Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-3008-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Modelling of back tempering in laser hardening

Luca Giorleo & Barbara Previtali & Quirico Semeraro

Received: 28 May 2010 / Accepted: 1 November 2010 / Published online: 16 November 2010
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Abstract Back tempering is one of the most critical

problems in laser hardening of extended surfaces. In this
type of treatment, several laser tracks are slightly overlapped to obtain a uniform hardened surface. Due to the
overlapping, tempered zones are generated on the treated
surface with the consequent lack of uniformity in the
surface hardness. In this work, a regression model was
developed to estimate the loss of hardness due to the
tempering effect as a function of the thermal cycle. A
specific test, named laser surface treatment test, was
designed and executed to reproduce the hardness reduction
due to the tempering effect. An analytical thermal model
was developed to evaluate the thermal cycle undergone by
the material during this test. By the results of the laser
surface treatment test combined with the analytical model, a
prediction model was estimated. Good agreement was
found between predicted and measured hardness decrease,
and the identified model could be integrated in a numerical
code to evaluate the optimal process parameters.
Keywords Laser hardening . Back tempering effect .
Tempering modelling . Laser surface treatment test

L. Giorleo (*)
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Industriale,
Universita Degli Studi Di Brescia,
Viale Branze, 38,
25123, Brescia, Italy
e-mail: luca.giorleo@ing.unibs.it
B. Previtali : Q. Semeraro
Dipartimento di Meccanica, Politecnico Di Milano,
Via La Masa, 1,
20156, Milan, Italy

1 Introduction
Laser hardening is a well-known technique to improve wear
and fatigue resistance of mechanical parts [13]. Laser
hardening can be used to treat a wide range of geometries:
from point-shaped (end-strokes, contact points, etc.) to
linear (rails, blades, metal sheet bending tools, etc.), from
cylindrical (steel shafts, cylinder liners, pistons, piston
rings, valves, etc.) to complex-shaped parts (camshafts,
forging dies, etc.) [4].
The process is based on the local heating action imposed
by a laser beam and on the subsequent rapid cooling
generated by the heat conduction in the workpiece. When
applied to steels, the imposed thermal cycle generates a
microstructural change in a surface layer, which is changed
into martensite. Consequently, an increase in hardness can
be observed, which turns into an increase in wear and
fatigue resistance.
The typical microstructures that can be found in a
hardened track in steel are reported in Fig. 1. Three
different zones can be observed: a hardened zone (HZ),
where the material presents a martensitic microstructure; a
heat-affected zone (HAZ), where the thermal field affects
the microstructure, but the maximum temperature reached
by the material does not allow a complete transformation in
austenite and the base material zone where the microstructure is not affected by the hardening process.
If the dimensions of the surface that must be treated
increase, a single laser track is not enough to completely
harden all the surfaces; so, several adjacent tracks are needed.
In order to guarantee a uniform hardened depth, these tracks
are slightly overlapped. In the central part of each track, a
microstructure similar to the ones reported in Fig. 1 is found,
while a singularity is present in the overlapped zones. In
these areas, the thermal field generated by the current track

970

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

HZ

Scanning direction

HAZ
BMZ

Fig. 1 Microstructures obtained in laser hardening of a single track

interacts with the microstructure (martensite) obtained by the

previous track. As showed in Fig. 2 the thermal field of the
current track that generates the heat-affected zone (HAZ2)
affects the obtained martensite of the previous track (HZ1),
which, at the end, turns into a microstructure of lower
hardness (tempered martensite, TZ).
This phenomenon, referred to as back tempering, results
in a local reduction in hardness (Fig. 3) which leads to a
lack of uniformity in surface hardness and, as a consequence, in surface mechanical properties [5].
Both the extension of the back tempering zone and the
entity of the loss in hardness depend on the material being
processed and on the process parameters adopted during the
hardening. Given the material, a careful selection of process
parameters should be adopted to control and eventually reduce
the area and the entity of back tempering. The effect of back
tempering indeed is controversial when the mechanical
properties in general and the wear resistance in particular are
investigated in the overall treated area due to the presence and
effect of the back-tempered areas. Some authors measured
indeed an increased fatigue life of the material (AISI 4140)
due to the effects of overlapped tracks on a cylindrical
workpiece [6], while others have found better wear friction
and wear resistance in area treated with two non-overlapping
tracks compared with an untreated surface [7]. Pantelis et al.
have confirmed that the wear resistance depends on the
entity of the overlapping, concluding that highly overlapped
areas ensure better wear resistance [8], while low overlapping ratio exhibit a tendency for better corrosion
behaviour in NaCl environment.
When the microhardness values are considered on the
contrary, it is common experience to observe a decrease
in the microhardness values in the reheated zone, mainly
due to the tempering of the martensite. The presence of a
loss of hardness due to two overlapped scans of laser
beam, in case of a high phosphorus cast iron, was
evaluated by Li et al. [9].

Fig. 2 Back tempering effect

just behind the overlapping
area

Starting from the observation of the microhardness

decrease, several efforts have been done to develop coupled
models able to correlate the temperature field in the
overlapped area to the microstructure evolution and, at the
end, to the final consequent microhardness.
Starting from the hardening model of Skvarenina et al.
[10], Lakhkar et al. focused their study on the development
of a numerical model to predict the back tempering in
multi-track laser hardening [11]; they developed a kinetic
hardening-tempering model to correlate the hardness value
with the carbon content of the steel and the mass fraction of
martensite. Tani et al. presented a mathematical model for
predicting material mechanical property variation in laser
hardening of AISI 1045 when the softening effects due to
the overlapping trajectories are considered [12]; the authors
propose a numerical code based by the kinetic laws
described by Ashby and Easterling [13] to preview the
hardness measure derived by a multiple scan treatment.
Unfortunately, this promising approach is highly demanding in terms of computing and modelling time and up
to now has given validated results only for few carbon
steels and initial microstructures. Availability of such a
model will be useful in designing the laser overlapping
patterns and operating conditions, when different steels and
cast irons are laser-treated. A simplified approach, which
allows the laser process parameters through the temperature
field to be directly correlated to the microhardness values in
the treated zone, can be very helpful and can support the
design of more complex models.
On the contrary, both experimental works dealing with
tempering of martensite and modelling works investigating
the kinetic laws that describe the hardness reduction of steel
during traditional oven treatment are largely reported [1417].
All of these works refer as a starting point to the well-known
work of Hollomon and Jaffe [18]. To the authors knowledge,
the robustness of the models applied in the case of tempering
in oven has not be tested, when tempering results from the
fast thermal cycles that occur in laser hardening.
In the present paper, the back tempering phenomena is
reproduced making use of a specific treatment test, named
laser surface treatment (LST) test [18]. The LST is a
technological test developed ad hoc to reproduce the thermal
field generated by a laser beam acting on a metallic surface.
Thanks to the simple geometry of the sample used during in
the LST test, the thermal field is rigorously modelled by a

HZ2

Scanning direction

HAZ2

TZ

HZ1

HAZ1
Current Track

Previous Track

BMZ

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

Fig. 3 Schematic effect of back
tempering on surface hardness

971
HV

Surface Hardness
HV

Current Track

fast and accurate analytical model. The advantage of this test

is the possibility to combine each microstructural change (in
terms of hardness value) to the thermal cycle, resulting from
the analytical model, without the dependence with the laser
process parameters. This test was designed in order to
evaluate the laser thermal cycle avoiding problems correlated
to the geometry and the shape of the component. Usually, the
complex shape of the laser-treated components indeed makes
prediction of the thermal field more difficult, since the
thermal problem becomes three-dimensional and complex,
and time-consuming numerical solutions are required, apart
from few exceptions [19, 20].
In this paper, a regression model to estimate back
tempering in laser hardening is pointed out making use of
the LST test, which allows the hardness measurements and
the thermal cycles that generate them to be correlated. The
effect of the laser process parameters is explicated in terms
of maximum temperature and heating time. Then, the
contribution of both thermal parameters to the hardness
values in the tempered zone is investigated, according to
the Hollomon and Jaffe model. The regressive analysis puts
in evidence that only the maximum temperature can be
used to explain the hardness behaviour because the heating
time is strongly correlated to the maximum temperature.
Therefore, a simple regressive model, which depends only

Tempered Zone

Previous Track

on the maximum temperature reached in the tempered zone,

is pointed out. This regressive empirical law can be
implemented in numerical simulation software and used
when the process parameters have to be selected and
optimised in order to reduce the back tempering effect
during laser hardening of complex shape components.
Compared with more complex models recently proposed,
this approach, based on the direct correlation of the
temperature field exerted in the back-tempered area to the
microhardness decrease, without intentionally considering
complex geometry or the kinetic evolution of the microstructure phases, has the advantage to be rapidly useful and
usable, especially in industrial applications.

2 The laser surface treatment test

2.1 LST test description
In order to experimentally investigate the influence of fast
thermal cycle on the steel microstructures during the laser
heat treatment process, a specific test, named LST test, was
designed and proposed by the authors in [21]. The basic
idea of the LST test is reported in Fig. 4. One of the flat
surfaces of a cylindrical rod is exposed to a laser beam of a
given power and for a given duration (the beam is
stationary over the rod). The exposure to the laser beam
imposes a thermal cycle to the rod, where each point in the
rod undergoes a different cycle: the maximum temperature
gained decreases as the distance from the exposed surface is
increased, and the thermal cycle becomes less severe.
assistant gas

laser beam

laser
beam

assistant gas
protection
plate
rod

Fig. 4 Different thermal cycles resulting from the LST test

Fig. 5 LST test: experimental set up

972

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

Because the whole upper surface of the rod is exposed to

the laser beam, the main thermal gradient is along the rod
axis, while the gradient in radial direction can be neglected.
Consequently, the thermal problem is mono-dimensional in
the axial direction.
Once exposed to the beam, the rod is sectioned and
polished along the cylindrical surface, and the local
microstructure is observed, as well as the hardness
measured. If the thermal cycle is known, the characteristics
of the thermal cycle (i.e., maximum, temperature, duration
of the cycle, etc.) can be associated to the observed
microstructure and to the measured hardness values.
The main advantage of the LST test is the capability to
reproduce the fast heating and cooling thermal cycles that
can be observed in laser hardening, without being affected
by the real component geometry.
2.2 Model of the temperature field

Table 1 Nominal chemical composition (wt.%) of the AISI 1060 [24]

C

Mn

Fe

0.550.66

0.60.9

Max, 0.04

Max, 0.05

Bal.

&
&

The rod is long enough to be modelled as a semi-infinite

body;
The initial temperature of the rod is supposed to be
constant, uniform and equal to the ambient temperature T0;

The input parameters of the thermal model belong to the

following three groups:
&
&
&

Laser parameters, that means laser power (P), spot

dimension (S), absorption coefficient (A) and exposure
time (te);
Environment parameters, that means convection coefficient
(H), gas temperature (Tgas), ambient temperature (T0);
Material parameters, that means thermal conductivity
(k), density () and specific heat (cp).

A thermal model is used in order to fully describe the thermal

cycle undergone by different points in the rod during the LST
test. In this way, a direct comparison between the thermal
cycle and the hardness loss could be performed.
Recently, the analytical thermal model that accounts for
the temperature cycle during the LST test was proposed and
validated by the authors [21]. The hypotheses adopted in
this thermal model are as follows:

The solution of the described thermal model is given in

detail in [22]. Only the principal results are reported in the
following. The thermal model developed was subdivided
into two sub-problems: one referred to as the heating phase
(T1) and the other one to the cooling phase (T2). The
solutions that describe both thermal cycles are as follows:

&

T1 x; t T0

&

The material is considered isotropic, homogeneous

and characterised by thermal parameters that are
temperature-independent;
the lateral surface of the rod is adiabatic, while an
assistant gas at temperature Tgas cools down the top
surface by forced convection;

F0
Tgas
H




p
x
x
2
erfc p  ehxh at erfc p h at
4at
4at






p


2
x
x
 ehxh attte erfc p
h at  te
T2 x; t Tgas  c erfc p
2 atte
2 atte
8
"
!
!# 9
b2 tte
bx
>
>
p
p
e
e
x
ebx
x
>
>
>
>
>

p
p
erfc
erfc

>

b
a
t

t

b
a
t

t
e
e
>
>
< 2
=
hb
hb
2 at  te
2 at  te
2
!
ah b
aebxb atte c
>
>
p

>
>
h
x
2
>
>
>
>
 2
ehxh atte erfc p h at  te
>
>
:
;
h  b2
2 at  te

In Eqs. 1 and 2, F0 is the power density (A*P/S), h is

equal to (H/k), is equal to (k/( cp)), and a, b and c are
three constants equal to:
a T1 0; te h
i
x;te
b  T1 10;te @T1@x
c T1 1; te T0

x0

Thanks to the Eqs. 1 and 2, the heating and cooling thermal

cycle undergone by each section on the rod as a function of

time t and position x from the upper irradiated surface can be

evaluated.

3 Experimentation design and execution

The idea of the LST test is physically obtained with the
experimental setup reported in Fig. 5.
A direct high-power diode laser (Rofin DL022) with a
rectangular spot was used in the experiments. The mini-

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

Table 2 Constants and thermal
properties used in the thermal
model

973

Laser parameter

Environments parameters

A
0.3

H, W/m2C
350

S, mm2
4.47.8

mum laser focus size is 2.0*5.9 mm2 at a focal distance of

80 mm. The maximum power available is 2,200 W. It
should be noticed that the power distribution inside the spot
of the diode laser is fairly flat along the fast axis and
Gaussian along the slow axis. Nitrogen was used as
assistant gas.
A rod of AISI 1060 steel with a diameter of 4 mm was
used for the experimental procedure. The chemical composition of the steel is reported in Table 1. Table 2 lists the
constants and thermal properties used in Eqs. 1 and 2. The
rod length was selected using the method of images [23] in
order to reasonably consider the rod as a semi-infinite solid.
A two-level factorial plan was designed, with laser
power (P) and exposure time (te) as factors. The levels of P
and te were chosen according to the values generally
adopted in industrial treatment. In Table 3, the four process
conditions used for the experiments are summarised.
For each condition, two replicas were performed. The
factorial plan was completely randomized in order to reduce
the influence of any systematic uncontrolled factor.
Since during laser hardening the back tempering effect
acts on a martensitic microstructure, in order to use the LST
test for the analysis of the back tempering phenomenon, the
steel rod was preliminarily hardened in an oven to generate
a martensite microstructure (average microhardness value
900 HV300). In Fig. 6, the rod before (a) and after the LST
test (b) is reported. During the LST test, the material close
to the irradiated surface is re-hardened, resulting in a new
layer of martensite (HZ in Fig. 6b). Below this layer, the
thermal cycle undergone by the material is not strong
enough to generate a full austenitisation and therefore a
heat-affected zone is generated (HAZ in Fig. 6b). Below the
HAZ, the thermal cycles are mild enough to temper the
martensite, and a tempered zone can be observed (TZ in
Fig. 6b).
After the LST test, the rod was cross-sectioned through the
axis with a precision diamond saw and polished by conventional metallographic techniques. A diamond Vickers tester
was used for the microhardness tests. Microhardness tests
were carried out using 300 g load. Microhardness profiles

Tgas, C
16

Material parameters
T0,C
26

k, W/mC
24.95

, kg/m3
7,810

were measured along the rod axis cross-section, and two

hardness profiles were measured on each sample. The microhardness loss HV, that means the difference between the
base material microhardness value and the microhardness
measured in the tempered zone, was recorded.

4 Result analysis
4.1 Microhardness values analysis
The results of the LST test for each process condition are
reported in Fig. 7. Measured hardness values as a function
of the distance from the exposed surface (x=0) are given.
The mean value plus and minus the standard deviation of
four hardness measurements (two for each replica, two
replicas for each process condition) are given.
The hardness profiles of Fig. 7 can be subdivided into
four zones:
1. A hardened zone characterised by a high hardness value
(800900 HV) and a moderate standard deviation;
2. A heat-affected zone characterized by a steep decrease
in hardness (from about 800 to about 500 HV) and a
quite large standard deviation;
3. A tempered zone that starts from the minimum
hardness value (about 450500 HV) and increases
until the value of the starting martensite microstructure
is reached. A small standard deviation can be observed;
4. A hardened zone that is the base material microstructure, which has not been changed by the imposed laser
thermal cycle. Here, the hardness value is about
900 HV.

b
HZ
HAZ

HZ

TZ

Surface exposed
to the laser beam

Table 3 Process conditions used in the experimental plan

Values
P [W]
te [s]

1,200
0.5

1,200
1

2,000
0.5

2,000
1

cp, J/kgC
452

Fig. 6 Rod before (a) and after (b) of the LST test

974

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

1200 W - 0,5s

2000 W - 0,5s

1000

1000

900

900

HV0.3

1100

HV0.3

1100

800
700

800
700
600

600

500

500

400
300

400
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

x [mm]

x [mm]

1200 W - 1s

2000 W - 1s

1000

1100

900

1000

900

HV0.3

800

HV0.3

700
600

800
700
600

500

500
400

400
0

x [mm]

x [mm]

Fig. 7 Hardness profile resulting from the factorial experimental plan

From these measurements, the hardness decrease of the

tempered martensite with respect to the starting microstructure is evaluated for increasing values of x.

In the well-known work [10], Hollomon and Jaffe

proposed that the effect of T and t on the tempering can
be summarised in the tempering parameter Tp defined as:

4.2 Back tempering model

Tp T ct log t

When the tempering phenomenon is obtained during oven

treatment, a consolidate approach shows that the two thermal
parameters, i.e. the oven temperature T and the duration t of
the maintenance phase (central part of the thermal cycle
reported in Fig. 8a), mainly affect the final hardness values.

where ct is a constant depending on the material (in the case

of steel, ct is 20). Once Tp has been calculated, the final
hardness of the part can be predicted by using experimental
curves such as the one reported in Fig. 8b. Equation 4
implies that two different thermal cycles that present the
same Tp (but obtained with two different couples of T and t)

T [K]

60

Hardness [HRC]

50

40
30
20
10

t [h]

10

12

14

16

Temper Parameter ^103

Fig. 8 a Oven tempering cycle, b Hardness vs tempering parameter for a hot work tool steel (X 40CrMoV5-1)[10]

18

20

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

975

b
500
450

800

400

Tmax
600

350
HV

250
200
150
100

T [C]

1200W-0.5s
1200W-0.5s
1200W-1s
1200W-1s
2000W-0.5s
2000W-0.5s
2000W-1s
2000W-1s

300

400
200

t200C

0
0

50
0
200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

5
t [s]

10

800

Tmax [C]

Fig. 9 a HV vs Tmax, b HollomonJaffe input parameters adapted for a laser thermal cycle

lead to the same microstructural change and consequently,

to the same hardness values.
Thanks to its simplicity and well-recognised experimental validity, the model in Eq. 4 and its successive extensions
[17] have been largely used in order to estimate the
hardness values consequent to the oven tempering. Therefore, the Hollomon and Jaffe approach merits to be
tentatively applied also to the case of laser treatment, to
evaluate the loss of hardness due to the back tempering
effect.
First of all, in order to verify if the Hollomon and Jaffe
model can also be used in laser hardening process, the right
significance should be attributed to T and t.
As a first attempt, the maintenance temperature T is
related to the Tmax temperature, that is, the maximum
temperature reached by the material during the thermal
cycle. In Fig. 9a, the hardness loss vs. the maximum
temperature for each process condition is reported.

1400

0 mm

1200

1 mm

T[C]

1000

2 mm

800
600
400
200
0
0

10

t [s]

Fig. 10 Example of the thermal cycle undergone by the material

during the LST test at different depth (laser power=1 kW, exposure
time=1 s)

Figure 9a points out that the hardness decrease HV is

highly correlated to the maximum temperature. Moreover, it
can be observed that the loss of hardness vanishes when the
maximum temperature is about 200C. This means that, for
thermal cycles with a maximum temperature less than 200
C, the tempering phenomenon does not significantly occur.
Consequently, the maintenance time t was substituted by
the time t200C during which the temperature is higher
than 200C (see Fig. 9b).
As far as the Hollomon and Jaffe formula is concerned,
T and t are independent parameters, since they can be
independently set. Moreover, in case of oven treatment, the
thermal cycle is more controllable, and most of all, the
duration of the cycle is sensibly longer than in laser
hardening (hours in oven, seconds in laser heat treatment
process).
On the contrary, in case of laser heat treatment, time and
temperature are strictly correlated, since they cannot be set
independently. Indeed, given the laser process parameters,
only one couple of Tmax and t200C can be obtained at
different position from the sample top surface (Fig. 10).
Moreover, in the laser process, t200C is always
significantly shorter than the maintenance time in oven
treatment, being of the order of seconds rather than hours.
The analysis of correlation (Fig. 11b), graphically shown in
Fig. 11a, confirms that t200C and Tmax are correlated for
each set of process parameters.
Therefore, a simpler than the Hollomon and Jaffe model
linear equation is evaluated, which allows the back
tempering effect to be estimated as a function of the
maximum temperature:
HV 1852 798 logTmax

The correlation coefficient R2 equal to 98.5 (Radj2

98.5%), is high, proving a good agreement between

976

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

900
800

Correlation analysis
Tmax [C] t200C [s]

700

Tmax

600

HV

500

0,981(1)
0,000(2)

Tmax [C]
400

(1) Pearson coefficient

(2) P-value

P_1.2kW - t_0.5s
P_1.2kW - t_1s
P_2kW - t_0.5s
P_2kW - t_1s

300
200

0,735(1)
0,000(2)
0,687(1)
0,000(2)

100
0
0

10

12

t200C
Fig. 11 Correlation between t200C and Tmax

experimental and fitted values. The hypothesis of the

homogeneity of variance is verified while the normality of
residuals not. The non-normality of residuals means that
the confidence interval for the regression coefficients
cannot be estimated. However, the predicted value is still
valid in average. Moreover, the predicted values are still
correct because both correlation coefficients R2 and Radj2
vary high (up to 98%). In Fig. 12 Eq. 5 is plotted and it is
compared with the experimental data.
As can be seen from Fig. 12, a good agreement is found
between the maximum temperature and the loss of hardness.
Contrary to the original Hollomon and Jaffe model in the
laser heat treatment, the model that relates the microhardness
of the back-tempered area to the thermal cycle parameters is
based only on the maximum temperature.

Fig. 12 Temperature regression

model (Tmax R.M.) vs experimental value

5 Conclusions
In this paper, the back tempering problem that occurs in laser
hardening of extended surface was studied. The laser surface
treatment test was proposed as a means to reproduce this
undesired effect that can be observed in the real laser treatment.
The advantage of the LST test is that an elementary geometry for
the heated body is used and a fairly simple thermal modelling is
derived. Consequently, to relate the measured hardness values to
the thermal cycle undergone by the material is easy.
Based on the results of the LST test, a new approach was
followed starting from the assumption that, contrary to
traditional treatment, in laser hardening, the temperature
and the time are strictly correlated. So, a new model based
on the maximum temperature parameter was investigated.

500
450
400
350
1200W-0.5s
1200W-0.5s
1200W-1s
1200W-1s
2000W-0.5s
2000W-0.5s
2000W-1s
2000W-1s
Tmax R.M.

HV

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
200

250

300

350

400

450

500
Tmax [C]

550

600

650

700

750

800

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 54:969977

This model is able to predict the loss of hardness in the

tempered zone making use of a simple linear formula.
Despite that the normality test was not satisfied, a high
value of the correlation coefficient (up to 98%) allows the
model application to be available. A good agreement was
found between measured and predicted values.
The identified model can be used in numerical codes to
predict the loss of hardness due to the overlapping as a
function of the maximum temperature, predicted by the
code. As a consequence, process parameters that allow the
minimum hardness decrease can be selected.
Acknowledgements The present work was funded by the Italian
Ministry of University and Research under the PRIN project entitled
EKALSTEnhancing the Knowledge of Laser Treatments (2006).

References
1. Kennedy E, Byrne G, Collins DN (2004) A review of the use of high
power lasers in surface hardening. J Mater Process Technol 155
156:18551860. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.276S0924-0136
(04)00686-7
2. Li L (2000) The advances and characteristics of high-power diode
laser materials processing. Opt Lasers Eng 34:231253. doi:
S0143-8166(00)00066-X
3. Bachmann F (2003) Industrial applications of high power diode
lasers in materials processing. Appl Surf Sci 208209:125136.
doi:10.1016/S0169-4332(02)01349-1S0169-4332(02)01349-1
4. Savonof AN (1997) Basic directions of effective use of laser
equipment for heat treatment of alloys. Met Sci Heat Treat
39:275279. doi:10.1007/BF02467121
5. Iino Y, Shimoda K (1987) Effect of overlap pass tempering on
hardness and fatigue behavior in laser heat treatment of carbon
steel. J Mater Sci Lett 6:11931194
6. Peng RL, Ericsson T (1998) Effect of laser hardening on bending
fatigue of several steels. Scand J Metall 27:180190, ISSN: 0371-0459
7. Zhang XM, Man HC, Li HD (1997) Wear and friction properties
of laser surface hardened En31 steel. J Mater Process Technol
69:162166
8. Pantelis DI, Bouyiouri E, Kouloumbi N, Vassiliou P, Koutsomichalis
A (2002) Wear and corrosion resistance of laser surface hardened
structural steel. Surf Coat Technol 298:125134

977
9. Li Z, Zheng Q, Li J, Hu W, Wang H, Tian H (1985) Laser surface
treatment of high-phosphorus cast iron. J Appl Phys 58:3860
3864
10. Skvarenina S, Shin YC (2006) Predictive modeling and experimental results for laser hardening of AISI 1536 steel with complex
geometric features by a high power diode laser. Surf Coat Technol
201:22562269
11. Lakhkar RS, Shin YC, Krane MJM (2008) Predictive modeling of
multi-track laser hardening of AISI 4140 steel. Material Science
and Engineering 480:209217. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.07.054
12. Tani G, Orazi L, Fortunato A (2008) Prediction of hypo eutectoid
steel softening due to tempering phenomena in laser surface
hardening. CIRP AnnalsManufacturing Technology 57:209
212
13. Ashby MF, Easierling KE (1984) The transformation hardening of
steel Surface by laser beams-I hypo-eutectoid steel. Acta Metall
32(11):19351948
14. Speich GR, Leslie WC (1972) Tempering of steel. Metall Trans
3:10431054
15. Johnson WA, Mehl KF (1932) Reaction kinetics in processes
of nucleation and growth. Trans Am Inst Min Metall Eng
135:416
16. Avrami M (1940) Granulation, phase change and microstructure
kinetics of phase change. J Chem Phys 9:184
17. Zhang Z, Delagnes D, Bernhart G (2004) Microstructure
evolution of hot-work tool steels during tempering and definition
of a kinetic law based on hardness measurements. Mater Sci Eng
A 380:222
18. Hollomon JH, Jaffe LD (1945) Timetemperature relations in
tempering steel. Trans AIME 162:249
19. Woo HG, Cho HS (1999) Three-dimensional temperature distribution in laser surface hardening processes. Proc Inst Mech Eng
213:695712
20. Komanduri R, Hou ZB (2001) Thermal analysis of the laser surface
transformation hardening process. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 44:2845
2862. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.01.011S0890-6955(04)
00023-9
21. Capello E, Giorleo L, Previtali B (2007) Technological test and
thermal model for laser hardening process. SMT 21 Conference,
Paris, France, September pp 2426
22. Capello E, Giorleo L, Previtali B (2009) Modelling of the
transient thermal field in laser surface treatment test. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 40:307315. doi:10.1007/s00170-007-1350-z
23. Rosenthal D (1946) The theory of moving sources of heat and its
application to metal treatment. Trans A SM E 68:849866
24. Metals handbook (1990) Properties and selection: irons, steels,
and high-performance alloys. ASM International 10th: 1