CATRA wear resistance results? Or wear resistance as a %?

B

bubblewhip

Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
248
Is there any information on steels wear resistance as a percentage or level of magnitude compared to a standard like 440c? I'd like to know that information if possible. I know that Crucible has a chart for their steels using a CATRA test saying steels like s30v have 45% wear resistance increase over 440c. Is there any similar information out for other steels? Thanks.
 
Carpenter has test data based on the G65 abrasive wear test, and include hardnesses in their charts. Carpenter steels are all well documented.

Crucible has an abrasive wear test in the S110V datasheets. It shows that 60 rc S110V is more wear resistant than 58 rc 440C.
 
In chart comparisons of steels it would help if information was given concerning heat treating . As the use of a cryogenic soak during heat treat greatly increases wear resistance . DM
 
Here are some of the charts from the datasheets that I have, based on the G65 abrasive wear test. Let me know if there is any particular steel you're interested in.

Note that the D2 did not undergo freezing treatment, whereas the CTS-XHP did:
ctsxhpg65.jpg


03ts60typicalworkinghar.gif


01ts61relwear.gif


crucibles110vs90v.jpg
 
Last edited:
The problem with just looking at the steel properties is that blade performance is more dependent on blade geometry than it is on alloy. Buck proved this in their development work for their Edge 2000.
 
cotdt said:
Crucible has an abrasive wear test in the S110V datasheets. It shows that 60 rc S110V is more wear resistant than 58 rc 440C.
Click to expand...

Thats some revolutionary information there. Way to put out the info, Crucible.
 
Oh its nothing to do with Cotdt, but apparently Crucible had Capt. Obvious running the report editing dept.

On a serious note, Cotdt, do you get these charts directely from the steel companies? Are they available on their websites?
 
knarfeng said:
The problem with just looking at the steel properties is that blade performance is more dependent on blade geometry than it is on alloy. Buck proved this in their development work for their Edge 2000.
Click to expand...

Did they really? All I could find was an old article that says
The Edge2000 results in a "thinner" edge by honing the blades to an
included angle of 26 to 32 degrees, compared to the old range of 35
to 50 degrees. Blades with the Edge2000 have been matched against
the old methods by subjecting them to a computerized international
standard test for edge retention. The results, says Buck, prove the
clear superiority of the Edge2000 process.
Click to expand...
 
me2 said:
On a serious note, Cotdt, do you get these charts directely from the steel companies? Are they available on their websites?
Click to expand...

They're available at the websites. Sometimes you have to register to access the data, but it's no big deal.

bradefolums said:
Did they really? All I could find was an old article that says

The Edge2000 results in a "thinner" edge by honing the blades to an
included angle of 26 to 32 degrees, compared to the old range of 35
to 50 degrees. Blades with the Edge2000 have been matched against
the old methods by subjecting them to a computerized international
standard test for edge retention. The results, says Buck, prove the
clear superiority of the Edge2000 process.
Click to expand...

Seems like something anyone can do, just reprofile to a thinner edge.
 
Reprofiling gave excellent increase in CATRA results. IIRC, 420HC did better than BG-42 by profiling the 420 to Edge2K. But I think Buck also quit using CATRA when they found this. Something about the cuts being too straight, no lateral pressure on the edge didn't give relatable numbers.
 
I discussed this here a while back with some other members. Seems like Buck ground the edge thinner, in addition to decreasing the sharpening angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top