Quenching and tempering hardness response of front axle steel beams : Different material properties during quenching and tempering

Sammanfattning: The aim of this thesis was to investigate what the relation is between as-quench hardness and final surface hardness for steel beams is, depending on what tempering temperature is used. Also explain how chemistry, dimension and microstructure effects the final mechanical properties of the front axle beam. For this a review of literature concerning the effects was completed.Hardness measurement on the surface was performed on the ends of the beam (bottom and top). This hardness measurement was performed on 6 different front axle articles of the same material (41CrS4) and 2 different front axle articles of another material (40CrMo4). The relation diagram gives an estimation of what type of tempering temperature is needed to achieve the final hardness that is desired. Because the relation was done with some inconsistences it can’t be said to give a perfect answer. The relation diagrams only work for material 41CrS4 and 40CrMo4. For the core hardness test, 2 articles of 41CrS4 and one article of 40CrMo4 was measured on 5 different position on the cross-section, the beams for the respective articles were taken from quenched state and quenched+tempered. The beam dimensions have a significant effect when it comes to cooling down the part and achieve as close to uniform hardness as possible. Even though the Middle point of the I-section sample is one of the closest cores to the surface, it has a softer core compared with the other cores. While there exists hardness difference after quenching between different points in the core they even out after tempering. When comparing the core hardness with the surface hardness it can be said that the surface hardness is not as hard as the core because of decarburization. The microstructure analysis was done on 2 articles of 41CrS4 and one article of 40CrMo4. Samples from the 3 articles is taken from both the as-quenched state and quenched+tempered state. From the optical microscope it could be seen, that the surface of the beams decarbonizes leading to a higher amount of ferrite at the structure and softer surface. Because of this 15 mm into the material is harder than at-surface. Decarburization of the 41CrS4 steels made it so that what should have been a martensite and bainite dominated surface became a ferrite and bainite dominated.To decide the actual amount of retained austenite in the sample an XRD-analysis was performed. The XRD-analysis is done only for one article type of 41CrS4. From the front axle beam three samples of three different locations (bottom, middle, top) was taken for the analysis. For the theoretical calculation of the retained austenite vs the actual amount it can be said that is a very good representation of the total amount of retained austenite in the product. But the theoretical calculation deviates a bit from the actual amount at the top part of the beam.