On Predicting Softening Effects in Hard Turned Surfaces—Part I: Construction of Material Softening Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Jing Shi

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105jing.shi@ndsu.nodak.edu

C. Richard Liu

School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907liuch@ecn.purdue.edu

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 127(3), 476-483 (Dec 20, 2004) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1948400 History: Received August 18, 2003; Revised December 20, 2004

The need for predicting material microstructure and hardness in hard turned surfaces becomes very urgent in that hard turning is adopted by industries as a finishing process, and the produced surface integrity, including microstructure and hardness, is well known to be a determining factor for part service performance. This study focuses on the prediction of material softening and is composed of two parts, namely, the construction of material softening model based on thermal history and the prediction of thermal history by finite element modeling of hard turning. In this part of the research, three material softening models based on thermal activation concept are proposed and compared. The most suitable model is selected for the work material, hardened AISI 52100 steel. The model prediction demonstrates excellent agreement with the hardness measurement on the specimens with isothermal or anisothermal treatments. For the isothermal treatments, the average prediction error, compared with the measured hardness, is 10.78kgmm2. As for the anisothermal treatments, the average error is 13.79kgmm2. The softening model provides a fundamental for the final prediction of material softening in hard turned surfaces.

Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison of three L-Φ (phi) relations in fitting isothermal results

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

X-ray diffraction peak profiles of (a) four AISI 52100 steel specimens after different heat treatments, (b) the AISI 52100 steel specimen quenched at 843°C

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Hardness with respect to Holloman-Jaffe parameter L in isothermal treatments

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Correlation of the predicted and measured hardness for isothermal treatments

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Correlation of the predicted and measured hardness for anisothermal treatments

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of (a) an arbitrary thermal history, and (b) the corresponding equivalent isothermal history

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of tempering experimental set–up





Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In