J. Iron Steel Res. Int.

(2022) 29:1583–1600
[Link] (0123456789().,-volV)
(0123456789().,-volV)

ORIGINAL PAPER

Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness

in ultra-clean gear steels
D. Fuchs1 • T. Tobie1 • K. Stahl1

Received: 4 August 2021 / Revised: 2 September 2021 / Accepted: 22 September 2021 / Published online: 11 February 2022
Ó The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Shot-peened, case-hardened gears can fail in the tooth root due to crack initiation below the surface of the steel matrix.
Here, the crack is initiated at a non-metallic inclusion in the center of a so-called fisheye. This failure type can lead to a
reduced endurance fatigue limit of the gears. It is for this reason that, over the last decade, much effort has been invested by
steel manufacturers to reduce the non-metallic inclusion content of gear steels so as to mitigate or even completely prevent
such crack initiation. These ultra-clean gear steels were achieved by various measures in the steel production process.
However, as a result, the remaining non-metallic inclusions are inhomogeneously distributed in the steel volume in terms
of both size and location. However, due to the inhomogeneity of ultra-clean steels, the question arose if the values derived
according to the standards are still representative of ultra-clean steel batches. The results show that the standards can still
be applied, but more effort must be applied. To determine the degree of cleanliness, six microsections are currently
evaluated according to steel test specification (SEP) 1571, method K. It is shown that an examination of 24 microsections
starting from size class 0 seems beneficial to get more reliable and comparable results of the degree of cleanliness of these
ultra-clean gear steels. In addition, it is shown that a high degree of cleanliness has been achieved for all steel batches
investigated with the measures taken in the steel production process.

Keywords Degree of cleanliness
Non-metallic inclusion
Evaluation of inclusion
SEP 1571
DIN 50602

Ultrasonic immersion testing
Ultra-clean gear steel
Gear

1 Introduction gear steels were achieved by various measures in the steel

production process. The goal is to mitigate or even com-
Recent trends toward green energy and the electrification pletely prevent the occurrence of fisheye failure in high-
of the powertrain have led to more stringent or completely strength gears. The reduced number of non-metallic
new requirements for gearboxes. To meet higher torque inclusions in the steel volume means that those inclusions
demands, the tooth root bending strength of case-hardened that exist are distributed more inhomogeneously through-
gears can be increased by applying a shot-peening process. out the steel matrix in terms of their size and location.
However, in such shot-peened gears, crack initiation can The degree of cleanliness can be specified by deter-
occur below the surface. This failure mechanism is called mining the non-metallic inclusion content of a defined steel
fisheye failure, which is manifested as a crack that initiates volume according to certain standards, such as ISO 4967 or
at a non-metallic inclusion in the center of the fisheye. steel test specification (SEP) 1571. These are established
Over the last decade, a great deal of effort has been standards used in the gear industry for characterizing and
expended by steel manufacturers in reducing the non- comparing steel batches. To determine a characteristic
metallic inclusion content of gear steels. These ultra-clean value for the degree of cleanliness, six microsections are
generally evaluated according to the standards.
To gain more knowledge and allow a probable corre-
& D. Fuchs
fuchs@[Link] lation between the degree of cleanliness and the tooth root
bending strength of gears requires due characterization of
1
Gear Research Center (FZG), Technical University of the inclusion content of the complete steel volume.
Munich, 85748 Garching, Germany

123
1584 D. Fuchs et al.

However, due to the inhomogeneity of ultra-clean gear 2.2 Methods for characterizing degree
steels, the question arises if the values derived based on six of cleanliness
microsections are still representative of ultra-clean steel
batches or if a greater effort, for example an evaluation of a The degree of cleanliness is generally divided into
higher number of microsections, must be made. In addition, macroscopic and microscopic inclusions in accordance
it will be checked whether the measures taken in the steel with common standards. Macroscopic inclusions are of a
production process have resulted in ultra-clean gear steels. size greater than 0.03 mm2 according to SEP 1571 and
Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) 50602. The
macroscopic degree of cleanliness is determined using the
2 State of scientific knowledge blue fracture test according to SEP 1584, the step turning
test according to SEP 1580 or ultrasonic immersion testing
2.1 Influence of fisheye failure on fatigue according to SEP 1927 or ASTM A388/A388M-19. For the
strength microscopic degree of cleanliness, on the other hand, the
following standards apply: SEP 1571, DIN 50602, DIN EN
Figure 1 shows schematicall an example of a fisheye 10247, ISO 4967, ASTM E45-13 and ASTM E2283-08.
fracture in a gear. A non-metallic inclusion in the center of The following is a brief description of the standards used
the fisheye is responsible for the crack initiation. An in this publication:
optically dark area often surrounds the non-metallic
(1) Ultrasonic immersion testing according to SEP 1927:
inclusion. This fracture mechanism occurs foremost with
This method compares the test specimens with a
higher numbers of load cycles and leads to a decrease in
reference block. The specimens are investigated in a
bending strength. It is therefore apparent that the degree of
water tank using an ultrasonic immersion search unit
non-metallic content in the form of inclusions has a great
with a pulse repetition frequency of 10 MHz. The
influence on the strength of high-strength gears [1–3].
macroscopic inclusions are categorized according to
Tridello et al. [4] show that the combination of the tested
their position, size and occurrence.
specimen’s volume and the inclusion distribution has an
(2) Evaluation of inclusions according to SEP 1571: The
impact on the fatigue strength. Consequently, more and
degree of cleanliness is determined on a particle
more effort is invested nowadays in the process of making
basis by means of microsections. Usually (at least)
and characterizing steel [5]. The degree of cleanliness
six microsections are evaluated to determine a value
represents a way of describing the content of non-metallic
for the degree of cleanliness. The standard differen-
inclusions in materials. Temmel et al. [6] show, however,
tiates between inclusions of type A (typically
that not all methods are suitable for characterizing steels
manganese sulfides), B (crumbled or elongated
with a low degree of sulfur. In the following, standardized
stringer aluminum oxides), C (silicon oxides), D
methods for characterizing the degree of cleanliness are
(globular aluminum oxides) and Dsulf (calcium
presented.
sulfides). The standard describes three methods:
a. Method M: maximum inclusion value
b. Method K: mean inclusion value
c. Method E: extreme value, analyzed based on
size class (reference area: 100,000 mm2)
Fracture outside Methods M and K use six microsections for evalu-
of fisheye ation; method E uses at least 12 microsections, and
Fracture surface (tooth root)

24 microsections are recommended.

(3) Evaluation of inclusions according to DIN 50602.
This standard is very similar to SEP 1571 and also
Optically dark area employs methods M and K. Inclusions are divided
into four types: SS (sulfide inclusion), OA (oxide
Non-metallic
inclusion stringer inclusion), OS (oxide inclusion in elongated
form), and OG (oxide inclusion in globular form).
Fisheye The types are comparable to types A, B, C and D in
SEP 1571.
(4) Evaluation of inclusions according to ISO 4967.
Standard diagrams are used to determine the degree
Fig. 1 Schematic of fisheye fracture in a gear

123
Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness in ultra-clean gear steels 1585

of cleanliness. The standard discriminates between

five types: A (sulfide type), B (aluminate type), C
(silicate type), D (globular oxide type) and DS
(single globular type). A further distinction is made
between fine and thick inclusions.
(5) Extreme value analysis according to ASTM E2283-
08. Six specimens are used according to the test
method ASTM E45-13. The greatest maximum Fig. 2 Influence of inspection plane on apparent inclusion size [7]
length value is recorded for each specimen. The
procedure is repeated three times, resulting in 24 3 Summary of current state of knowledge
inclusion lengths. The greatest inclusion length is
determined based on these 24 lengths and is This state of scientific knowledge shows that the degree of
expected to lie within a reference area of 150,000 cleanliness has a considerable impact on the fatigue
mm2. strength of shot-peened gears. Nowadays, ultra-clean
materials are more often used to achieve higher tooth root
fatigue strengths. In this case, the few remaining inclusions
2.3 Specifications for degree of cleanliness are distributed inhomogeneously in the material in terms of
in ISO 6336 size and location. According to the current standards for
determining the degree of cleanliness, only six microsec-
Part 5 of ISO 6336 categorizes gear steels into three tions are evaluated. Therefore, the question arises if ultra-
material quality classes: ML, MQ and ME. The degree of clean gear steels can still be evaluated using the standards
cleanliness is an important differentiating factor. Table 1 currently applied in industrial practice. Despite an exten-
lists the cleanliness requirements of case-hardened wrought sive literature research, no investigations into this topic
steels. The higher the material quality class, the greater the were found.
requirements.

2.4 Influences on determination of degree 4 Aim of investigation

of cleanliness
In the course of Forschungsvereinigung Antriebstechnik
Most of the standards presented use (at least) six micro- e.V. (FVA) research project 293 IV [8], which builds on
sections to determine the degree of cleanliness. To limit the the results and conclusions of [2, 9–14], extensive experi-
time and costs, six microsections are generally used in mental investigations were performed. The focus was on
industrial practice. Murakami [7], for example, shows that the very high cycle fatigue range of shot-peened, and case-
the selection of the inspection plane has a great influence hardened gears made out of ultra-clean gear steels. Com-
on the cleanliness value as shown in Fig. 2. pressive residual stresses are introduced through the shot-
peening process, which can lead to higher load carrying
capacities.
However, fisheye fractures at non-metallic inclusions
can occur in the tooth root fillet of shot-peened, and case-
hardened gears in the very high cycle fatigue range.
Table 1 Cleanliness requirements of case-hardened wrought steels Therefore, in the framework of this research project, ultra-
according to ISO 6336, part 5
clean gear steels were used to examine, if by using such
Requirement Material quality class ultra-clean gear steels, a crack initiation below the surface
ML MQ, ME at non-metallic inclusions can be prevented. As a result,
higher load carrying capacities are expected in the very
Degree of No Cleanliness in accordance high cycle fatigue range. One of the main goals of this
cleanliness specification with ISO 4967, procedure
in accordance with method research project was to correlate the load carrying capacity
A, inspected area of of shot-peened and case-hardened gears with the micro-
approximately 200 mm2 scopic degree of cleanliness of ultra-clean gear steels.
Ultrasonic test No Required However, a reliable correlation of the degree of clean-
according to specification liness and the load carrying capacities can only be made
ASTM A388
with statistically validated values. As a result, the questions
arose whether a reliable degree of cleanliness value for

123
1586 D. Fuchs et al.

these ultra-clean gear steels can be determined with the casting. The diameter of the steel bars ranges from 100 to
current procedures according to the standards, like SEP 140 mm, and the reduction ratios are all above the speci-
1571, and whether high degrees of cleanliness have been fication value of 5:1 for continuous casting according to
achieved with the measures taken in the steel production ISO 6336, part 5. Steel batch OW5 shows the highest value
process. This publication addresses these questions and of 27:1. Furthermore, the steel batches are all classified in
deals with following influence factors: starting size class, the scatter band HH for a high hardenability according to
characteristic value, number of microsections, respectively, DIN EN ISO 683, part 3. The feature of steel batches OW1,
samples and the influence of extreme value methods. In OW7 and S9 is a modified calcium treatment with addi-
addition, further questions are clarified. tional recrystallization annealing. Steel batches S4 and S6
are open melted, whereas steel batch S8 is electroslag
remelted. Steel batch OW4 has a low sulfur content, and
5 Region of interest steel batch OW5 has a low aluminum content. A modified
rolling/forging process was used for steel batch OW3.
For the investigations on FZG back-to-back test rig and
Pulsator test rig (see Fig. 3), gear sizes with a normal 6.2 Chemical analysis
module mn = 1.5 and 5 mm were used. The region of
interest (ROI) for the cleanliness inspections was placed in Chemical analysis and oxygen content data are listed in
the later tooth root fillet of the gear as shown in Table 2. Tables 4 and 5. All steel batches are within the limits
The approximate area of the ROI in both cases is 210 mm2 specified in DIN EN ISO 683, part 3, which are also listed
for each microsection. The required microsections were in Table 4. Furthermore, all steel batches reveal oxygen
taken from a billet, which was divided into segments. contents that are below the maximum specification of
25 9 10–6 according to ISO 6336, part 5 as shown in
Table 5.
6 Steel batches and documentation
of material
7 Demonstration of effectiveness
6.1 Steel batches of measures taken to achieve ultra-clean
gear steels
The gear steel batches investigated are MnCr-, CrNiMo-,
NiMo- and NiCr-alloyed gear steels. Table 3 presents an Various measures have been taken to produce ultra-clean
overview of the steel batches, alloy systems, casting gear steels as shown in Table 3. In the following, it will be
method, diameters of the steel bars, reduction ratios and checked whether the measures taken in the steel production
features. process have resulted in ultra-clean steels.
Four of the nine steel batches are from continuous All gear steels investigated in this paper are classified as
casting, whereas the other steel batches are from ingot material quality class ME. Ultrasonic immersion testing to

(a) (b) Variable exciting mass

Exciting magnet
Loading clutch

Measuring Pole spring

shaft
Mid-load spring

Test gear
Drive gearbox

Fixing unit

Load lever Load cell

Test gear with weights
Test pinion Mid-load actuator

Fig. 3 Test rigs used for investigations on tooth root bending strength. a FZG back-to-back test rig (center distance a = 91.5 mm) according to
DIN ISO 14635, part 1; b pulsator test rig [15]

123
Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness in ultra-clean gear steels 1587

Table 2 Definition of ROI

Schematic diagram mn/ Radius r1/mm Radius r2/mm Length/ Area/ Region of interest
mm mm mm2

r2 1.5 35 49 15 210 Later tooth root fillet region of gear

5.0 49 63 15 210 Later tooth root fillet region of gear
Region of r1
interest

Specimen

Table 3 Overview of investigated test steel batches and their characteristics

Steel batch Alloy Casting Diameter of steel Reduction Feature
system method bar/mm ratio

OW1 20MnCr5 Ingot 125 8:1 Modified calcium treatment with additional
recrystallization annealing
S4 20MnCr5 Continuous 105 8:1 Open melted
S6 20MnCr5 Continuous 105 8:1 Open melted
S8 20MnCr5 Ingot 100 8:1 Electroslag remelted
OW4 20MnCr5 Continuous 100 8:1 Low sulfur content
OW3 18CrNiMo7-6 Continuous 140 8:1 Modified rolling/forging process
OW5 18CrNiMo7-6 Ingot 140 27:1 Low aluminum content
OW7 20NiMo9-7 Ingot 130 12:1 Modified calcium treatment with additional
recrystallization annealing
S9 18NiCr5-4 Ingot 110 17:1 Modified calcium treatment with additional
recrystallization annealing

determine the macroscopic degree of cleanliness was using the chosen parameters, see Table 6 and Fig. 4. It
therefore mandatory and was performed according to SEP should be noted that the echoes in steel batch OW4 are
1927 (except for steel batches S4, S6 and S8, due to lack of located foremost in the core region of the bar and not near
raw material). This is in deviation to ISO 6336, part 5, the later tooth root fillet. Steel batch OW3 shows echoes
which specifies ultrasonic immersion testing according to distributed over the entire region of interest investigated.
ASTM A388/A388M-19. However, the ultrasonic immer- Figure 5 provides a first impression of the microscopic
sion testing according to SEP 1927 is a well-established degree of cleanliness of these ultra-clean steel batches. The
practice among German and European industrial gear values were determined according to ISO 4967, method A.
manufacturers and is usually used instead of the procedure The steel batches OW7 und S9 show the best (lowest)
according to ASTM A388/A388M-19. The determination cleanliness index. Steel batches OW1, S4, S6 and OW3
procedure was performed at 10 MHz. The region of show values equal to or higher than five, while the values
interest was defined as 6–35 mm from the surface. In the for the other steel batches are in between. All steel batches
case of steel batch OW4, four specimens were examined; are below the threshold values for material quality ME
in all other cases, two. based on ISO 4967, method A according to part 5 of ISO
Only in the specimens of steel batches OW3 and OW4, 6336 for case-hardened wrought steels.
echoes could be detected by ultrasonic immersion testing

123
1588 D. Fuchs et al.

Table 4 Chemical analysis of steel batches and limits according to DIN EN ISO 683, part 3 and for steel batch 20NiMo9-7 according to material
inspection document of steel manufacturer
Steel batch Alloy system Chemical composition/mass%
C Mn Cr Ni Mo S Al Cu P Si

OW1 20MnCr5 0.20 1.17 1.15 0.12 0.05 0.019 0.026 0.18 0.018 0.23
S4 20MnCr5 0.21 1.20 1.14 0.15 0.04 0.028 0.030 0.14 0.009 0.15
S6 20MnCr5 0.18 1.25 1.07 0.22 0.06 0.012 0.023 0.09 0.012 0.26
S8 20MnCr5 0.18 1.12 1.15 0.19 0.05 0.006 0.019 0.12 0.016 0.16
OW4 20MnCr5 0.21 1.31 1.25 0.16 0.02 0.006 0.031 0.12 0.010 0.17
OW3 18CrNiMo7-6 0.20 0.54 1.74 1.56 0.29 0.011 0.025 0.20 0.011 0.26
OW5 18CrNiMo7-6 0.19 0.54 1.65 1.42 0.27 0.001 0.009 0.10 0.007 0.27
OW7 20NiMo9-7 0.20 0.23 0.38 2.24 0.67 0.001 0.082 0.16 0.004 0.08
S9 18NiCr5-4 0.18 0.78 1.15 1.41 0.09 0.001 0.033 0.13 0.008 0.31
20MnCr5 Maximum 0.22 1.40 1.30 – – 0.035 – – 0.025 0.40
Minimum 0.17 1.10 1.00 – – – – – – –
18CrNiMo7-6 Maximum 0.21 0.90 1.80 1.70 0.35 0.035 – – 0.025 0.40
Minimum 0.15 0.50 1.50 1.40 0.25 – – – – –
18NiCr5-4 Maximum 0.21 0.90 1.20 1.50 – 0.035 – – 0.025 0.40
Minimum 0.16 0.60 0.90 1.20 – – – – – –
20NiMo9-7 Maximum 0.21 0.30 0.40 2.35 0.70 0.002 – – 0.025 0.10
Minimum 0.18 0.22 0.35 2.25 0.67 – – – – –

Table 5 Total oxygen content (wOtotal ) of steel batches (10–6)

MnCr-alloyed CrNiMo-alloyed NiMo-alloyed NiCr-alloyed
OW1 S4, S6, S8 OW4 OW3 OW5 OW7 S9

14 Not determined 9 14 18 6 13

Table 6 Existence of echoes

Steel batch OW1 S4, S6, S8 OW4 OW3 OW5 OW7 S9

Echoes 7 Not determined U U 7 7 7

All steel batches can be classified in the category ‘‘ultra- 8 Systematic determination of influence
clean gear steels’’. For this reason, all steel batches are used factors on determination of microscopic
in the following to derive the factors influencing the degree of cleanliness according to SEP
determination of the microscopic degree of cleanliness. 1571 of ultra-clean gear steels

The determination of the microscopic degree of cleanliness

was done in the following according to SEP 1571. This is
in deviation to ISO 6336, part 5, which specifies for gear
steels with material quality class ME threshold values
based on ISO 4967, method A. However, the determination

123
Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness in ultra-clean gear steels 1589

80 20 20 However, with lower starting classes, more and more dif-

Number of echoes
Total indicator/

Size of echoes/mm
(mm dm-³)
60 15 15 ferences between the steel batches are visible. For oxide
40 10 10 inclusions, the tendencies are visible from size class 3 on
20 5 5 and for sulfide inclusions from size class 1. Differentiation
0 0 0 becomes much more pronounced from grade 2 or 1
OW3-1 OW3-2 OW4-1 OW4-2 OW4-3 OW4-4
Variant and specimen number
onward. Therefore, it seems helpful to choose a starting
Total indicator Number of echoes Size of echoes size class of 1 or below for comparing ultra-clean gear
steels.
Fig. 4 Results of ultrasonic immersion testing according to SEP 1927 According to the industrial practice of gear manufac-
turers, an overall total characteristic value is usually given
6
Type DS for the degree of cleanliness according to SEP 1571,
5
Type D (thick) method K. However, in this case, the values for oxide and
Cleanliness index

4 Type D (fine) sulfide inclusions are combined, and no separate exami-

3 Type C (thick) nation is possible. For the following evaluation, further
Type C (fine)
2 microsections of four laboratories were used. This leads to
Type B (thick)
1
slightly different values in comparison to the values in
Type B (fine)
Type A (thick)
Fig. 6.
0
OW1 S4 S6 S8 OW4 OW3 OW5 OW7 S9 Type A (fine)
Figure 7 shows a comparison of overall total charac-
Steel batch teristic and total characteristic values. The values for steel
batches OW5, OW7 and S9 are determined solely by oxide
Fig. 5 Stacked bar diagram of degree of cleanliness according to ISO
4967, method A of steel batches investigated inclusions. Steel batches S8, OW4 and OW3 show a mix of
sulfide and oxide inclusions. Therefore, for a more detailed
of the microscopic degree of cleanliness according to SEP differentiation of different steel batches, it seems useful to
1571 is a well-established practice among German and consider the characteristic values for oxide and sulfide
European industrial gear manufacturers and is usually used inclusions separately.
instead of the procedure according to ISO 4967, method A. According to the standards presented in Sect. 2, in
In the following, the influences on the individual general one sample (e 6 microsections; e means the
methods according to SEP 1571 are examined in more mathematical symbol for ‘‘equal by definition’’) is used to
detail. For SEP 1571, method K, the influence of starting determine the degree of cleanliness. However, it is often
size class, characteristic value, number of microsections the case in industrial practice that less than six microsec-
and number of samples is investigated. The influence of tions are analyzed for one sample, to save time and costs.
number of microsections and samples is also investigated Therefore, the following includes a check as to whether six
for SEP 1571, method M. Finally, method E according to microsections are necessary for ultra-clean steels. Fur-
SEP 1571 is compared to method M. SEP 1571 is used here thermore, due to the limited area investigated with a single
as an example standard for the degree of cleanliness. It is sample, the question arises if one sample only is repre-
assumed that the derived conclusions can also be applied in sentative of ultra-clean steels. Steel batch OW3 is used as
full or at least in large part to other standards, such as ISO an example, because of its broad database.
4967. Figure 8 shows an overview of one sample evaluation
for sulfide inclusions based on six microsections, using
8.1 SEP 1571, method K steel batch OW3 as an example. From size class 4 onward,
there is hardly any visible difference between the micro-
For gear steels, the determination of the microscopic sections. However, starting from size class 0, the difference
degree of cleanliness usually starts at size class 4 in is great. The result of the sample examination is therefore
industrial practice to limit time and costs. However, the strongly dependent on the number of microsections. In
question is, if ultra-clean steels can still be evaluated when addition, the standards specify a minimum area of 100 lm2
starting from size class 4 or more effort is required. for each microsection. The results in Fig. 8 are based on
Figure 6 shows characteristic values for the surface area microsections with an area of 210 lm2. Even with this
according to SEP 1571, method K, from size class -2 up to larger microsection area, great differences are visible.
size class 4 for steel batches OW3 and OW4. For the Figure 9 shows the characteristic values of the surface
evaluation, the results of four laboratories were used in the area according to SEP 1571, method K for sulfide and
following. It can be seen that the steels show comparable oxide inclusions, using the example of steel batch OW3
values for size class 4 both for oxide and sulfide inclusions. and based on the results from several laboratories. The size
classes 4 and 0 are compared in Fig. 9a and b. In the

123
1590 D. Fuchs et al.

(a) 6 (b) 250

OW3 OW3

Characteristic value of surface area

Characteristic value of surface area

5 200
OW4 OW4
4
150
3
100
2
50
1

0 0
Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size
class class class class class class class class class class class class class class
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Oxide inclusions Sulfide inclusions

Fig. 6 Comparison of total characteristic values according to SEP 1571, method K for different size classes of oxide (a) and sulfide (b) inclusions
using steel batches OW3 and OW4 as examples

(a) 90 (b) 90
Oxide inclusions
Characteristic value of surface area

80 Characteristic value of surface area 80 Sulfide inclusions

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
S8 OW4 OW3 OW5 OW7 S9 S8 OW4 OW3 OW5 OW7 S9
Steel batch Steel batch

Fig. 7 Overall total characteristic value (a) and total characteristic value (b) starting from size class 0 according to SEP 1571, method K

200 shown in Fig. 9a. Though, significant differences are evi-

Characteristic value of

Microsection 1.1 dent when comparing the values starting from size class 0
150 Microsection 1.2 as shown in Fig. 9b. The range and standard deviation are
surface area

Microsection 1.3
100 much higher. The same tendency is also visible with oxide
Microsection 1.4
Microsection 1.5 inclusions as shown in Fig. 9c and d. However, the num-
50 Microsection 1.6 bers and differences are much smaller, because the inclu-
sions in steel batch OW3 are predominantly sulfides.
0
Size class Size class Size class Size class Size class
0 1 2 3 4 8.2 SEP 1571, method M
Sulfide inclusions
According to method M of SEP 1571, the largest inclusion
Fig. 8 Detailed analysis of sulfide inclusions in sample 1 of steel of each inclusion type is evaluated for each of the six
batch OW3 according to SEP 1571, method K
microsections. The mean value of these six microsections
gives the maximum inclusion value according to method M
evaluation of sulfide inclusions, it can be seen that starting
for one sample. Figure 10a shows the mean values
from size class 4, there are no noteworthy differences
according to method M for 1 to 36 microsections for each
(range of 1.37) between the different sample numbers, as

123
Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness in ultra-clean gear steels 1591

(a) 10 (b) 140

9

Characteristic value of surface area

Characteristic value of surface area
120
8
7 100
6
80
5
4 60

3 40
2
20
1
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Number of samples Number of samples

(c) 10 (d) 10
9 9

Characteristic value of surface area

Characteristic value of surface area

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of samples Number of samples

Fig. 9 Characteristic values of surface area according to SEP 1571, method K for sulfide inclusions starting from size class 4 (a) and 0 (b), and
for oxide inclusions, starting from size class 4 (c) and 0 (d) using example of steel batch OW3

inclusion type present. It can be seen that after approxi- previous methods and an extreme value method, like SEP
mately 12 to 18 microsections, the maximum inclusion size 1571, method E. Method E of SEP 1571 uses at least 12
class remains nearly constant. Figure 10b shows the mean microsections (e 2 samples). However, the recommended
values of 2–6 samples (one sample e six microsections) number of microsections is 24 (e 4 samples). An extreme
for each inclusion type present. It can be seen that all value for an inclusion size is determined based on a
sample numbers show different values and standard devi- Gumbel distribution, in which the largest inclusion in each
ations. However, expect for Dsulf inclusion types, there is individual microsection is taken. Based on an extrapolated
almost no visible influence on the maximum inclusion size virtual test surface area of 10,000 mm2, a value can be
class. derived for a maximum expected inclusion size or inclu-
sion size class, respectively.
8.3 SEP 1571, method E The evaluation according to method E is based on the
size of the largest inclusion in each individual microsec-
It was shown that above six or eight samples, respectively, tion, which means that an extended evaluation according to
the evaluations show more reliable values for the degree of SEP 1571, method M can also be made. Figure 11a com-
cleanliness according to SEP 1571, method K, starting pares the maximum inclusion size class of both methods.
from size class 0. However, this number of samples is not Particularly with inclusion type B, the size class increases
practical for each steel evaluation in industrial practice. A from two to four as a result of the extreme value analysis.
better approach could be to use a combination of the The value obtained using method E is therefore more

123
1592 D. Fuchs et al.

(a) 4 number of samples to a maximum of 24. The value com-

A B D D_sulf
Dsulf
parability of SEP 1571 and DIN 50602 is investigated in
Inclusion size class

3
more detail. The influence of the gear steel alloy system
2
and slight differences in inclusion content is investigated as
1 well. Next, it is investigated, if the characteristic values of
0 SEP 1571, method K and ISO 4967, method A, are com-
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 parable. The extreme values methods according to SEP
Number of microsections
1571, method E and ASTM E2283-08 are compared,
(b) 5 before the results from the laboratories are contrasted as a
2 samples 3 samples 4 samples
4 final point.
Inclusion size class

5 samples 6 samples
3

2
9.1 Statistical method of determining minimum
number of samples for SEP 1571, method K
1

0
A B D Dsulf
D_sulf
In Sect. 8, it was shown that six or eight samples, respec-
Inclusion type tively, would be needed to deliver more reliable cleanliness
values for ultra-clean gear steels. For the evaluations
Fig. 10 Mean values for 1 to 36 microsections according to SEP according to SEP 1571, methods M and K, (at least) one
1571, method M (a), and mean value and standard deviation of 2 to 6
samples (b) combined using steel batch OW3 as an example sample (e 6 microsections) should be used. For method E,
two or four samples are recommended (e 12 or 24
conservative, because it predicts larger inclusion sizes. microsections, respectively) in the standard. In industrial
Figure 11b presents the steel batches S4, S6, S8, OW4 and practice, the time and costs are important factors. There-
OW3 in the form of a stacked bar chart. The number of fore, this section examines whether a reliable value can be
microsections evaluated for these steel batches was 24. An delivered by up to four samples (e 24 microsections). The
evaluation based on this representation of results seems following uses sulfide inclusions as an example, starting
helpful when comparing ultra-clean steel batches. from size class 0 of steel batch OW3. To eliminate prob-
able laboratory influences, all values are from a single
laboratory.
9 Further investigations Figure 12a shows the individual values for each
microsection. Random microsection combinations are
Further questions are clarified in the following. Using a shown based on these values, as shown in Fig. 12b. After
statistical method, the minimum number of samples for combining approximately 18 microsections, the deviations
SEP 1571, method K, is determined, when limiting the between the mean values are within an acceptable range. It

(a) 6 (b) 14
Maximum value, method M Type A Type B

5 12 Type C Type D
Maximum value, method E
Inclusion size class

Inclusion size class

10
4

8
3
6
2
4
1
2
0
Type A Type B Type D 0
S4 S6 S8 OW4 OW3
Inclusion type Steel batch

Fig. 11 Maximum inclusion size class according to SEP 1571, methods M and E using steel batch OW3 as an example (a), and stacked bar
chart of inclusion types present according to SEP 1571, method E (b) for various steel batches (24 microsections)

123
Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness in ultra-clean gear steels 1593

seems that at least three samples (e 18 microsections) are 9.3 Influence of gear steel alloy system
helpful to get reliable cleanliness values, when limiting the and slight differences in inclusion content
number of microsections to 24.
So far, steel batch OW3 (18CrNiMo7-6, see Table 3) was
9.2 Value compatibility between SEP 1571 used, due to its extended database compared to the other
and DIN 50602 steel batches. The following now evaluates whether the
conclusions drawn are also valid for other steel alloy sys-
According to its preamble, SEP 1571 is intended to be the tems and slightly different degrees of cleanliness. Fig-
value-compatible successor to DIN 50602. This value ure 15 shows the results for steel batches OW1, OW5,
compatibility was previously confirmed by an interlabora- OW7 and S9. To limit the evaluation effort, size class 2
tory test by the steel institute VdEh, which publishes the was chosen as the starting size class for steel batch OW1,
SEP 1571 specification. However, in the interlaboratory due to its higher non-metallic inclusion content. Steel
test, steels with a common degree of cleanliness and clean batches OW7 and S9 show the lowest non-metallic inclu-
steels for bearing applications were used. This publication sion content of all steel batches. The results for each steel
will therefore also examine whether value compatibility batch are based on four samples (e 24 microsections).
also exists for ultra-clean gear steels. Virtually no differentiation is possible using values from
Figure 13a compares the overall total characteristic size class 4 onward. However, starting from size classes
value according to method K. A good correlation can be below 4, differences between the steels batches are visible.
seen between the two standards for evaluations starting As a result, it can be noted that the already drawn con-
from size classes 0, 1 and 2. Figure 13b and c shows the clusions are also valid for other steel alloy systems and
total characteristic values for oxide and sulfide inclusions, slightly different degrees of cleanliness.
respectively. Again, there is a good correlation between the
values obtained with method K of SEP 1571 and DIN 9.4 Comparison of characteristic values of SEP
50602. Figure 14 compares the maximum inclusion sizes 1571, method K and ISO 4967, method A
with method M, using steel batch OW3 as an example. This
evaluation is based on six specimens (e 36 microsections). Part 5 of the ISO 6336 gear standard presents the specifi-
Some slight differences can be seen. However, except for cations governing the cleanliness of gear steels. Here, the
the inclusion type A/SS, the same maximum inclusion size degree of cleanliness shall be determined according to ISO
class is always given. 4967, method A. Although the values of SEP 1571, method
K and ISO 4967, method A are not directly comparable, the
expectation is that comparing steel batches according to
these standards should at least show similar tendencies.
(a) Figure 16 compares the tendencies of SEP 1571, method
200
Characteristic value of

K and ISO 4967, method A. Figure 16a compares the total

150
characteristic values for each standard. Inclusions catego-
surface area

100 rized as fine and thick are considered here. The same
tendency can be seen with the steel batches OW1, S4, S6,
50
OW7 and S9. When only comparing the steel batches S8,
0 OW4, OW3 and OW5, a similar tendency is also apparent,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
but with an offset. Therefore, in Fig. 16b, only the inclu-
Microsection
(b) sions categorized as thick according to ISO 4967, method
200
A are compared to SEP 1571, method K. It can be seen that
Characteristic value of

150 the tendencies are more similar, but differences are still
surface area

present. However, it should be borne in mind that the

100
database for this comparison is limited.
Combination 1 Combination 2
50 Combination 3 Combination 4
Combination 5 9.5 Comparison of extreme value methods
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 according to SEP 1571, method E and ASTM
Number of randomly combined microsections E2283-08
Fig. 12 Individual values for each microsection (a) and mean values
for random microsection combinations (b) according to SEP 1571
Both standards use different approaches to determine a
method K, using example of steel batch OW3 (starting from size class maximum feature:
0)

123
1594 D. Fuchs et al.

(a) 1000 (b) 1000

SEP 1571 SEP 1571

Characteristic value of surface area

Characteristic value of surface area

DIN 50602 DIN 50602

100 100

10 10

K2
K2
K1
K2

K1
K2
1 1

Steel batch Steel batch

(c) 1000
SEP 1571
Characteristic value of surface area

DIN 50602

100

10
K1
K2

K2

Steel batch

Fig. 13 Overall total characteristic value according to SEP 1571, method K, starting from size class 0 and from size class 1 (K1) or 2 (K2) (a) and
total characteristic value for oxide (b) and sulfide (c) inclusions using method K of SEP 1571

1. ASTM E2283-08 determines a maximum inclusion E2283-8, inclusion type A shows higher values than
length using a two-parameter (Gumbel) extreme value inclusion type D for both steel batches. With SEP 1571,
distribution. The method of moments or the method of method E, the opposite tendency is apparent. However,
maximum likelihood is given for estimating the both standards show higher values for steel batch OW3
extreme value distribution parameters. The stated than for steel batch OW4.
95% confidence interval for the maximum inclusion
length is based on a probability of 99.9%. 9.6 Comparison of results from laboratories
2. Method E of SEP 1571 determines a maximum
inclusion size class or maximum inclusion area using This publication applied the results from six laboratories.
the method of maximum likelihood. The 95% confi- All laboratories used separate samples, which must be
dence intervals are calculated by the Workman- taken in consideration in the comparison of the laborato-
Hotelling method [16]. ries. This approach was chosen to broaden the database and
to consider the inhomogeneity of the material. The fol-
Direct comparison is therefore not possible. However, a
lowing compares the results of the laboratories, and steel
check is conducted in the following to ascertain whether at
batches OW3 and OW4 are used as an example. Table 7
least the same tendencies are visible for inclusion types A
gives an overview of the number of microsections from
and D of steel batches OW3 and OW4 as examples. Fig-
each laboratory evaluated in this subsection.
ure 17 compares the two standards. According to ASTM

123
Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness in ultra-clean gear steels 1595

4 the degree of cleanliness in the later most stressed area.

SEP 1571 Therefore, ROI for the examinations of the degree of
Maximum inclusion value DIN 50602 cleanliness was specified according to the region of the
3 later tooth root fillet of the gear.
A determination of the macroscopic degree of cleanli-
ness is required according to ISO 6336, part 5 for wrought
2 steels according to material quality ME. All gear steels in
this publication are classified according to this material
quality. Therefore, an ultrasonic immersion testing was
1
performed. Only in the specimens of steel batches OW3
and OW4, macroscopic inclusions could be detected by
ultrasonic immersion testing using the chosen parameters.
An ultrasonic immersion testing seems not to be an
0
A / SS Dsulf
B / OA D / OG D_sulf
appropriate method for differentiating the microscopic
degree of cleanliness of ultra-clean gear steels. However,
Inclusion type
an ultrasonic immersion testing should always be per-
Fig. 14 Maximum inclusion value according to SEP 1571, method M, formed for gear steels to ensure that no macroscopic
using OW3 as an example (note that there is no equivalent of Dsulf in inclusion is present in the steel batch and is even required
DIN 50602) for material qualities MQ and ME according to ISO 6336,
part 5.
Figures 18 and 19 show the characteristic value for
oxide and sulfide inclusions according to method K of SEP 10.1 SEP 1571
1571 and according to DIN 50602, respectively. It can be
seen that the values from each laboratory differ slightly. SEP 1571 is used here as an example standard for the
Starting from size class 4 almost no differences can be seen degree of cleanliness. It is assumed that the derived con-
between the laboratories in both steel batches, whereas clusions can also be applied in full or at least in large part
starting from size class 0 some differences are visible. to other standards, such as ISO 4967.
However, bearing in mind that the ultra-clean material is The investigations showed for SEP 1571, method K that
inhomogeneous, and different microsections were used, the starting from size class 4 is not suitable for comparing
values are all still within the same range. ultra-clean steels. Starting from size class 4, no differen-
tiation between ultra-clean gear steels can be made. This is
because smaller inclusions are present in ultra-clean gear
10 Discussion of results steels than in common gear steels. The examination of
and recommendations ultra-clean steels should start (at least) at size class 1,
although starting from size class 0 seems beneficial. It is
A high degree of cleanliness has been achieved for all also possible to start from size classes below zero, but the
variants. The individual measures taken in the steel pro- increased effort needed to determine the values might be
duction process appear to be effective and result in ultra- impractical in industrial practice; however, they should be
clean gear steels. Steel batches OW7 and S9 show the considered in research projects, where the degree of
highest degree of cleanliness. Both steel batches had a cleanliness is a key research topic. In addition to the overall
modified calcium treatment with additional recrystalliza- total characteristic value, the total characteristic value for
tion annealing. Furthermore, both steel batches were NiCr, oxide and sulfide inclusions should be stated as well.
and NiMo alloyed instead of MnCr or CrNiMo alloyed. Especially, if the degree of cleanliness is determined by
However, the influence of the higher degree of cleanliness different inclusion types.
in combination with these both alloy systems on the tooth In an evaluation of ultra-clean gear steels according to
root bending strength is still to be investigated. SEP 1571, method K, no noteworthy difference is visible
Normally, the location of the evaluation area for the even with a high number of samples, starting from size
examination of the degree of cleanliness is specified in the class 4. However, from size class 0, a not negligible
steel mill. This can vary depending on the dimension and influence of the number of samples is apparent. For sulfide
manufacturing route of the steel batch. However, for the inclusions, values that are more reliable only appear from
correlation of the tooth root bending strength with the eight samples onward and for oxide inclusions only from
degree of cleanliness it is crucial that the local degree of six samples onward. This is because the non-metallic
cleanliness is determined. It seems beneficial to determine inclusions are inhomogeneously distributed in terms of

123
1596 D. Fuchs et al.

(a) 350 (b) 45

40

Characteristic value of surface area

Characteristic value of surface area
300
35
250
30
200 25
20
150
15
100
10
50 5

0 0
Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size
class 2 class 3 class 4 class class class class class
0 1 2 3 4
Sulfide inclusions
Oxide inclusions
(c) 70 (d) 10
9

Characteristic value of surface area

Characteristic value of surface area

60
8
50 7
6
40
5
30 4
20 3
2
10 1
0 0
Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size
class class class class class class class class class class
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Oxide inclusions Oxide inclusions

Fig. 15 Mean value and standard deviation of characteristic value of surface area according to SEP 1571, method K for steel batch OW1 (MnCr-
alloyed) (a), steel batch OW5 (CrNiMo-alloyed) (b), steel batch OW7 (NiMo-alloyed) (c) and steel batch S9 (NiCr-alloyed) (d)

(a) OW1 (b) OW1

S9 S4 S9 S4

OW7 S6 OW7 S6

OW5 S8 OW5 S8

OW3 OW4 OW3 OW4

SEP 1571 method K SEP 1571 method K
ISO 4967 method A ISO 4967 method A (thick)

Fig. 16 Comparison of tendencies of SEP 1571, method K and ISO 4967, method A (a) and SEP 1571, method K and only inclusion categorized
as thick according to ISO 4967, method A (b)

123
Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness in ultra-clean gear steels 1597

(a) 250 (b) 5

Inclusion type A
Type A Type D

Predicted longest inclusion length

Inclusion type D
200 4

Inclusion size class

150 3
Lmax /µm
100
2

50
1

0
OW4 OW3 0
OW4 OW3
Steel batch Steel batch

Fig. 17 Comparison of extreme value methods ASTM E2283 (a) and SEP 1571, method E (b)

Table 7 Overview of number of microsections evaluated from each laboratory

Steel Laboratory
batches
A B C D E F

OW3 20 8 24 18 6 6
OW4 14 6 24 18 6 6

their size and location in the steel volume. In addition, a to determine the characteristic value of the surface area
minimum of six microsections seems beneficial for each according to SEP 1571, method K. However, 24 micro-
sample, and each microsection should be (at least) 200 sections seems more beneficial.
lm2. The standard SEP 1571 is a value-compatible successor
There is no strong influence of the number of samples on to DIN 50602 also for ultra-clean gear steels. There is a
the maximum inclusion size according to SEP 1571, good correlation between the values obtained with method
method M, if evaluating six microsections for one sample. K of SEP 1571 and DIN 50602. Some slight differences
However, it seems beneficial that (at least) two samples can be seen when comparing these methods. However,
(e 12 microsections) are evaluated to determine the except for the inclusion type A/SS, the same maximum
maximum inclusion size. For a comparison of ultra-clean inclusion size class is always given.
steel batches, method E of SEP 1571 represents a more The already drawn conclusions are also valid for other
conservative approach than method M. Furthermore, a steel alloy systems and slight differences in non-metallic
stacked bar chart facilitates comparison of ultra-clean inclusion content.
steels according to method E. It is not possible to make a direct comparison of the
values of SEP 1571, method K and ISO 4967, method A.
10.2 Further investigations However, it seems that a comparison of SEP 1571, method
K and only the inclusion categorized as thick according to
It was shown that the determination of the degree of ISO 4967, method A may display a similar tendency.
cleanliness of these ultra-clean gear steels should be based However, this has to be verified in further investigations.
on six or more samples. However, this approach is not The overall tendency is similar when comparing the steel
expedient in industrial practice. Four samples (e 24 batches with ASTM E2283-08 and SEP 1571, method E.
microsections) are usually examined for SEP 1571, method However, differences are apparent when comparing the
E. When limiting the number of microsections to a maxi- inclusion types.
mum of 24, to limit time and costs, it seems beneficial that Comparing the results of different laboratories shows
at least three samples (e 18 microsections) are examined that the values from each laboratory differ slightly.

123
1598 D. Fuchs et al.

(a) 50 (b) 300

Characteristic value of surface area

LAB-A LAB-A

Characteristic value of surface area

LAB-B 250 LAB-B
40
LAB-C 200 LAB-C
30 LAB-D LAB-D
150
20
100

10
50

0 0
Size class 0 Size class 4 Size class 0 Size class 4
Oxide inclusions Sulfide inclusions

(c) 50 (d) 300

LAB-A LAB-A
Characteristic value of surface area

Characteristic value of surface area

LAB-B 250 LAB-B
40
LAB-C
LAB-C
LAB-D 200
30 LAB-E LAB-D
LAB-F 150 LAB-E
20
100

10
50

0 0
Size class 0 Size class 4 Size class 0 Size class 4
Oxide inclusions Sulfide inclusions

Fig. 18 Characteristic value according to method K of SEP 1571 of oxide (a) and sulfide (b) inclusions, and according to method K of DIN
50602 of oxide (c) and sulfide (d) inclusions of steel batch OW3 and comparison of laboratories

However, bearing in mind that the ultra-clean material is application and further improvement. A possible approach
inhomogeneous and different microsections were used, the to characterize ultra-clean gear steels, based on the results
values are all still within the same range. It can be stated presented here, would be as follows:
that the six laboratories, which carried out the cleanliness
1. ROI should be specified according to the region of the
studies, achieved comparable results. Whether this also
later tooth root fillet of the gear.
applies to other laboratories must be examined more in
2. Ultrasonic immersion testing according to SEP 1927
detail in each individual case. As a conclusion for indus-
should be used to ensure that no macroscopic inclu-
trial practice, it can be stated that no distinction should be
sions are present.
drawn between steel batches with cleanliness values in the
3. Determination of the microscopic degree of cleanliness
same range due to the inhomogeneity of ultra-clean gear
should be performed according to SEP 1571, method
steels. However, in further investigations, limit values
K:
should be elaborated to allow better comparison and dif-
ferentiation of gear steels. a. 4 single samples (e 24 single microsections)
b. Area of (at least) 200 lm2 for each microsection
10.3 Recommendations c. Starting from size class 0
d. Separate statement of oxide and sulfide inclusions
For industrial application of these results, it is important in e. Statement of standard deviation
the gear industry to make recommendations for direct

123
Challenges in determination of microscopic degree of cleanliness in ultra-clean gear steels 1599

(a) 8 (b) 20
LAB-A LAB-A

Characteristic value of surface area

7

Characteristic value of surface area

LAB-B LAB-B
6 15
LAB-C LAB-C
5 LAB-D LAB-D
4 10

2 5

0 0
Size class 0 Size class 4 Size class 0 Size class 4
Oxide inclusions Sulfide inclusions

(c) 8 (d) 20
LAB-A LAB-A
7
Characteristic value of surface area

Characteristic value of surface area

LAB-B LAB-B
6 LAB-C 15 LAB-C
LAB-D LAB-D
5 LAB-E
LAB-E
4 LAB-F 10 LAB-F

2 5

0 0
Size class 0 Size class 4 Size class 0 Size class 4
Oxide inclusions Sulfide inclusions

Fig. 19 Characteristic value according to method K of SEP 1571 of oxide (a) and sulfide (b) inclusions, and according to method K of DIN
50602 of oxide (c) and sulfide (d) inclusions of steel batch OW4 and comparison of laboratories

4. Determination of the extreme value should be in 3. Should there be any irregularities in the characteriza-
accordance with SEP 1571, method E. tion, repeated grinding and polishing of the microsec-
tions to gain 48 microsections in total is a simple way
Should there be any irregularities in the characterization,
to expand the database.
repeated grinding and polishing of the microsections to
gain 48 microsections in total is recommended.
Acknowledgements The underlying research work was funded in
equal proportions by the ‘‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller
Forschungsvereinigungen e.V. (AiF)’’, the German Federal Ministry
11 Conclusions of Economics and Technology (BMWi, IGF no. 16662 N) and the
FVA. The results presented in this paper were taken from the FVA
1. A high degree of cleanliness has been achieved for all research project 293 III ‘‘Späte Zahnfußbrüche/ Reinheitsgrad’’. More
detailed information on the influence of non-metallic inclusions is
steel batches investigated with the measures taken in given in the final report.
the steel production process. All steel batches can be
classified in the category ‘‘ultra-clean gear steels’’. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt
2. An examination of 24 microsections starting from size DEAL. The underlying research work was funded in equal propor-
class 0 seems beneficial (SEP 1571, method K) to get tions by the ‘‘Forschungsvereinigung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der
Eisen und Metall verarbeitenden Industrie e.V. (AVIF)’’ (A 305 / S
more reliable and comparable results of the degree of 0024/10235/16) and the FVA. The results presented in this paper were
cleanliness. taken from the FVA research project 293 IV ‘‘Späte Zahnfußbrüche/

123
1600 D. Fuchs et al.

Reinheitsgrad II’’. More detailed information on the influence of non- Schützenhöfer, R. Schneider, C. Schüller, Berg Huettenmaenn
metallic inclusions, especially in the very high cycle range, is given in Monatsh 157 (2012) 194–203.
the final report. [6] C. Temmel, B. Karlsson, K. Torresvoll, Practical Metall. 46
(2009) 123–136.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons [7] Y. Murakami, Metal fatigue, Academic Press, New York, USA,
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, 2019.
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as [8] D. Fuchs, T. Tobie, K. Stahl, Investigations into the defect
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the failure of gears and its influence on the gear load carrying
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate capacity, Forschungsvereinigung Antriebstechnik e.V. (FVA),
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this Frankfurt, Germany, 2021.
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless [9] N. Bretl, Influences on the tooth root load carrying capacity of
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not case-hardened gears in the range of high load cycles, Technical
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 2010.
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted [10] A. Stenico, material-mechanical investigations of the tooth root
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright load carrying capacity of case-hardened gears Technical
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit [Link] University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 2007.
org/licenses/by/4.0/. [11] D. Fuchs, S. Schurer, T. Tobie, K. Stahl, Forschung im Inge-
nieurwesen 83 (2019) 579–587.
[12] N. Bretl, S. Schurer, T. Tobie, K. Stahl, B.R. Höhn, Investiga-
tions on tooth root bending strength of case hardened gears in
References the range of high cycle fatigue, in: American Gear Manufac-
turers Association Fall Technical Meeting, 2013, pp. 52–59.
[13] K.J. Winkler, S. Schurer, T. Tobie, K. Stahl, Proceed. Inst.
[1] A. Tridello, D. Paolino, G. Chiandussi, M. Rossetto, Key Eng.
Mech. Eng. Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 233 (2019) 7338–7349.
Mater. 665 (2015) 49–52.
[14] D. Fuchs, S. Schurer, T. Tobie, K. Stahl, On the determination of
[2] S. Schurer, Influence of non-metallic inclusions in ultra-clean
the bending fatigue strength in and above the very high cycle
materials on the tooth root load-carrying capacity, Technical
fatigue regime of shot-peened gears, Forschung im Ingenieur-
University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 2016.
wesen, 2021. [Link]
[3] A. Melander, M. Rolfsson, A. Nordgren, B. Jansson, H. Hed-
[15] S. Schurer, T. Tobie, K. Stahl, Load carrying capacity increase
berg, T. Lund, Scand. J. Metall. 20 (1991) 229–244.
in the tooth root due to ultra-clean steels, Frankfurt, Germany,
[4] A. Tridello, D. Paolino, G. Chiandussi, M. Rossetto, Procedia
2021.
Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 1117–1124.
[16] E. Mullins, Statistics for the quality control chemistry labora-
[5] R. Werl, G. Klösch, W. Winkler, A. Pissenberger, M.W. Egger,
tory, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, 2003.
S. Aigner, J. Pühringer, S. Michelic, C. Bernhard, W.

123