texture. If the texture is pronounced (which is very offen the case), then
an anisotropic elastic model should be used, with a set of elastic constants that either
should be measured on each test piece separately, or derived from the orientation
113
distribution function that describes the crystallographic texture1681.
If d-sinfy are used to determine the residual stresses, in the case of an isotropic
material, a linear d-sinY relationship should be obtained. Figure 48 showed d-sinV plot
for a gold coating. Stress of 201 MPa was obtained from the slope of the approximately
linear relationship'681. In the case of an anisotropic material, a non-linear d-sinV
relationship should be gained. Figure 49 showed non-linear d-sinV observed in cold
rolled steel.
Although some problems remain, it can be concluded that it is possible to use
diffraction methods to measure the residual stress of a crystalline phase even when a
crystallographic texture is present. For textures with a moderate sharpness, it can be
recommended to attempt to use {hhh} or {h00} lattice planes in order to measure the
stress'®1. The classical d-sinV method can then be used in the case of biaxial stresses.
However, the 20-angles that correspond to these planes according to Bragg’s law may be
too small, which would result in an undesired loss of precision. In such case, it is better
to use anther crystallographic plane with a 20-angle as high as would be allowed by the
instrument. But it is must be realized that crystallographic texture can cause errors in the
results of residual stress measurements because it influences the mechanical elastic
constants of the material.
According to above discussion, it is necessary to examine if crystallographic
textures were developed during contact rolling operation because the change of residual
stress state could be caused by rolling contact and error introduced by the texture effects.
114
3 .7 4 1 A
m
•< ■
s A
*" 3 .7 3 9 .
a
8
a
w 3 .7 3 7
•o
* A * V <0
■
3 .7 3 5 •
■ Y >0
3 .7 3 3 1
0 0.1 0.2 03 0.4 0.5
sin2 V
Figure 48. d-sin2^ plot for a gold coating'681
2.868
*<
c
2.867
2.366 * V <0
■ V >0
2.865
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 03
sin2 V
Figure 49. Non-linear d-sin5^ observed in cold-rolled steel'681
115
IV. Experimental Results and Discussion
The experimental work was divided into 10 sections to avoid possible confusion.
A. The equipment alignment and calibration are the most critical to all of the
experimental results. In this section, alignment and calibration of the X-ray unit
are shown in detail.
B. The depth of the penetration is very shallow, the theory of residual stress
measurement by X -ray diffraction can be based on the assumptions of a biaxial
system which means that the normal stress has been neglected. The penetration
depth for the conditions of this study must be taken into consideration.
C. The effect of finish grinding was studied to understand how final machining
affects the surface of rollers.
D. Before starting to do more specific studies to understand what changes are taking
place on the rollers during service, a study was carried out involving the first
50.000 miles of operation to get a general idea how rolling contact affects the
surface of rollers and for what operating region further study should be
emphasized.
E. Based on the results of previous study, further study was emphasized on the first
10.000 miles of operation. Studies were carried out to not only reveal the change
at the surface in one position, (for example center), but also along the surface.
116
F. Since possible microstructure texture will affect not only the retained
austenite measurements but also the residual stress measurements, texture
investigation was carried out to determine if there was microstructure
texture caused by grinding and rolling contact;
G. The particle size study was carried out along the roller surface. Cold work will
change the diffraction particle size. The change of residual stress is really the
combined effect of a phase transformation and cold work caused by rolling
contact. It is very hard to separate those effects and to determine how they
contribute individually to a change of residual stress. The change of diffraction
particle size indicates the existence of cold work. If from some point the amount
of retained austenite remains the same, and both residual stresses and particle size
still change, the change of residual stresses could be attributed to cold work caused
by rolling contact alone;
H. The residual stresses and retained austenite were profiled from the rolling contact
surface to a certain depth to study possible changes caused by rolling contact below
the surface.
I. The microstructures of the rollers were examined to determine if there were
microstructural changes due to rolling contact.
J. For the purpose of reconditioning rollers, the effect of annealing on the residual
stresses and retained austenite was studied.
A. EQUIPMENT
Residual stress measurement requires an X-ray diffraction unit which has 2 theta-
theta motion. Since the residual stress measurement is a very precise measurement, the X -
ray diffraction unit has to be aligned very well. Also the unit has to have sufficent beam
power in order that the high diffraction angles for zero tilt and different tilts are
measurable. Normally the diffraction angle used for stress measurement has to be a high
angle measurement as discussed before. The slit system of the unit had been chosen
carefully based on the experiments to compensate the difficulties created by the curved
surfaces of the rollers.
The unit was first aligned and calibrated by using a lithium fluoride (LiF)
standard and then the Standard Reference Material (SRM) 660t<9], which is a lanthanum
hexaboride fine powder, was used for calibration and also to analyze the error that could
be caused by angle shifting. A Nelson and Riley function was used to calculate the lattice
parameter. Figure 50 shows the accuracy of the X-ray unit that was used to measure the
residual stress, retained austenite, diffraction particle size and texture. The error of lattice
parameter caused by the error of the angular position was 0.0091%. This error is not
significant at all for residual stress measurement and will not affect the accuracy of the
measurement. Figure 51 is a picture of the Picker unit (see Appendix 2) used for this
investigation.
In order to eliminate the instrumental errors and the error caused by defocussing,
(especially the error due to the curved surface of the rollers,) the roller was coated with
annealed nickel powder and was scanned in the 26 region in which residual stresses were
measured, employing the same tilting angles used for residual stress m easurem ent. Also,
the flat specimen plated with Ni powder was scanned in the same 26 region with the same
118
tilting angles. The errors caused by a curved surface were obtained by comparing these
two sets o f scans. All the experimental results were corrected to eliminate the error caused
by the curved surface of the roller.
Nickel powder was used was because it is difficult to separate the peaks from the
powder at the surface and from the roller if iron powder had been used. Figure 52 to
Figure 55 show comparisons of the peak positions from nickel powder that was coated
onto a flat specimen and a roller. It is obvious that as the tilting angle increased, the angle
shifts caused by the curvature increased. These angle shifts were subtracted from
experimental results with respect to different tilting angles. This treatment not only
eliminated the errors caused by the curved surface of a roller, but also eliminated the error
introduced by beam defocussing at the detection plane.
According to the ASTM Standard for residual stress measurement™, to check
alignment the simple arithmetic mean and standard deviation about the mean for five
measurements should be calculated. If the mean value is within 14 MPa (2.0 Ksi) of zero,
the instrument and specimen-positioning gage can be considered to be properly aligned.
The residual stress of the (310) plane of a stress free iron powder sample were
measured five times, and Figure 56 shows one of the residual stress measurements. The
mean value for five measurements is 1.066 Ksi. According to these results and the
ASTM standard, the unit was considered to be properly aligned.
It has been realized that using different elastic constants can change the values of
residual stresses slightly. As long as the slopes of [(d.a.-dj.VdJ vs sinfy were determined,
the values o f residual stresses could be calculated by using any different elastic constant
119
and for comparing the results with other researchers’ results if the elastic constants that
they used are known.
The modulus of elasticity o f steel is a function of carbon content1771. According to
reference [77], the elastic modulus (Young’s) for iron is 30.2xl06psi, and for 1% carbon it
is 29.8 x l0 6psi. Since the change in the modulus of the elasticity caused by the difference
of the carbon content for this study will be less than 1.32%, the residual stress calculation
in this work is based on a constant elastic modulus.
The re-producibility of residual stress measurements was also examined. The
residual stress of Martensite (310) at the center position for roller #6 was measured 10
times. A fter each measurement, the roller was removed from the sample holder, and then
put back on very carefully in order that every measurement was carried out at as close to
the same position as possible. The difference was within 2.01 Ksi. The error could be
partially due to systemic error and partially due to the position change.
It must be realized that it is very difficult to analyze the residual stress results
obtained by X -ray diffraction except i f the initial conditions of the specimen are the
same. There are three primary difficulties associated with both obtaining and interpreting
surface x-ray diffraction residual stress results. First, the surface residual stresses present
on many samples of practical interest simply are not representative of the processes which
produced them. Second, many machining and grinding practices produce variations in the
surface stress that make the measurements of little value. Third, many material removal
and surface treatment processes produce subsurface stress distributions, which vary
significantly within the depth of penetration of the x-ray beam, and can cause significant
experimental error in the measurement of the surface stress.
120
LATTICE PARAMETER LaB6 STANDARD 660

1 DEG 0.01 SLIT 35Kv-15mA
4.176-
Reported: 4.15695 A
4.174-
4.172- ■ jn te r c e p t: 4 .1 5 7 3 3 A
4.17-
Lattice parameter A
4.168-
4.166- •
4.162-
4.16-
4.158
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
N-R
Figure 50. Lattice parameter of LaB Standard
121
Figure 51. Picker unit
122
Ni on Flat and Curved Surfaces

Determination of the Correction Factors
4500
4 0 0 0 -■
3500-
0 tilt
Intensity
3000-
2500-
1 5 0 0 -'
1000- -
142 144 146 148
143 145 147
2theta
F C
Figure 52. Comparison of peak position for 0 tilt
123

45 00
4000-
3500-
Intensity
3000- 2 6 .6 tilt
2 5 0 0 -'
2000 -
1000 -
142 144 148 148
143 145 147
2theta
F C
Figure 53. Comparison of peak position for 26.6 tilt
124

4000-
3500-
3000- 3 9 .2 tilt
Intensity
2 5 0 0 -'
2000-
1500- ■
1000- -
142 144 146 148
143 145 147
2 th eta
F C
125

4000
3500-
3000-
5 0 .7 tilt
Intensity
2500-
2000 -
1500-
1000 - -
500
142 144 148 148
143 145 147
2 th e ta
F C
126

Stress-Free Fe Powder
-0 .5 -
normal
(Times 1CE-5)
(D tilt-D normaty/D
- 1 .5 -
S lop e = -4 .5 E -0 5
Stress = - 1 0 4 4 psi
-as-
o 0.1 0.2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 56. Typical residual stress measurement of stress free iron powder
127
B. X -ray Depth of PENETRATION
Most metallurgical specimens strongly absorb X-rays, and the intensity of the
incident beam is reduced almost to zero a very short distance below the surface.
Consequently, the diffracted beam is due to a thin surface layer, and residual stress,
retained austenite, particle size and texture measurements apply only to that layer of
material actually producing diffraction.
The depth of penetration can be calculated from the following Equation1611:
X-------------------- —^ ------------- E q.(90)

ix [------------ +-------- 1
sin(0+i|r) sin(0-t|r)
where
X X
q - 1-g **** s in (6 + t) + sin(<t»-f) ^ Eq. (91)
Gx is the fraction of the total diffracted intensity contributed by the surface layer at a
depth of X. n is the linear absorption coefficient of the specimen.
From Equation 90, as the diffraction angle increases, the penetration depth
increases. The measurements of retained austenite, particle size and texture were carried
out at relatively low angles compared to the diffraction angles used for stress
measurements. The highest angle used in this study is 20=116.34°, which is martensite
(310), and 20=146.22°, which is austenite (420). For a steel specimen /*=2395.6 cm'1. For
^=0 tilt, by using Equation 91, the plots of Gx as function of X at martensite (310) and
128
retained austenite (420) were constructed as shown in Figure 57 and Figure 58. For
martensite (310), note that 95 percent of the information from the diffraction pattern
refers to a depth of only about 0.000135 inches(3.4 /on). Fifty percent of that information
originates in the first 0.000025 inches(6 nm). For retained austenite (420), note that 95
percent of the information from the diffraction pattern refers to a depth of only about
0.00025 inches(6.4 /un). Fifty percent of that information originates in the first 0.00005
inches(1.3 fim). Note that an effective penetration of 25 /tm means that a surface layer
only one grain thick is effectively contributing to the diffraction pattern if the specimen
has an ASTM grain size number of 8.
According to the above discussion, although the X -ray penetrates from the surface
of the measured specimen, it is reasonable to assume that the diffracted patterns refer to
the surfaces, since the depth of penetration is so shallow.
129
X-ray Penetration Depth

Residual Stress of Tempered Martensite
1.00
0 .9 0 -
0 .8 0 -
0 .7 0 -
0 .6 0 -
g 0 .5 0 -
0 .4 0 -
0 .3 0 -
0 . 20 -
0 . 10 -
0.00
0 0.0001 0.0002 0 .0 0 0 3
5 E -0 5 0 .0 0 0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 2 5
Penetration Depth (inches)
Figure 57 The fraction G„ of the total diffracted intensity contributed by a surface layer
of depth x, for /x=2395.6 cm'1, 2-7=116.37°, and normal incidence.
130
X-ray Penetration Depth

Residual Stress of Retained Austenite
1.00
0 .9 0 -
0 .8 0 -
0 .7 0 -
0 .6 0 -
g 0 .5 0 -
0 .4 0 -
0 .3 0 -
0 .20 -
0 .1 0 -
0.00
0 0.0001 0.0002 0 .0 0 0 3 0 .0 0 0 4 0 .0 0 0 5
5 E -0 5 0 .0 0 0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 2 5 0 .0 0 0 3 5 0 .0 0 0 4 5
Penetration Depth (inches)
Figure 58 The fraction G, of the total diffracted intensity contributed by a surface layer
of depth x, for n=2395.6 cm'1, 27=146.22°, and normal incidence.
131
C. RETAINED AUSTENITE AND RESIDUAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF
GRINDING OPERATION
A grinding operation may introduce cold work into components, and consequently
change the condition o f the surface stresses. The residual stresses and retained austenite of
rollers in various conditions were measured to determine the effect of the finish grinding
operations on the residual stresses and the retained austenite. Table 3, Figure 59 and
Figure 60 show the results of these measurements.
Table 3 Grinding effect on retained austenite and residual stresses

Surface condition Retained austenite % Residual Stress Residual Stress
M(310) psi RA (420) psi
Carburized & Hardened 40.4 -91,366 -25,859
1st Pass Grinding 53.5 -98,472 -38,633
2nd Pass Grinding 35.8 -131,124 -40,323
Finished Grinding 34.0 -126,770 -38,340
The residual stresses at the roller surfaces were increased by 1st pass and 2nd pass
grinding. Finished grinding reduced the compressive residual stresses to some extent.
The texture investigation showed that little or no preferred orientation was present after
finish grinding (Figure 60).
132
The Grinding Effect on

Retained Austenite & Residual Stresses
-20 55
Percentage of Retained Austenite

-4 0 -
psi
-4 5
(Thousands)
Residual Stresses
-8 0 " -4 0
-3 5
- 120 - -3 0
i■
-14 0 25
C arb u rlz e d + H a rd e n e d
1st P a s s Finished Grinding
Surface Condition
■ M(310) ▲ RA(420) + %RA
Figure 59 The effect of grinding on retained austenite and residual stresses
6 ± x l2 Rollers
133
Texture Investigation
C+H.F-P.S-P&F-G
60-1
Planes %
5 0 - ••
4 0 --
Portions of (hkl)-Oriented
30-
20 - •
10- ••
r >0 /1
S t/
ijSt r //
^ r -------- j---------HM
I
C+H F-P S-P F-G
C arb u rlzed + H ard en ed F irs t P a s s Rollers S econd P a ss [Finished Q ln d in g |
^ RA(111) £ 3 RA(200) ^ RA(220)

Q 3 ]M (1 1 0 ) YZA M(200) ^ M ( 2 1 1 )
Figure 60 Texture investigation on grinding effect of 6±xl2 Rollers
134
D. CORRELATION OF RETAINED AUSTENITE, RESIDUAL STRESS AND ROLLING
CONTACT
The residual stresses and retained austenite on the surfaces of 5 rollers (from
different bearings) were measured at each of milige checks. Table 4 shows the values of
residual stresses and retained austenite for each sample individually, and average values of
residual stresses and retained austenite and standard derivation as well. Figure 61 shows
the scattering of residual stress data for at the different milege checks and Figure 62 is
the graph of average residual stress and retained austenite vs different operational miles.
From Figure 62, the residual stresses developed rapidly from -144,071 psi to -
234,616 psi for martensite and -44,456 psi to -192,532 psi for retained austenite during
the first 26,045 miles, while retained austenite decreased about 50% (from 29.2% to
14.1%). After 26,045 miles operation, the change of residual stresses and change of the
amount o f retained austenite became very slow compared to the first 26,045 miles. For
additional 26,195 miles operation after first 26,045 miles, the residual stresses of
martensite and retained austenite changed from -234616 psi to -278,725 psi and -
192,833 psi to -220,045 psi, respectively, while the amount of retained austenite only
changed about 4%, it was clear that (1). As operational miles increased, the amount of
retained austenite decreased, which means that the transformation of retained austenite to
martensite is directly related to rolling contact. In other words, it is related to the cold
work caused by rolling contact; (2). As the amount of retained austenite decreased, the
residual compressive stresses increased. At least it seems safe to say that residual stress
hence is strongly influenced by the amount of retained austenite or residual stress is
strongly related to the transformation of retained austenite to martensite. The increase in
135
compressive residual stress was not only due to the decomposition of the unstable retained
austenite which is associated with a volume expansion, but also the compressive strain
caused by cold work during the operation due to rolling contact, which will be proven in
the following discussion on particle size.
The rollers were sectioned after residual stress and retained austenite measurements
were made to profile the hardness on the cross sectional surfaces. Figure 63 shows the
comparison of microhardness profiles, and it can be seen that there is little change in the
microhardness profiles. Although hardness is a function of the degree of cold work and
function of the amount of martensite, it is not necessarily a function of residual stress.
The cold work due to the rolling contact is big enough to activate the transformation of
retained austenite to martensite, which causes the change of residual stress because of the
volume expansion introduced by the transformation, but it only causes a slight change of
hardness.
It is necessary to explain the behavior of retained austenite and residual stresses as
a function of operation. First, in order for a martensite plate to be brought into existence
from a potential nucleation site, three kinds of deformation must take place (except for
some special cases1711) namely: the "lattice deformation", which generates a martensite
lattice from austenite, the "lattice invariant deformation", which produces an interface
with no average distortion between the two phases (i.e., an invariant habit plane), and the
deformation which accommodates the shape strain of martensite plate. All these
deformations are obtained from rolling contact. Since the transformation from austenite
to martensite is associated with a volume expansion, it introduces strain into both the
martensite and retained austenite lattices. As a consequence, the residual stresses in the
retained austenite and martensite increased with the amount of retained austenite which
136
decreased with operational miles. As Ansell and his co-workers proposed1721,1731,1741,1751,1761 the
strengthening of austenite, whatever may cause it, makes it more difficult to accommodate
plastically the shape strain of the transforming martensite plate, thus hindering any further
retained austenite to martensite transformation. That is why after a certain milege, which
relates to the degree o f the strengthening of retained austenite, the amount of retained
austenite remains almost constant. As a consequence, the residual stresses in the retained
austenite and martensite only changed slightly compared to the changing that had taken
place before.
Considering that the initial conditions were different, the scattering of the data on
the measured residual stresses are acceptable (see Figure 61).
It has been noticed that the initial surface condition of rollers is critical in
establishing the correlation between retained austenite, residual stresses and operational
miles. Further study was concentrated on: (1). measuring the retained austenite and the
residual stresses on the same roller for different operational miles not only to eliminate any
error and inconsistence that can be caused by the initial conditions, including variation of
machining, phase composition and history of heat treatment, but also to study the
distribution of residual stresses on the surface of a roller; (2). conducting all studies in the
running range of 0 to 13,413 miles because it seemed that the residual stresses and retained
austenite changed rapidly between 0 and 10,000 miles with regard to Figure 62.
137
Table 4. Residual stresses and retained austenite as a function of operational miles

Miles # Sample Retained Residual Stress Residual Stress
Austenite % M(310) psi RA(420) psi
0 #17 31.7 -143,456 -46,457
#7 29.0 -144,121 -42,140
#0 29.1 -142,998 -43,287
#4 28.4 -145,435 -47,274
#23 27.8 -144,345 -43,456
Average 29.2 | -144,071 | -44,456
STD I 1.3 | 832 | 1981
26,045 #21 11.2 -231567 -194,083
#23 15.6 -235,179 -176,089
#11 16.5 -234,789 -213,786
#20 14.5 -236,089 -189,675
#5 14.6 -235,456 -190,532
Average ! 14.5 j -234,616 ! -192,833
STD ! 1.8 j 1582 | 12134
52,240 #19 14.1 -277,990 -225,638
#8 14.5 -278,456 -228,891
#7 13.5 -279,925 -209,198
#13 12.3 -278,912 -219,879
#18 15.2 -278,342 -218,649
Average f | 13.9 1 -278,725 I -220,045
STD | j 0.98 | 669 | 6757
138
Residual Stress Distribution

15mA-35KV
Residual Compressive Stress (psi)
- 100 -
(Thousands)
- 200 -
-250-
-300
0 20 40 60
10 30 50
Running Miles
(Thousands)
▲ Omile M(310) □ 26,045 miles M (310) e i 52,240 miles M (310)

+ 0 mile RA(420) X 26,045miles RA(420) * 52,240 miles RA(420)
Figure 61. Scattering of residual stresses as function of running miles
61x12 Rollers
139
Residual Stresses & Retained Austenite

as Function of Operation
30
-2 8
Percentage of Retained Austenite

-5 0
-2 6
V)
CL
in (!) -100 -2 4
«in TJ
in
® -22
D -150J
<0
$
"3 O -20
3
‘55
0 - 200- -1 8
CC
-1 6
-2 5 0
-1 4
-3 0 0 - 12
20 40 60
10 30 50
Miles
(Thousands)
Stress-M(310) ▲ Stress-RA(420) + %RA
Figure 62. A average residual stresses and retained austenite as function of running miles
6 ix l 2 Rollers
140
Microhardness Profile
0,24,045 and 52,240 miles
64-
62-
60-
58i;
Rockwell C Scale
56-
54-
52-
50-
48-
46-
44-
42-
40i
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
The distance from surface (inches)
■ 0-mile * 26,045-miles + 52,240-miles
Figure 63. Comparison of the microhardness profiles
6±xl2 Rollers
141
E. RESIDUAL STRESS AND RETAINED AUSTENITE DISTRIBUTION
Roller #1 from a bearing designated as #1 was used for this investigation. In order
to determine the distribution of residual stresses and retained austenite along the surface
o f the roller from the one end to the other, and to understand how the distribution of
residual stress and retained austenite change during service. The roller was marked at four
locations: 0°, 90°, 180° and 270°. The residual stresses and retained austenite were
measured at three different positions (designated as top, center and bottom) for each
location from the top, which is the small end of the roller, to the bottom, which is the
large end of the roller. Also the hardness at four locations were measured. The
measurements were repeated for 0 miles of operation, and after 2422 miles, 5432 miles
and 13,413 miles of operation.
1. 0 Mile Operation:
Figure 64 shows positions where the residual stresses and retained austenite were
measured schematically. The width of the beam is about 0.50".
Figure 65, Figure 66 and Figure 67 were the examples of retained austenite
measurement at "0" location for three positions along the surface of the roller designated as
top, center and bottom, respectively. The retained austenite measurements had been
checked by a Phillips X -ray diffractometer. The error of the measurements between the
Picker (Picker 3668) and Phillips unit was 1.1%.
Figure 68-73 show examples of the results of the measurements o f residual stresses
142
for martensite (310) and retained austenite (420) of roller #1 at location "0". As discussed
previously, in the case of the existence of texture, a non-linear d-sin^2 should be obtained.
In this case, the error in measured residual stresses must be considered. Since Figure 68 to
73 showed an approximate linear relationship, residual stress measurements were
considered as being accurate.
Table 5 showed the results of measurements of residual stresses and retained
austenite for the initial condition. At the same position (top, center or bottom) and
different locations (0°, 90°, 180° and 270°) measured residual stresses varied. This was
probably caused by nonuniform grinding. Even assuming the grinding process is uniform,
it is unrealistic to expect that the different locations would have exactly the same
magnitude of residual stresses.
In order to examine the hardness along the surface of the roller and to inspect how
the hardness changes as a function of residual stress and retained austenite during the
operation, the hardness on the roller surface at four locations (named 0°, 90°, 180° and
270°) were measured by a Micro-Dur hardness tester. Figure 74 showed the hardness
distribution. There was no doubt that the smaller end was harder than the larger end.
Also it was realized that the data were scattered over a large range. This may be caused by
nonuniform grinding.
In order to study the correlation between the data for residual stress, retained
austenite and hardness, the distribution of average residual stresses and average retained
austenite, were plotted in Figure 75, the distribution of average residual stresses and
average hardness in Figure 76 and the distribution of average retained austenite and
average hardness in Figure 77.
143
Figure 75 shows the correlation between retained austenite and residual stresses.
The residual stresses on the surface of the roller was somehow higher at the smaller end
and decreased from the smaller end to the larger end. There are four major factors that
may affect this kind of stress distribution, named thermal, metallurgical, shape and
surface grinding factors. Among these factors, the thermal and metallurgical factors
seemed to be the predominate ones. In other words, the nature o f this kind of residual
stress distribution along the surface of the roller was caused by the heat treatment
processes. From Figure 76, there is no pronounced correlation between hardness and
residual stresses. From Figure 77, since the smaller end has less volume, it will be cooled
faster. As a consequence, it contains less retained austenite and has a high residual stress.
144
0 .2 5
0.50 TOP
0.50 CEN TER
1.0
0.50
BOTTOM
0.2 5
90
180
270
Figure 64. Positions where residual stresses and retained austenite were measured
on a 61x12 Roller #1-1
145
Roller #1 (Top-0) Scan

15mA-35KV
2000
1800-
R e ta in e d A u ste n ite = 28 .5 %
1600-
1400-
Intensity
1200-
1000- -
800- ■
600-
400
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
2theta
Figure 65. Retained austenite scan of Top-0
on 61x12 Roller #1-1
146
Roller #1 (Center-0) Scan

15mA-35KV
1600
1 4 0 0 - .- ..
R e ta in e d A u s te n ite = 29.6%
1200----
1000-
Intensity
800—
600-
400- •
200
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
2theta
Figure 66. Retained austenite scan of Center-0
on 6ixl 2 Roller #1-1
147
Roller #1 (Bottom-0) Scan

15mA-35KV
2200 -
2000- -
" R e ta in e d A u ste n ite = 3 1 . 2 %
1800-
1600—
RA(220)
Intensity
1400—
1200-
1000-'
600-
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
2theta
Figure 67. Retained austenite scan of Bottom-0
on 6ixl2 Roller #1-1
148

Roller # 1 -Top-0 0 Mile M(310)
-0 0 0 0 5 -
• 0.001
normal
- 0 .0 0 1 5 -
-Q002-
(D tilt-D normal)/D
-0 0 0 3 -
Slop© = - 0.00742
-0 0 0 4 -
Stress = -173,067 psi

- 0 .0 0 4 5 -
01 0.2 03 0 4 Q5 0 6
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 68. Residual stress measurement M(310) Top-0
149

Roller # 1 -Top-0 0 Mile RA(420)
0 .0 0 0 5 -
normal
- 0 .0 0 0 5 -
-Q001
(D tilt-D normal)/D
- 0 .0 0 1 5 -
-o.002 -
Slope =- 0.00429
-0 0 0 2 5 -
Stress = - 99,928 psi
- 0 .0 0 3 -
0 Q1 02 03 0 4 0 .5
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 69. Residual stress measurement RA(420) Top-0
on 6±xl 2 Roller #1-1
150

Roller # 1 -Center-0 0 Mile M(310)
- 0 .0 0 0 5
- 0.001
normal
-0 0 0 1 5 '
(D titt-D normal)/D
- 0 .0 0 2 5 -
Slop© = - 0.00626
-Qooa-
- 0 .0 0 3 5 - Stress = -145,954 psi
- 0 .0 0 4 -
0 0.1 02 0 3 0 .4 0 .5 Q6
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 70. Residual stress measurement M(310) Center-0
on 6±xl2 Roller #1-1
151

Roller #1-Center C 0 Mile RA(420)
-00002-
normal
(D tilt-D normal)/D
- 00006-
-00008
Slope = - 0 .0 0 2
- 0.001
Stress = -46,651
-00012-
0 01 03 04 05 06
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 71. Residual stress measurement RA(420) Center-0
152

Roller #1-Bottom-0 0 Mile M(310)
- 0 .0 0 0 5
-Q001
(D tilt-D normal)/D normal
- 0 .0 0 1 5 -
- 0002 -
-a 0025 S lo p e = - 0 .0 0 5 5 6
-0 0 0 3
Stress = -1 2 9 ,7 2 0
-0 0 0 3 5 -
0 0.1 02 03 04 0 .5 0.6
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 72. Residual stress measurement M(310) Bottom-0
153

Roller # 1 -Bottom-0 0 Mile RA(420)
-0 . 0002-
normal
-0.0004
(D tilt-D normal)/D
-0.0006
-q 0008- Slope = - 0 .0 0 1 8 5
-Q001 Stress = - 4 3 ,0 7 6 psi
-aooi 2
Q1 02 Q3 Q4 Q5 06
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 73. Residual stress measurement RA(420) Bottom-0
154
Hardness Profile on the Roller Surface

Roller #1 from Bearing #1 0 miles
62-
60-
59-
Rockwell C Scale
5B -
57
56-
55-
54-
53
52-
50-
) 0 .1 2 5 a 25 a3 7 5 a 5 0 .6 2 5 0 7 5 0 8 7 5 1 .1 2 5 1 .2 5 1 .3 7 5 1 .5 1 .6 2 5 1 .7 5 1 .8 7 5
0 0625 0 1 8 7 5 0 3 1 2 5 0 4 375 Q 5625 0 6 8 7 5 0 8 1 2 5 0 9 375 1 .0 6 2 5 1 .1 8 7 5 1 .3 1 2 5 1 .4 3 7 5 1 .5 6 2 5 1 .6 8 7 5 1 .8 1 2 5 1 .9 3 7 5
Distance From the Small End (inches)
0 ▲ 90 + 1 8 0
X 270 ........Average
Figure 74. The hardness distribution on the surface of the roller
6ix l2 Roller #1-1
155
Table 5 Initial residual stress and retained austenite distribution on the roller surface
0 Mile Top Center Bottom
Residual 0° M(310) -173,067 -145,954 -129,720
Stress
RA(420) -99,928 -46,651 -43,076
(psi)
90° M(310) -147,605 -139,371 -125,120
RA(420) -95,182 -58,761 -47,382

oo
O
o
M(310) -160,336 -140,821 -130,294
RA(420) -97,555 -50,445 -44,692
270° M(310) -141,690 -137,138 -136,044
RA(420) -68,829 -45,923 -43,619
Avg M(310) -155,675 -140,821 -130,294
RA(420) -90,374 -50,445 -44,692
Retained 0° 28.5 29.6 31.2
Austenite %
90° 27.6 29.7 31.8
OO
o0
28.2 29.6 30.6
270° 28.4 27.8 31.5
Average 28.2 29.2 31.3
156
Residual Stress & Retained Austenite

Distribution Roller #1 0 Mile
-4 0 r35
-33
Percentage of Retained Austenite %

Residual Stress Distribution (psi)
............. &............. -31

rp -29
............. 4>.............
(Thousands)
* -27
-25
-23
120 ..............4..............
- -
-21
-19
-140-
-17
_4 4s
n i i i i i i i “15
0 0.5 1 1-5 2
0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75
Distance From The Small End (inches)
*= Average M(310) X Average RA(420) n Average RA
Figure 75. Distribution of average residual stresses and average retained austenite
157
Residual Stress and Hardness

-4 0 -6 2
□ -6 0
□ □X
-6 0 - u .n ..ta o s itL E S .
□ -a • □ -5 8
-5 6
Hardness (HRC)
-8 0 -
(Thousands)
-5 4
-5 2
-100-
-5 0
-4 8
-120-
-4 6
-1 4 0 - -4 4
-4 2
-1 6 0 40
0 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0 .2 5 0 .7 5 1 .2 5 1.75
*= Average M(310) X Average RA(420) £□ Average Hardness
Figure 76. Distribution of average residual stresses and average hardness
on 6±x 12 Roller #1-1
158
Retained Austenite and Hardness

35 -6 2
33 -60
° .J Z L E L a. ■ 4"— -----
31- .5.0........ i...o.....rr...?fe....... -58
29- -56
Hardness (HRC)
-54
27-
-52
25-
-50
23-
-48
21 -
-46
19- -44
17- -42
15 40
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75
Retained Austenite n Hardness
Figure 77. Distribution of average retained austenite and average hardness
on 6fxl2 Roller #1-1
159
2. 2422 Miles Operation:
After finishing all of the measurements on the initial state o f the roller, the rollers
were assembled with a cage and a cone. The bearing was operated for 2422 miles on the
simulated train (see description see Appendix 3). The same measurements that had been
performed for the initial state were carried out for after 2422 miles of operation in order
to observe the changes.
Figure 78 shows the example of retained austenite measurements at location "0"
and at the center position. Figures 79 and 80 shows the results of the measurements of
residual stresses for martensite (310) and retained austenite (420) at 0 location at center
position of roller #1. The plots in both Figure 79 and Figure 80 showed a good linear
relationship between Ad/dj. and sinfy. According to previous discissions, no texture was
developed or it would cause an error in the stress measurement. Therefore, the residual
stresses measured were reliable. Figure 81 showed the hardness distribution on the surface
of the roller. Comparing Figure 81 with Figure 74, it is obvious that the hardness on the
surface of the roller was increased and the scattering range o f data was reduced due to the
rolling contact.
Table 6 shows the results of measurements of residual stresses and retained
austenite after 2422 miles operation on the simulated train. The retained austenite
decreased rapidly and residual stresses increased remarkably. For example, at the small
end (Top) retained austenite was reduced about 44% from 28.2% to 15.9% and the residual
compressive stress in martensite increased about 54% from -155,675 psi to -239,408 psi,
and the residual compressive stress in retained austenite increased about 16% from -90,374
psi to -105,422 psi. At the center, retained austenite was reduced about 41% from 29.2%
to 17.1% and residual compressive stress in martensite increased about 64% from -140,821
psi to -231,373 psi, and the residual compressive stress in retained austenite increased
about 105% from -50,445 psi to -103,842 psi. At the larger end, retained austenite was
160
reduced about 35% from 31.3% to 20.2%, the residual compressive stress in martensite
increased 64% from -130,294 psi to -214,390 psi, and the residual compressive stress in
retained austenite increased about 131% from -44,692 to -103,331 psi. The change rates
of retained austenite and residual stresses were not only proportional to the severity of
rolling contact which is dependent upon the shape of the roller, but is also determined by
the initial stress level.
Figure 82 shows the distribution of the average residual stresses and retained
austenite. There was good correlation between the amount of retained austenite and the
residual stresses in martensite and retained austenite, as shown in Figure 82. These results
correlated well with the theory that the plastic deformation induced by rolling contact
activated the transformation of retained austenite to martensite, resulting in a decrease in
the amount of retained austenite and the volume expansion associated with the
transformation caused an increase of residual compressive stresses in both retained
austenite and martensite. Of course, cold work, due to the rolling contact also changed the
stress state because in a later discussion it will be observed that for a constant retained
austenite residual stress increases along with a particle size decreases. Since the retained
austenite is much softer (ET« E M) than martensite, it may undergo deformation during the
rolling contact and the transformation expansion which release the residual stress
somewhat. This was why residual stress in martensite is always much higher than that in
retained austenite.
Figure 83 shows the distribution of average residual stress and average hardness.
Although from both Figure 83 and Figure 76, it appeared that a higher compressive
stresses associated with higher hardness, it was not clear how and how much was the
contribution of residual stress to hardness. The correlation between hardness and the
amount of retained austenite is shown in Figure 84. The lower the amount of retained
austenite, the harder the steel.
161
Roller #1 (Center-2422) Scan

15mA-35KV
2200-
2000-
R e ta in e d A u s te n ite = 17.1 %
1800- ■
1600—
Intensity
1400-
1200-
1000 - '
RA(200)
800-
400-
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
2theta
Figure 78. Retained austenite scan of center-0
on 6ix 12 Roller #1-1
162

Roller # 1 -Center-0 2422 Mile M(310)
-Q001
•0.002-
(D tilt-D normal)/D normal
-Q 0 0 4 -
■qoos- Slope = - 0 .0 1 0 0 4
- 0 .0 0 6 - Stress = - 2 3 3 ,9 7 3 psi
-Q 0 0 7 -
0.1 02 0 3 0 4 0 .5 0.6
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 79. Residual stress measurement M(310) Center-0
163
Residua! Stress Measurement 15mA-35KV

Roller # 1 -Center-0 2422 Miles RA(420)
(D tilt-D normai)/D normal
- 0.001
-Qoois-
Slope = - 0 .0 0 4 6 2
-o.0025-
Stress = - 1 0 7 ,6 4 7 psi
-0 ,0 0 3
0 01 02 0 3 0 4 0 5 0.6
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 80. Residual stress measurement RA(420) Center-0
164

Roller #1 2422 Miles
62-
60
Rockwell C Scale
50
57-
56
55
54
53
52
50-
) 0 .1 2 5 0 2 5 0 3 7 5 Q 5 0 .6 2 5 0 7 5 Q 875 1 1 .1 2 5 1 .2 5 1 .3 7 5 1 .5 1 .6 2 5 1 .7 5 1 .8 7 5 !
0 0 6 2 5 0 1 8 7 5 Q 3125 0 4 3 7 5 0 5 6 2 5 Q 6875 0 8 1 2 5 0 0 3 7 5 1 .0 6 2 5 1 .1 8 7 5 1 .3 1 2 5 1 .4 3 7 5 1 .5 6 2 5 1 .6 8 7 5 1 .8 1 2 5 1 .0 3 7 5
5K 0 ▲ 90 +180
H 270 .......Average
Figure 81. Hardness distribution of the surface of the roller
165
Table 6 The residual stress and retained austenite distribution on the roller surface after
2422 miles operation
2422 Miles Top Center Bottom
Residual 0° M(310) -237,414 -233,973 -216,510
Stress
RA(420) -103,213 -107,647 -109,253
(psi)
90° M(310) -234,965 -230,332 -211,115
RA(420) -104,386 -101,937 -105,675

o0
00
M(310) -245,576 -229,843 -215,372
RA(420) -108,413 -101,888 -97,906
270° M(310) -239,676 -231,345 -214,563
RA(420) -105,675 -103,897 -100,987
Avg M(310) -239,408 -231,373 -214,390
RA(420) -105,422 -103,842 -103,331
Retained 0° 15.9 17.1 20.2
Austenite %
90° 15.8 17.4 20.0
180° 16.2 16.8 20.3
270° 15.7 17.2 20.2
Average 15.9 17.1 20.2
166

Distribution Roller #1 2422 Miles
-8 0 35
-3 3

- 100 -
-31
- 120 -
-2 9
(Thousands)
-2 7
-1 6 0 - -2 5
-2 3
-1 8 0 -
-21
- 200-
-1 9
- 220 -
-1 7
-2 4 0 15
0 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0 .2 5 0 .7 5 1 .25 1.75
* Average M(310) X Average RA(420) n Average RA
Figure 82. Distribution of average residual stresses and average retained austenite
on 6 ix l2 Roller #1-1
Residual Stress and Hardness
-100 --64
-62
-120
-60
□ cp a a o rp a a n
-5 8
-1 4 0 -
-5 6
(Thousands)
-1 6 0 - -5 4
-52
-180- -5 0
-4 8
- 200 -
-4 6
- 220- -4 4
-42
240 -4 0
0 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0 .2 5 0 .7 5 1.25 1.75
* Average M (310) x Average RA(420) a Average Hardness
on 6ix l2 Roller #1-1
168
Retained Austenite and Hardness

29- X 64
-EJ-r-r............f ............................
-6 2
27- .Q...I...... .0 ..(3-rL..n.£l..C?..Q..o..1
£ 25- ;;-60
c©
23 ;;-58
Hardness (HRC)
214 ;;-56
"O 4>
C 19 ::-54
2© 17- --9K—- ::-52
cc "St*"
o 15: ::-5o
ID
O) 13- 1-48
<0
c4> 11: -46
2© Q_|a -44
o.
7- -42
T T T -r -r -r T --40
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75
* Retained Austenite <=• Hardness
Figure 84. Distribution of average retained austenite and average hardness
169
3. 5432 Miles operation
The same measurements were carried out after 5432 miles of operation. Figure 85
and Figure 86 were the examples of residual stress measurements of martensite and
retained austenite. Both graphs showed good linear relationship between Ad/d± and sinfy.
Table 6 showed the residual stresses and retained austenite as function of
operational miles. On comparing Table 6 with Table 5, where there was a slight change in
the amount of retained austenite, a consequence, there was no remarkable change of
residual stresses, but the rates of changes varied from the top to the bottom section.
For the top section, the retained austenite only reduced 4.4% from 15.9% (at 2422
miles) to 15.2 (at 5432 miles). The residual compressive stress in martensite increased
about 6.7% from -239,408 psi (at 2422 miles) to -255,527 psi (at 5432 miles). The residual
stress in the retained austenite increased about 4.6% from -105,422 psi (at 2422 miles) to -
110,349 psi (at 5432 miles).
For the center section, the retained austenite reduced 12.7% from 17.1% (at 2422
miles) to 14.9% (at 5432 miles). It was about 3 times as high as the top section. The
residual stress in the martensite increased 7.2% from -231,373 psi (at 2422 miles) to -
248,128 psi (at 5432 miles). The residual compressive stress in the retained austenite
increased 11.4% from -103,842 psi (at 2422 miles) to -115,762 psi (at 5432 miles).
For the bottom section, the retained austenite reduced 14.9% from 20.2% (at 2422
miles) to 17.2% (at 5432 miles). The residual compressive stress in martensite increased
12.8% from -214,390 psi (at 2422 miles) to -241,828 psi (at 5432 miles). The residual
170
compressive stress in the retained austenite increased 4.4% from -103,331 psi (at 2422
miles) to -107,901 psi (at 5432 miles).
The rates of changes of residual stresses and retained austenite along the surface of
the roller were really the combined results of severity of cold work due to the rolling
contact, and the original stress state. There seems to be no way to separate these two
factors to study them individually, but it is possible to get some rough ideas from the
data obtained:
(1). The decreasing rate of retained austenite at the top section, which had
the highest residual compressive stress, is much smaller than that at the
center and bottom sections. In other words, the higher residual
compressive stress in the previous condition, the smaller decraesing rate of
retained austenite.
(2). The increasing rate of residual stresses in martensite seemed always
higher than that in retained austenite for the same decreasing rate of
retained austenite.
(3). Comparing Tables 4, 5 and 6, the amount of retained austenite seemed
to become constant. If so, the retained austenite might be at steady state
under this experimental condition (refer to Figure 32).
The hardness distribution on the surface of the roller was shown in Figure 87. It
seemed that the surface became harder and the scattered range of data became smaller as
operational miles increased.
Figure 88 shows the distribution of the average residual stress and retained
austenite. Figure 89 shows the distribution of average residual stress and average hardness
along the surface o f the roller. Figure 90 shows the distribution of the average retained
austenite and hardness along the surface of the roller.
171

Roller # 1 -Center-0 5432 Miles M(310)
- 0.001
-Q002-
(D tilt-D nonmal)/D normal
-0004
S lope = - 0 .0 1 0 6 4
-q 005-
- 0 .0 0 6 - Stress = - 2 4 8 0 8 9 psi
-0 0 0 7
0 0.1 0.2 03 0.4 0 .5 06
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 85. Residual stress in martensite center-0
172

Roller #1-Center-0 5432 Miles RA(420)
normal
-Q 001
-0 0 0 1 5 -
(D tilt-D normal)/D
- q 002 -
Slope = - 0 .0 0 5 1 5
- 0 ,0 0 2 5
Stress = - 1 2 0 ,0 0 2 psi
- 0 .0 0 3
-0 0 0 3 5
0 01 02 03 0 .5 06
SINE SQUARED TILT
Figure 86. Residual stress in retained austenite center-0
173
Table 7 Residual stresses and retained austenite as a function of operational miles
Residual 0° M(310) -255,594 -248,089 -241,187
Stress (psi)
RA(420) -110,290 -120,002 -107,748
90° M(310) -258,970 -249,424 -243,642
RA(420) -110,878 -106,342 -107,868
180° M(310) -254,273 -246,182 -242,462
RA(420) -110,142 -111,682 -108,324
270° M(310) -253,272 -248,128 -240,021
RA(420) -110,089 -113,079 -107,665
Avg M(310) -255,527 -248,128 -241,828
RA(420) -110,349 -103,842 -107,901
Retained 0° 15.2 14.9 17.2
Austenite
90° 15.0 15.0 17.4
%
oo
O
O
15.4 14.8 17.0
270° 15.3 14.9 17.3
Average 15.2 14.9 17.2
174

64-
63-
62-
60-
Rockwell C Scale
59-
56-
57*
56-
55-
54-
53-
52-
50-
) 0 .1 2 5 0 .2 5 a 3 7 5 Q 5 0 6 2 5 0 7 5 0 8 7 5 1 .1 2 5 1 .2 5 1 .3 7 5 1 .5 1 .6 2 5 1 .7 5 1 .8 7 5
0 0 6 2 5 0 1 8 7 5 0 3 1 2 5 0 4 3 7 5 0 5 6 2 5 0 6 8 7 5 0 8 1 2 5 09375 1 .0 6 2 5 1 .1 8 7 5 1 .3 1 2 5 1 .4 3 7 5 1 .5 6 2 5 1 .6 8 7 5 1 .8 1 2 5 1 .9 3 7 5
5K 0 ▲ 90 + 1 8 0
X 270 ........Average
Figure 87. Hardness distribution along the surface o f the roller
175

-8 0 ■36
34
-100

sjc X 32
X
-120 30
28
-1 4 0
(Thousands)
26
-1 6 0 24
22
20
18
i | | ! | 41 1
-220 16
I «? | cp j ; ;
14
-2 4 0 -f
Ik......
..... *
12
...
-2 6 0 10
0 .5 1 1.5
0 .2 5 0 .7 5 1 .2 5 1 .75
x Average M (310) x Average RA(420) □ Average RA
Figure 88. Distribution of average residual stresses and retained austenite
176
Residual Stress & Hardness

-100 -r 6 4
-6 2
-120
Residua! Stress Distribution (psi)
ip a c m g Q Q q -6 0
a D °ac3aaa
-1 4 0 - -5 8
Hardness (HRC)
-5 6
(Thousands)
-1 6 0 -
-5 4
-1 8 0 - -5 2
-5 0
- 200 -
-4 8
- 220 - -4 6
-4 4
-2 4 0 -
-4 2
-2 6 0 --4 0
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2
0 .2 5 0 .7 5 1 .2 5 1 .7 5
^ Average M (310) x Average RA(420) a Average RA
177
Residual Stress & Hardness

3 6 -r -6 4
□
34- □ -6 2
32- .9..E..5..d3..a.E..E.* ^ .
tf n a a t ? a l-l n -6 0
30-
-5 8
28-
Hardness (HRC)
-5 6
26-
-5 4
24-
-5 2
22 -
-5 0
20 - -
-4 8
1 8 --
1 6 -- .-4 6
14- -4 4
12- -4 2
-4 0
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2
0 .2 5 0 .7 5 1 .2 5 1 .7 5
* Retained Austenite □ Hardness
Figure 90. Distribution of the amount of retained austenite and hardness
178
4. 13413 Miles and Summary
Finally the measurements were carried out after 13413 miles of operation. Table 7
shows the retained austenite and residual stresses after 13413 miles of operation. Figure 91
shows the retained austenite and residual stress distribution on the roller surface. Figure
92 shows the hardness measured along the surface. The rolling contact did increase the
hardness along the surface.
179
Table 8 Residual stresses and retained austenite after 13413 miles operation
Residual 0° M(310) -271,251 -265,435 -258,190
Stress (psi)
RA(420) -139,464 -132,497 -138,342
90° M(310) -273,321 -263,681 -257,765
RA(420) -137,479 -133,998 -137,987

O
00
o
M(310) -272,426 -265,219 -259,004
RA(420) -140,321 -132,432 -138,456
270° M(310) -274,123 -266,211 -258,368
RA(420) -140,587 -135,978 -138,777
Avg M(310) -272,780 -265,136 -258,331
RA(420) -139,462 -133,726 -138,390
Retained 0° 9.8 10.2 10.5
Austenite
90° 10.8 10.7 10.5
%
180° 10.2 10.6 10.8
270° 10.4 10.3 10.7
Average 10.3 10.5 10.6
180

- io o r30
-2 8

-2 6
i/i 9t
9! 9: -2 4
&
c -1 5 0 -22
o
'■ -20
xi§ ~w
-1 8
5 § -1 6
° <5 -200
i/i
-1 4
-12
C3 C C3
-10
TB
3 -8
"D -2 5 0 -
'i/i -6
4> 56
CC 5e -4
-2
-0
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2
0 .2 5 0 .7 5 1 .2 5 1 .7 5
Average M (310) X Average RA(420) n Average RA
Figure 91. Residual stresses and retained austenite distribution along the surface after
13413 miles on 6^x12 Roller #1-1
181

64*
63
62*
60*
Rockwell C Scale
58-
57
56*
55-
54-
53
52*
50*
I 0 .1 2 5 0 .2 5 tt3 7 5 0 .5 0 6 2 5 0 7 5 0 8 7 5 1 .1 2 5 1 .2 5 1 .3 7 5 1 ,5 1 .6 2 5 1 ,7 5 1 .8 7 5
00625 0 1 8 7 5 0 3 1 2 5 0 4 3 7 5 0 5 6 2 5 0 6 8 7 5 0 8 1 2 5 0 9 3 7 5 1 .0 6 2 5 1 .1 8 7 5 1 .3 1 2 5 1 .4 3 7 5 1 .5 6 2 5 1 .6 8 7 5 1 .8 1 2 5 1 .9 3 7 5
■X o ▲ 90 +180
X 270 ........Average
Figure 92. Hardness along the surface after 13413 miles
182
As operational miles increased, the surface of the roller became harder due to the
cold work and the transformation caused by rolling contact. Figure 93 shows the hardness
distribution along the surface of the roller after 0, 2422, 5432 and 13413 miles operation.
Not only has the value of the average hardness changed, but also the difference in
hardness between the smaller end and the larger end became larger which was indicated by
the standard deivation change as operational miles increasing.
Figure 94 and Figure 95 show the residual stresses in the martensite and in the
retained austenite for different operational miles, respectively. It also was realized that
the shape of the residual stress distribution changed as the operational miles. The rates of
change of residual stresses varied from one position to another. Again, as discussed
previously, the rates depended upon not only the severity of cold work, which was caused
by rolling contact and could affect the transformation, but also the previous retained
austenite and residual stress levels. After 13,413 miles operation, the highest residual
stress in martensite was on the smaller end (top) and decreasing along the surface of the
roller to the larger end (bottom).
The residual stresses in the martensite and in the retained austenite increased as
running miles increased as shown in Figures 96 and 97. The residual stresses increased
very rapidly during the first 2422 miles, the retained austenite was at the so called "shake
downH[451stage (Figure 32). For example, the residual stress in martensite at the center
increased about 64% from -140821 psi (0 mile) to -231373 psi (2422 miles). From 2422
miles to 5432 miles, the change rate of the amount of retained austenite became much
lower than before. As consequence, there were no significant changes in the residual
stresses in martensite and retained austenite. For example, the residual stress in martensite
at the center increased only 7% from -231,373 psi (22422 miles) to -248,128 psi (5432
183
miles) for next 3010 miles after the first 2422 miles. In the case of the residual stress in
retained austenite, at the center, the residual stress increased about 105% from -50,445 psi
(0 miles) to -103,842 psi (2422 miles) for the first 2422 miles, but for the next 3010 miles,
the residual stress in retained austenite only increased about 11% from -103,842 psi (2422
miles) to -115,762 psi (5432 miles). The reason for this behavior is believed to be the
strengthening of retained austenite caused by cold work introduced during rolling contact,
and strain introduced by transformation due to rolling contact, which makes it more
difficult for the retained austenite to martensite transformation to occur. The amount of
retained austenite almost became a constant. The retained austenite was at the so called
"steady-state"stage [4S] (Figure 32). It seemed that the amount of retained austenite at this
steady-state stage was about 15%. This number was in surprisingly good agreement with
reference [74]. In other words, only about 50% o f initial retained austenite could be
transformed to martensite due to rolling contact before the retained austenite reached the
"steady state". From Figure 94, 95, 96 and 97, it appeared that the residual stresses in
martensite and retained austenite were controlled by the amount of retained austenite that
transformed. The lower the amount of retained austenite, which means that more retained
austenite had been transformed to martensite with the associated volume expansion, the
higher the residual stresses. Although after 5432 miles, the amount of retained austenite
changed slightly with contact rolling, the retained austenite was still in the "steady state"
stage.
Figure 98 shows the residual stresses o f martensite and retained austenite for
different operational miles.
184

Roller #1 from Bearing #1
65
64
63
62
61 ■.r T - - f - * - 4 - * - - ^ ............... [........ f
Rockwell C Scale
60 | ........f ....
59 - j 4 ................* ...................... 4 ....................... j ............................................................................................
w * * ; * * I * * * I a
58 ■ * -] T t* - i--*r4- "S f ........
57
56
55
0 mile: 2422 miles: 5432 miles: 13413 miles:
54-
Average: 58.5 Average: 59.6 Average: 60.1 Average: 60.4
53
STD: 0.88 STD: 0.98 j...... STD: 1.10 ...I.... STD: 1.2
52-
51-
50- — I--------- 1------------1-----------1---------- 1-----------1---------- 1-----------1-----------1---------- 1---------- 1----------- 1-----------1---------- 1----------- 1—
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
0.125 0.375 0.625 0.875 1.125 1.375 1.625 1.875
=* 0 miles ▲ 2422 miles + 5432 miles x 13,413 miles
Figure 93. Hardness distribution on the roller surface
of 6 ix l2 Roller #1-1
185
Distribution of Residual Stresses

as a Function of Operational Miles
-120
1 I I I i +
-140 *..........;..........r......... t.................... j.......... t.........
-160
1 * i I I 1
-1 8 0 -
(Thousands)
-200
i I i | I x
-220
| | | *
: ........■......... T..........!..........!......... [+j.........
• I • CP :
1 41 1 1 1 4-
i I 1? i i
-280-
i * i i ! i
-300
0.5 1 1.5
0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75
* M(310)-0 X M(310)-2422 □ M(310)-5432 El M(310)-13413
Figure 94. Residual stress in martensite distribution
186
Distribution of Residual Stresses

-20
-4 0
-6 0
(Thousands)
-8 0 -
*
- 100 -
x §
-120
El
..a ..
-140H
-160- f -r
0 .5 1.5
0 .2 5 0 .7 5 1.25 1.75
* RA(420)-0 X RA (420)-2422 □ RA (420)-5432 El RA(420)-13413
Figure 95. Residual stress in retained austenite distribution
187
Residual Stresses & % Retained Austen ite

vs Operational Miles
-6 0 -3 5
-8 0 j

-lo o t -3 0
-120-
<0 -25
Q. -1 4 0 -
<0 <0
<0 “O -160j
-20
1 1 -1 8 0 - "0“
*i
to G
-200-1
X
-1 5
a> -220-
CC
-10
-2 4 0 --
Mi
-2 6 0 -
* : -5
-2 8 0 -
-3 0 0 - i -------- r - ------1—----------- 1-------------1------- ------ 1------------- i-------
4 8 12 16
2 6 10 14
Miles
(Thousands)
* M(310)-Top A M (310)-Center + M(310)-Bottom

2 RA%-Top □ RA%-Center ■ RA%-Bottom
Figure 96. Residual stress in martensite, retained austenite and running miles
on 6 ix l 2 Roller #1-1
188
Residual Stresses & %Retained Austenite

vs Operational Miles
0 -35
-10

-20 30
-3 0
-4 0
<n -25
O. -5 0
V) 0>
u> 73 -6 0
£ 5 20
<0 V)
-7 0
3 □
S o -8 0 - S"
3 -15
-g -9 0 ^ '
'm
<D
IX
-100
-110-1 -10
-120
-130-1 -5
-1 4 0
-1 5 0 1 ....... 1 i ----- i ------ 1— --------- 1------------- 1-----------
4 8 12 16
2 6 10 14
Miles
(Thousands)
* RA(420)-Top ▲ RA(420)-Center + RA(420)-Bottom
2 RA%-Top n RA%-Center ■ RA%-Bottom
Figure 97. Residual stress in retained austenite, retained austenite and running miles
189
Residual Stresses Vs Operational Miles

Top-Center-Bottom
0-
- 20 -
-4 0 i~
-6 0 +
-8 0 ;
Residual Stress psi
- 100 -
(Thousands)
- 120 ; JL.
- 1 4 0 - .............. j............... t.............. I ................ i...............|............... | ....... *
-1 6 0 i?............... j............... T.............. I ................ j...............:............... t............
-1 8 0 -
- 200 -
□
- 2 20 -
-2 4 0 -I..................... t.........j -
-2 6 0 -)............... i............... r......... * -
-2 8 0 -
-3 0 0 - 1 ' 1 i - .........i-------------1— — i------------- 1-----------
4 8 12 16
2 6 10 14
Miles
(Thousands)
M(310)-Top A M(310)-Center d M (310)-Bottom
s: RA(420)-Top + RA(420)-Center X RA(420)-Bottom
Figure 98. Residual stresses and running miles
190
F. TH E CHANGE OF DIFFRACTION PARTICLE SIZE AS A FUNC TIO N OF
OPRATIONAL MILES
Particle size investigation was carried out for Roller #1 for different running miles
to further verify the cold work due to the rolling contact. Figures 99 and 100 show the
particle sizes of different planes as function of operational miles for martensite and
retained austenite, respectively.
Referring to these figures, as the operational mileage increased, the particle sizes
for all planes decreased. The more severe a location had been cold worked, the higher was
the decreasing rate of particle size as indicated by the slopes of the curves. For example,
the curve for changing in particle size for Top-M(200), shown in Figure 99, had a much
steeper slope than did the slope for the Bottom-M(200). The slope of Center-M(200) was
in between the slopes of Top-M(200) and Bottom-M(200). Theoretically, cold work will
decrease the particle size. By looking at the curves, it is obvious that the top section of the
roller had been cold worked more severely than the center and bottom sections thereby
confirming the previous analysis.
After 5432 miles of operation, the retained austenite is at "steady state" stage, but
the particle size and residual stresses are still changing as the opertaion of miles increase.
These changes of residual stresses could be considered due to cold work, caused to a great
extent by rolling contact.
Using Equation 82 the dislocation density was calculated and graphed as Figure
101 and Figures 102.
191
Particle Size of M(200) & M(211)

72
68 ;;
Particle Size (A)
66 -
64-
62-
60-
58-
56
0 4 8 12
2 6 10 14
Miles
(Thousands)
* Top-M(200) - Top-M(211) + Center-M(200)

^ Center-M(211) n Bottom-M(200) X Bottom-M(211)
Figure 99. Particle sizes of martensite planes as function of running miles
192
Particle Size of R(200) & R(220)

Particle Size (A)
O'
4 8 12
2 6 10 14
Miles
(Thousands)
* Top-R(200) - Top-R(220) + Center-R(200)

x Center-R(220) a Bottom-R(200) X Bottom-R(220)
Figure 100. Particle sizes o f retained austenite planes as function of running miles
193
Dislocation Density of M(200) & M(211)

9.0
8.5-
Dislocation Density (1/cm2)
(Times 10E12)
8 .0 -
7.0-
6.5-
6.0*
0 4 8 12
2 6 10 14
Miles
(Thousands)
* Top-M(200) - Top-M(211) + Center-M(200)

x Center-M(211) a Bottom-M(200) x Bottom-M(211)
Figure 101. Dislocation density as function of running miles
194
Dislocation Density of R(200) & R(220)

...... i +! &
Dislocation Density (1/cm2)
+ =
(Times 10E12)
d | a | [ | ! n
C1 .............
^ x ! ! 1 1
3. ............... j......... j .............. : | : V
x I i i
3. ........... j................ 1................1................ j................ I ................
3. 3f
' i i i i ■ i
0 8 12
6 10 14
Miles
(Thousands)
* Top-R(200) - Top-R(220) + Center-R(200)

s Center-R(220) □ Bottom-R(200) X Bottom-R(220)
Figure 102. Dislocation density as function of running miles
on 6 fx l2 Roller #1-1
195
G. TEXTURE IN V ES TIG A TIO N
As previously discussed, the portion of different planes were graphed as a function
of operational miles. Rolling contact did not cause pronounced changes in preferred
orientation. The texture investigation for 0, 26045 and 52240 miles of operation was not
carried out on the same roller (Figure 103). Since it is possible that these rollers had
different initial conditions, there is some concern abot the data on texture development.
Texture at three locations (top, center and bottom) was measured on the same roller
(Roller #1) for different miles (Figures 104, 105 and 106 show the average of 4
measurements). Rolling contact did not seem to cause significant texture development,
although the portions of each of the orientated planes was slightly varied from one location
to other. There was no clear correlation between texture development and rolling contact.
The accuracy of the residual stress measurement was examined by checking the
linearity of the curves of Ad/d J. and sinfy. Since all Ad/d J. and sinV showed an
approximate linear relationship, the measurements of residual stresses were considered
accurate although the error caused by texture could exist.
196
Texture Investigation
0, 26,045 & 52,240 Miles
Portions of(hkl)-Oriented Planes (%)
Rollers
W raq n ) F?a ra (2oo) re s

□ 3 ]M (1 1 G » WM(200) r a M(211)
Figure 103. Texture investigation for 0,26045 and 52240 miles
on 6±xl2 Roller
197
Texture Investigation of Roller #1

0, 2422, 5432 and 13413 miles TOP
§
1 34 13
Rollers
RA(111) [ 2 3 RA(200) S 3 S RA(220)

^ M (1 1 0 ) ^ M (2 0 0 ) T O M(211)
Figure 104. Texture investigation for 0,2422,5432 and 13413 miles (Top)
on 6 fx l2 Roller #1-1
198

0, 2422, 5432 and 13413 miles Center
id :
2422 5432 1 3413

Rollers
RA(111) 2 2 RA(200) RA(220)

ES]M (110) P ^ M (2 0 0 ) ra M (2 1 1 )
Figure 105. Texture investigation for 0,2422,5432 and 13413 miles (Center)
on 6ix 12 Roller #1-1
199

0, 2422, 5432 and 13413 miles BOTTOM
13413
Rollers
H I RA(111) 2 2 RA(200) RA(220)

^ M (1 1 0 ) £ 2 M(200) T O M(211)
Figure 106. Texture investigation for 0,2422,5432 and 13413 miles (Bottom)
200
H. RETAINED AUSTENITE AND RESIDUAL STRESS PROFILES AS FUNCTION OF
OPERATIONAL MILES
Measurements of the residual stresses and the phase composition were made not
only on the surface but also after eletropolishing to prescribed depths to investigate the
correlation between the amount of retained austenite, residual stress and mileage. Since
the Roller #1 had to be used for further studying, Rollers #6 and #22, which were from
the same bearing, were used for this destructive study.
The phase composition was presented in terms of the volume percent of retained
austenite. Except for the first 0.005 inches, the retained austenite content of the case
decreased in a smooth curve. Figure 107 shows retained austenite and residual stress
profiles of Roller #6, which had not been run. The maximum residual stresses in
martensite and retained austenite are below the rolling contact surface about 0.015-0.020
inches. After this point the stresses rise toward tension. Below the contact surface from
0-0.025 inches, the magnitude of the residual stresses were strongly influenced by the
amount of retained austenite. That is, the greater the extent of transformation to
martensite, the greater the compressive stresses. The grinding process apparently to
introduces compressive residual stresses in a thin surface layer (about 0.005 inches). The
amount of retained austenite was reduced by this grinding process. The magnitude of
residual stress in martensite is about three times as high as that in retained austenite.
Figure 108 shows the profiles of retained austenite and residual stresses for Roller
#22, which was run for 13,413 miles. The magnitude of the residual stresses was
dominated by the transformation, in other words, they were controlled by the amount of
retained austenite below the surface from 0-0.025 inches. The maximum residual stress in
201
martensite was below the contact surface about 0.0125 to 0.0175 inches. The maximum
residual stress in retained austenite was below the contact surface about 0.020 to 0.025
inches. The retained austenite at the surface was reduced to about 15%, which means that
65% of the initial retained austenite was transformed by the rolling contact. Although the
residual stress in martensite was much higher than that in retained austenite, at the surface
layer the ratio of the residual stresses in martensite and in retained austenite was not as
high as that for 0 mileage. Probably the strengthening of retained austenite caused by
rolling contact made transformation more difficult so that the residual stresses caused by
transformation was limited. At the surface layer (about 0.015 inches), it seemed that
rolling contact had a stronger effect on the residual stress in martensite versus retained
austenite.
To see the possible effect of rolling contact on residual stresses and retained
austenite in the cross section, Figures 109 and 110 show the profiles for retained austenite
and the residual stresses in martensite and retained austenite, respectively. Figure 111
shows the profiles of retained austenite and residual stresses for Roller #6 (0 mile) and
Roller #22 (13,413 miles). From Figures 109, 110 and 111, it is apparent that rolling
contact did not have a very pronounced effect on the profiles of residual stresses except in
the surface layer from 0 to 0.0125 inches. Rolling contact also affected the profile of
retained austenite in the surface layer. Figure 112 shows the profile in terms of
percentage of change of residual stresses and retained austenite. From Figure 109, 110 and
112, it can be seen that the rolling contact not only increased the residual stresses at the
surface tremendously, but it also affected the profiles in the surface layer, because it
caused transformation at the surface as well as under the surface. Although the
magnitudes of the maximum residual stresses did not change significantly, the peaks of the
maximum residual stresses became broader. Figure 119 shows the picture of rollers after
electropolished.
202
Profile of Roller #6-0 mile

Retained Austenite %
Residual Stress (psi)
(Thousands)
0 0.01 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .0 7
0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 3 5 0 .0 4 5 0 .0 5 5 0 .0 6 5 0 .0 7 5
Depth from the surface (inches)
M(310)-0 - A - RA(420)-0 RA%-0
Figure 107. Retained austenite and residual stresses profiles for Roller #6 (0 mile)
on 6±x 12 Roller #6-1
203
Profile of Roller #22-13413 miles

35
- 20 -
( fij-i-®- i i
J ......... ...... - w r f ^ H r : -3 0
...
-2 5
(Thousands)
20
- 2 2 0 - jj h15
-240-'
-260t r 10
-280-
-300-
-320- f f f t- f f
0 0.01 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .0 7
0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 3 5 0 .0 4 5 0 .0 5 5 0 .0 6 5 0 .0 7 5
~ Q - M(310)-13413 H S - R(420)-13413 RA%-13413
Figure 108. Retained austenite and residual stresses profiles for Roller #22 (13413 mile)
204
Roller # 6 and F22 Profile

Retained Austenite & Residual Stress
o
-20
-4 0
-6 0 30
-8 0
-100 25
(Thousands)
-120
-14 0i
-1 6 0 - 20
-1 8 0
- 200 -
- 220 -
15
-2 4 0
10
-2 8 0 -
-3 0 0 -
- 3 2 0 i------------1-1------------ 1-1------------ 1-1------------ 1-1------------1--1----------- i-1------------i-i-------F5
0 0.01 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .0 7
0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 3 5 0 .0 4 5 0 .0 5 5 0 .0 6 5 0 .0 7 5
# 6 : 0 mile # 2 2 :1 3 4 1 3 miles
M (310)-0 - » e - RA%-0 " O - M (310)-13413 - + ~ RA%-13413
Figure 109. Retained austenite and residual stresses in martensite profiles
on 61x12 Roller #6-1 and #22-1
205

35
-20 - ........
-40: ^
- 6 0 - J " }. -3 0
-ao>w
-100 -#■■ -2 5
(Thousands)
- 1 2 0 - :r
-1 4 0 -r "
-1 6 0 -f -20
-180- f
■ 2 0 0 -i
■ 2 2 0 -1 -1 5
■ 240-
■260- -
-10
■280.......
300-
3 2 0 -----
0 0.01 0.02 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .0 7
0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 3 5 0 .0 4 5 0 .0 5 5 0 .0 6 5 0 .0 7 5
# 6 : 0 mile # 2 2 :1 3 4 1 3 miles
RA(420)-0 RA%-0 - ® - R(420)-13413 - + ” ■ RA%-13413
Figure 110. Retained austenite and residual stresses in retained austenite profiles
on 6 ix l2 Roller #6-1 and #22-1
206

(Thousands)
-3 2 0
0 0 .0 1 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .0 7
0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 3 5 0 .0 4 5 0 .0 5 5 0 .0 6 5 0 .0 7 5
Depth from the su rface (inches)
# 6 : 0 mile # 2 2 : 1 3 4 1 3 miles
M(310)-0 - ± - RA(420)-0 RA%-0

- - B - M (310)-13413 "® " R(420)-134 1 3 RA%-13413
Figure 111. Retained austenite and residual stresses profiles
on 6±x 12 Roller #6-1 and #22-1
207
Profile of Change of
180-]
160^
Change of Retained Austenite %

Change of residual stresses %
-1 0
140-
120 - -2 0
-3 0
80-
60- -4 0
-5 0
60
-20 -7 0
0 0.01 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .0 7
0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 3 5 0 .0 4 5 0 .0 5 5 0 .0 6 5 0 .0 7 5
Depth from th e surface (inches)
# 6 : 0 mile # 2 2 : 1 3 4 1 3 miles
Stress-M (310) - A - Stress-RA(420) - a e - Retained Austenite
Figure 112. Retained austenite and residual stress profiles in terms of percentage of
change
on 6^x12 Roller #6-1 and #22-1
208
I. MICROSTRUCTURE INVESTIGATION
All metallographic samples were pre-etched by 2% Nital for 30 seconds first and
etched by Picral for 10 minutes in a ultrasonic bath. To achieve better contrast the
samples were slightly polished after etching by Picral and then etched by 2% Nital for 45
minutes by immersing the samples in the Nital solution.
The grain size of the rollers is about ASTM 9 according to the measurements on 5
rollers. Figure 113 shows the grain size of one of the samples. The microstructures were
examined the rollers that had been run for 0, 13413 miles (Figures 114 and 115). In order
to see if there was any microstructural change for over 13413 miles operation, the
microstructures of rollers which had been run for 0, 26045, and 52240 miles were also
examined (Figures 116, 117 and 118). The retained austenite in roller (#6) that was not
run was 29.8% as measured by X-ray. The retained austenite of the same roller was
30.2% measured by a computer scanning technique based on the picture. The retained
austenite in roller (#22), which was run for 13413 miles, was 10.4%.
Comparing Figures 114 and 115, it was obvious that the amount of retained
austenite was reduced and the remaining retained austenite was fragmented to a much
smaller size by the martensite plates due to the cold work caused by rolling contact. The
same conclusion can be drawn also by comparing Figures 116, 117 and 118.
The microstructural investigation gave a visible verification of the change of the
retained austenite as indicated by X-ray diffractionthe measurement. The microstructural
investigation also showed the martensite plates fragmenting the remaining retained
austenite to a smaller size due to the rolling contact, which led to the increase of the
residual stresses.
cr,
0005 3.0K 1 i j . f J fl'l W 0 1
Figure 113. Grain size of 4320 bearing steel
210
F i g u r e 114. M i c r o s t r u c t u r e o f R o l l e r # 6 - 1 0 mi l e
F i g u r e 115. M i c r o s t r u c t u r e o f R o l l e r # 2 3 - 1 13413 mil es
211
F i g u r e 116. M i c r o s t r u c t u r e o f R o l l e r # 1 2 0 m i l e
F i g u r e 117. M i c r o s t r u c t u r e o f R o l l e r # 4 26045 mil es
212
F i g u r e 1 18. M i c r o s t r u c t u r e o f R o l l e r # 8 52240 miles
F i g u r e 119. P i c t u r e o f Ro ll er s a f t e r E l e c t r o p o l i s h e d
213
J. ANNEALING STUDIES
The residual stresses and retained austenite at the surface of Roller 84-85, which
was a used roller, were measured for the as received condition first. In order to see the
annealing effect, the roller was annealed in a vacuum furnace at 176°C for 3 hours, and
then the residual stresses and retained austenite were measured again . In order to study
the annealing effect on the residual stresses and retained austenite after eletropolishing,
the roller was annealed at 176°C for an additional 3 hours after electropolishing and the
stresses and retained austenite were measured (see table 9).
Table 9. The effect of annealing and electropolishing on residual stresses and retained
austenite
Residual Stress (psi) Retained Austenite

%
M(310) RA(420)
84-85 as received -237,035 -124,483 7.6
84-85 Annealed at 176°C -211,134 -97,362 7.4
for 3 hours
84-85 Annealed and -152,588 -68,594 28.5
Electropolished
84-85 Annealed at 176° -140,395 -55,629 28.3
for 3 hours,
Electropolished and
Annealed at 176°C for 3
hours
Although the amount of retained austenite remained the same after annealing, in
agreement with previous studies, the residual stresses in martensite and retained austenite
were reduced 11% and 22%, respectively. After electropolishing the measurement showed
28.5% retained austenite due to removal of the cold worked layer. Compared to the
residual stresses on the surface, the residual stress in the martensite and retained austenite
214
were reduced 55% and 45%, respectively. A fter electropolishing and annealing, the
amount o f retained austenite remained the same. Referring to the residual stresses after
eletropolishing, the residual stress in martensite and retained austenite were reduced 8%
and 19%, respectively.
According to this study and previous work, it can be concluded that:
(1) The normal annealing (176°C for 3 hours) will not change the amount o f
retained austenite.
(2) The normal annealing process will not change the residual stress status
significantly at surface, but it does reduce the magnitude of the
compressive stress to some extent.
(3) A fter electropolishing, residual stresses are reduced significantly because
the cold-worked layer has been removed by electropolishing.
(4) Residual stress status is influenced strongly by the transformation of
retained austenite to martensite.
215
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Grinding processes affected residual stresses on the surface of a component to the
depth of 0.005 inches and sometimes it caused preferred crystal orientation.
(2) Rolling contact introduced residual compressive stresses at the rolling contact
surface regardless of the positions along the surface.
(3) The magnitudes of residual compressive stresses were influenced most strongly by
the amount of retained austenite, in other words, by the transformation caused by
the rolling contact.
(4) The residual stresses increased as rolling contact increased. The increasing level of
residual stresses varied from the positions along the rolling contact surface and
depended upon the previous residual stress and retained austenite levels.
(5) In the first 2422 miles of operation, the amount of retained austenite decreased
rapidly, as a consequence, the residual stresses increased remarkably. The retained
austenite was at the stage of "shake down". Between 2422 and 5432 miles, the
retained austenite remained constant and the residual stresses only increased
slightly. The retained austenite was at the stage of "steady-state". Since there was
no transformation, this change of residual stresses might be due only to cold
working. The limit for the transformation of the initial amount of retained
austenite was about 50% (from 30% to 15%). Although, after 5432 miles of
operation, the retained austenite decreased slightly, the retained austenite is still at
216
the "steady state" stage since the change in the amount of the retained austenite is
so small compared to the first 5432 miles of operation. The changes in the residual
stresses was most likely casued by cold work induced by rolling contact.
(6) Rolling contact did not cause pronounced texture although the portions of planes
varied during the operation.
(7) The change of residual stresses at the rolling contact surface was due to two
factors: (a) the transformation caused by rolling contact as indicated by the change
in the amount of retained austenite; (b) the cold work caused by rolling contact as
indicated by the decrease in particle size and increase dislocation density.
(8) Rolling contact affected the profiles of residual stresses and retained austenite
from the surface to 0.0025 inches below the rolling contact surface. Although it
did not change the magnitude of the maximum residual stresses, it made the peaks
of the maximum residual stresses broader. However the difference between the
profiles could also be caused by the initial condition of the rollers since that the
profiles were not carried out on the same roller.
217
Appendix 1
The relationship between radial load (Fr), the number of rollers (Z), the maximum
load on a roller (Q ), and load distribution integral (Jr(e)) is shown by following
equation1321:
Fz - * £U -J-r (e)
Table 10 shows the maximum stresses between a cup and a roller for the various
load distribution factors (e ).
Table 10 the maximum stresses vs the load distribution factors
E Q n_ ' (lb) Qr™T (lb) b (inch) (Psi) 6 (inch)
0.1 0.1268 5743.38 5831.98 0.009686 207306.9 0.000653
0.2 0.1737 4192.64 4257.31 0.008275 177122.4 0.000492
0.3 0.2055 3543.85 3598.52 0.007608 162842.4 0.000423
0.4 0.2286 3185.74 3234.89 0.007214 154395.7 0.000384
0.5 0.2453 2968.86 3014.66 0.006964 149047.5 0.000361
* The maximum load applied on the bearing
** The maximum load normal to a roller
*** The maximum stress between a roller and a cup
**** The deformation of a roller or a cup
218
Appendix 2
Picker Unite 3668
G enerator Inel XRG 2500
Controller Random technology DEC-332
Step motors for motor 1 and motor 2
219
Appendix 3
Simulated train
The bearing were operated in a full scale laboratory bearing tester that simulated
actual railroad operation. Four bearing assemblies (including the bearing #1 assemly with
the roller #1) were mounted on an axle, loaded in three point bending to sixty-seven
thousand pounds (33,500 pounds/bearing) and then the axle was rotated at an equivalent
velocity of 60 miles/hour.
220
References
[1] Geoffrey Parrish. "The Influence of Microstructure on the Properties of Case-
Carburized Components" American Society for Metals
[2] R.O. Ritchie and M. Horn. Metall. Tans. 9A (19781 331/341.
[3] Metals Handbook, Properties and selection: Iron and Steels. Vol 1, ASM
[4] Metals Handbook, 8th Ed, Vol 8, ASM
[5] C.S. Roberts, "Effect of Carbon on the Volume Fractions and Lattice Parameters of
Retained Austenite and Martensite", Trans TMS-AIME, Vol 197, 1953, p 55-60
[6] Chester F. Jatczak, "Retained Austenite and Its Measurements by X-Ray
Diffraction". Manual SP-453, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1979, p 13.
[7] G. Krauss, "Principles of Heat Treatment of Steel" American Society for Metals
[8] E. C. Bain and H. W. Paxton, "Alloying Elements in Steel" 2nd Ed., American
Society for Metals, Metals Park, Oh., 1961
[9] M. Cohen, "The Strengthening of Steel", Trans TSM-AIME, Vol 224, 1962, p 638-
656
[10] J. W. Christian, in Martensite Fundamentals and Technology, E.R. Petty (Ed.),
Longdon, 1970, p i3
[11] E. C. Bain and H. W. Paxton, "Alloying Elements in Steel", American Society for
Metals, Metals Park, Oh., 1966, p 36
[12] B. A. Bilby and J. W. Christian, "The Crystallography of Martensite
Transformation", JISI, Vol 197,1961, p 122-131
[13] W. F. Smith "Structure and Properties of Engineering Alloys", McGraw-Hill Book
Company
[14] A. R. Marder and G. Krauss, "The Morphology of Martensite in Iron-Carbon
Alloys", Trans ASM, Vol 60, 1967, p 651-660
[15] J. D. Verhoeven, "Fundamentals of Physical Metallurgy", Wiley, 1975, p 470.
221
[16] P. G. Shewmon, "Transformation in Metals", J. Williams Book Co., 1983, pp 347-
354.
[17] A. G. "Interrelation of isothermal and continuous-cooling heat treatments of low-
alloy steels and their practical significance". Heat Treatment of Metals. Special
Report 95, 13-23. The Iron and Steel Institute. 1966
[18] E. C. Rollason," Fundamental Aspects of Molybdenum on Transformation of
Steel". Climax Molybdenum Company of Europe Ltd.
[19] D. P. Koistinen "A general equation prescribing the extent of the austenite-
martensite transformation in pure iron-carbon alloys and plain carbon steels". Acta
Metallurgic 1958, Vol. 7, 59-60.
[20] T. A. Balliett and G. Krauss, "The effect of the First and Second Stages of
Tempering on Microcracking in Martensite of an FE-1.22% C Alloy". Met Trans
A, Vol 7A, 1976, p81-86.
[21] F. T. Krotine and M. F. McGuire, "Influence of Case Properties and Retained
Austenite on Behavior of Carburized Components". Tran. ASM, Vol. 62, 1969.
[22] R. H. Richman and R. W. Landgraf, "Some Effects of Retained Austenite on
Fatigue Resistance of Carburized Steel". Met. Trans., Vol. 6a, May, 1975.
[23] R. A. DePaul, "High Cycle Bending and Impact Fatigue of Carburized Gear Steels".
ASM Metals Engineering Quarterly, Vol. No. 10, Nov., 1970.
[24] G. Y. Lai and W. E. Wood et al, "The Effect of Austenitizing Temperature on the
Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of As Quenched 4340 Steel". Met.
Trans., Vol. 5, July, 1974.
[25] D. Bhandakarar, V. F. Zackay and E. R. Parker, "Stability and Mechanical
Properties of Some Metastable Austenitic Steels", Met. Trans., Vol. 3, October,
1972.
[26] E. R. Parker, "Interrelations of Composition, Transformation Kinetics,
222
Morphology, and Mechanical Properties of Alloy Steels", Met. Trans., Vol. 8A,
July, 1977.
[27] R. W. Krieble and T. V. Philip, "Effect of Retained Austenite on Copper Sulfate
Corrosion Resistance of 440-C Stainless Bearing Steel", ASM Materials Engrg.
Congress, Chicago, 1973.
[28] S. G. Fletcher, B. L. Averbach and M. Cohen, "The Dimensional Stability of
Steel", Part 1, Trans. ASM, Vol 34, 1945.
[29] R. Widner, H. Burrier and C. F. Jatczak, "Influence of retained Austenite on
Compressive Properties, Contact Fatigue and Scoring Resistance of Carburized
Steels". Interim Report, The Timken Company, 1973.
[30] K. R. Kinsman and C. L. Magee, "Formation of Martensite in Iron Alloys", in
Trans. AIME., Vol. 12, Sept., 1971.
[31] Howard E. Boyer, "Case Hardening of Steel". American Society for Metals.
[32] T. A. Harris, "Rolling Bearing Analysis". John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
London. Sydney.
[33] G. Parrish and G. S. Harper, "Production Gas Cas Caburising". Pergamon Press
[34] J. Martin, S. Borgese and A. Eberhardt, "Microstructural Alterations of Rolling
Bearing Steel Undergoing Cyclic Streesing". ASME Preprint 65-WA CF-4
November 1965
[35] R. W. Neu and Huseyin Sehitoglu: ASME J. Tribol., 1990, vol. 112 pp. 433-41.
[36] H. R. Letner, "Influence of Grinding Fluids Upon Residual Stresses In Hardened
Steel." ASME Transactions, Vol. 79, 1957, p. 149.
[37] W. P. Koster, "Surface Integrity of Machined Structural Components", US Air
Force Materials Laboratory Technical Report No, 70-11 p. 112, 1970.
[38] D. P. Koistinen, "The Distribution of Residual Stresses in Carburized Cases and
Their Origin." ASM Transactions, Vol. 50, 1958, p,227
223
[39] Donald. J. Wulpi, "Understanding How Component Fail". ASM P.71
[40] L. J. Ebert, "The role of Residual Stresses in the Mechanical Performance of Case
Carburized Steels". Metallurgical Transaction A Vol.9A November 1978-1537
[41] B. D. Cullity, "Residual Stress Measurement by X -R ay Diffraction" SAE J784a
Society o f Automotive Engineers, Inc.
[42] L. R. K upfer, "Core and Carburizing Properties of a New Nickel-Base Carburizing
Steel". M.S. Thesis, Case Institute of technology, 1961.
[43] G. L. Eggert, "The Influence of Neutron Irradiation on the Dimensional Stability
of Steel." Materials Science and Technology for Advanced Applications, Vol. 11,
p. 62.
[44] C. W. Maschall and R.E. Marginer, "Dimensional Instability". Chapter 6, pp. 139-
212, Pergamon-Press, Oxford, NY, 1977.
[45] A. P. Voskamp, "Material Response to Rolling Contact Loading". Journal of
Tribology July 1985, Vol. 107 P. 357
[46] D. P. Koistinen, "The Distribution of Residual Stresses in Carburized Cases and
their Origin". Transaction of ASM Vol. 50 1958.
[47] W. E. Littmann and R. L. Widner, "Propagation of Contact Fatigue From Surface
and Subsurface Origins". Transactions of the ASME September, 1966 P. 624
[48] F. J. Wren and C. A. Moyer, "Modes of Failure in Rolling Element Bearing".
Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineering, London, England, P. 9,
Third Annual Meeting of the Lubrication and Wear Group, October, 1964.
[49] R. E. Denning and S. L. Rice, "Surface Fatigue Research With the Geared Roller
Test Machine". SAE Preprint 620B, January, 1963.
[50] C. A. Moyer and H. R. Neifer, "A First Order Solution for the Stress Concentration
Present at the End of Roller Contact". ASLE Transactions, Vol. 6, 1963 P. 324.
[51] R. E. Mckelvey and C. A. Moyer, "The relation Between Critical Maximum
224
Compressive Stress and Fatigue Life Under Rolling Contact". Proceedings of the
Symposium on Fatigue in Rolling Contact, The Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, London, England, 1963, P. 1.
[52] S. Way, "Pitting Due to Rolling Contact". Trans. ASME, Vol. 57, 1935, P. A-49
[53] W. E. Littmann and C. A. Moyer, "Competitive Modes of Failure in Rolling
Contact Fatigue". SAE Preprint 620A, January, 1963.
[54] R. E. Denning and S. L. Rice, "Surface Fatigue Research With the Geared Roller
Test Machine". SAE preprint 620B, January, 1963.
[55] R. Pederson and S. L. Rice, "Case Crushing of Case Carburized and Hardened
Gears". SAE Transaction, Vol.68, 1960, P. 187.
[56] R. L. Miller, "Volume Fraction Analysis of Phases in textured Alloys", Trans.
ASM, 61,1968.
[57] J. Durnin and K. A. Ridal, "Determination of Retained Austenite in Steel by X -
Ray Diffraction", J.I.S.I., January, 1968.
[58] B. L. Averbach and M. Cohen, "X-Ray Determination of Retained Austenite by
Integrated Intensities", Trans. AIME, 176, 1948.
[59] Chester F. Jatczak,"Retained Austenite and Its Measurements by X-Ray
Diffraction". SP-453 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
[60] B. D. Cullity, "Elements of X-Ray Diffraction" Second Edition ADDISON-
WESLEY PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.
[61] Ismail C. Noyan and Jerome B. Cohen, "Residual Stress Measurement by
Diffraction and Interpretation" Spriger-verlag NEW YORK Berlin Heidelberg
London Paris Tokyo
[62] B.E. Warren, "X-Ray Diffraction" ADDISON-WESLY PUBLISHING COMPANY
[63] National Institute of Standards & Technology Certificate of Analysis Standard
Reference Material 660
225
[64] G. K. Williamson and R.E. Smallman, "Dislocation densities in some Annealed and
Cold-Worked Metals from Measurements on the X -ray Debye-Scherrer Spectrum"
The Phlosophical Maezine Ser.8 Jan-June 1956
[65] J.D. Lewis, "Particle Size Analysis on Simulated X-Ray Diffraction Profiles",
Master Thesis, University of Kentucky, 1984.
[66] H. J. Bunge, "Preferred Orientation Analysis in Texture Materials" Advances in
X -Rav Analysis. Vol. 35 Edited by C.S Barrett et al., Plenum Press, New York,
1992
[67] R. Junginger and G. Eisner, "On the texture of Electroless Copper Film" J.
Electrochem.: SOLID-STATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY September 1988
[68] P. Van Houtte and L. De Buyser, "The Influence of Crystallographic Texture on
Diffraction Measurements of Residual Stress" Acta metall. mater. Vol. 41, No. 2,
pp. 323-336, 1993
[69] "Standard Reference Materials 660-Instrument Line Position and Profile Shape
Standard For X -Ray Powder Diffraction" National Institute of Standards &
Technology
[70] Standard Test Method for Verifying the Alignment of X-Ray Diffraction
Instrumentation for Residual Stress Measurement ASM Designation: E 915-90
[71] S. Kajiwara, "Role of Dislocations and Grain Boundaries in Martensite Nucleation"
, Metallurgical Transaction A Volume 17A, October 1986-1693
[72] P. J. Breinan and G. S. Anell,Communication: "On the Effect of Fine Grain Size on
the M, Temperature in Fe-27Ni-0.025C Alloys". Metall. Trans. A, 1983, Vol. 14A,
pp. 1929-31
[73] S. J. Donachie and G. S. Anell, "The Effect of Quench Rate on the Properties and
Morphology of Ferrous Martensite". Metall. Trans. A. 1975, Vol. 6A, pp. 1863-75
[74] R. Pradhan and G.S. Anell,"Kinetic of the Martensite Transformation in Athermal
Fe-C -N i-C r Alloys". Metall. Trans. A. 1978, Vol. 9A, pp. 793-801
[75] G. S. Anell, P. J. Brofman, T. J. Nichol, and G. Judd: "on Martensitic
Transformation", Proc.3rd Int. Conf. Cambridge, MA,1979, pp. 350-55
[76] V. Bhargava, and G. T. Hahn, "Rolling Contact Deformation, Etching Effects, and
Failure of High-Strength Bearing Steel". Metallurgical Transaction A, Vol. 21 A,
July 1990 P. 1921
[77] William C. Leslie, "The Physical Metallurgy of Steels", Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, Page 112

The Role of Retained Austenite PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Role of Retained Austenite PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

INFORMATION TO USERS

Hie quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

A Bell & Howell information Com pany

Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College in the University of Nebraska

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements

for the Degree of Philosophy

Major: Interdepartmental Area of Engineering

(Chemical and Materials Engineering)

Under the Supervision of Professor William N. Weins

OMI Microform 9611077

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

Yiming Xu, Ph.D.

University of Nebraska, 1993

Adviser. William N. Weins

sequentially and at the same location on the rollers.

is evidence that work hardening of austenite is occurring. There appears to be an early

transformation difficult. The behavior of the retained austenite is further classified

Medlin, for his collaborated research effort.

Gratitude is expressed to the Department of Mechanical Engineering for providing

made everything possible.

I. In tro d u ctio n .................................................................................................................................. 1

II. Theory and Literature R ev iew ..................................................................................................8

A. Iron-Iron Carbide System ........................................................................................ 8

1. Martensite Formation ................................................................................. 16

2. Retained A u ste n ite ........................................................................................ 24

a. M„ Mf and Tq Temperature .............................................................24

c. Plastic D eform ation...........................................................................31

d. Effects of Retained A u ste n ite ........................................................ 31

C. Rolling Contact P henom ena...................................................................................... 34

1. Type of Contact ............................................................................................. 34

2. Rolling Contact Stress and Deformation ....................................................38

3. Sliding Friction and Deformation ............................................................... 46

1. Mechanical Processes .................................................................................... 52

3. Metallurgical Residual Stresses ....................................................................55

E. Correlation Between Retained Austenite and Residual S tresses.......................... 64

F. Rolling Contact F a tig u e ............................................................................................. 66

2. Geometric Stress Concentration................................................................... 68

3. Point Surface O r ig in ..................................................................................... 70

III. X-Ray T h e o ry ........................................................................................................................72

A. Retained Austenite M easurem ent............................................................................ 72

B. Residual Stresses M easurem ent.................................................................................83

1. Stress-Strain Relations .................................................................................83

2. Relation of Strain Equation to X -ray Stress A nalysis...............................87

a. Basic E q u atio n s.................................................................................87

b. The relation of stress and angle s h i f t ............................................ 94

c. Selection of diffraction peak for stress measurement .................98

d. Instrumental error in stress analysis...............................................98

(1). Error due to Variation of the Focal Point with 6 and ip

(2). Error due to Specimen D isplacem ent........................ 102

(3). Error due to the Effect of Specimen Curvature . . . 103

C. Determination ofDiffraction Particle Size and Dislocation D ensity............... 105

D. Texture Analysis .......................................................................................... 110

IV. Experimental Results and D iscussion ............................................................................ 115

A. Equipm ent.............................................................................................................. 117

B. X -ray Depth of Penetration .............................................................................. 127

D. Correlation of Retained Austenite, Residual Stress and Rolling Contact . . . 134

E. Residual Stress and Retained Austenite Distribution on the Surface of Rollers

1. 0 Mile O peration....................................................................................... 141

2. 2422 Miles Operation .............................................................................. 159

3. 5432 Miles Operation .............................................................................. 169