Diehl Steel W-2 (So-Called) specs

Troop

Troop

Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,898
Hey Guys,
Several months ago, I ordered some "W-2" from Diehl Steel, since, at the time, I couldn't find anyone to flatten out Don Hanson's W-2. (Problem since remedied :thumbup:)
Well, after working with this steel, I was not impressed at all, to say the least.
With everyone raving about how great W-2 is, I finally broke down and had Sam Salvati analyze the steel for me, to know for sure what it really is.
Here is the results of the analysis:

C = .96
Si = .234
Mn = .263
P = .019
S = .008
Cr = .147
Ni = .112
Mo = .025
Al = .027
Cu = .149
C0 = .006
Ti = .002
V = .164
W = .028

Here is what the composition is of Diehl's W-2 is supposed to be, according their web site:

C = .86
Si = .23
Mn = .32
Cr = .15
Mo = .10
W = .15
V = .24
http://www.diehlsteel.com/w2.aspx


Here is what the composition of Diehl's W-1 is supposed to be, again, according to their web site:

C = 1.00
Si = .20
Mn = .25
Cr = .15
Mo = .10
W = .15
V = .01
http://www.diehlsteel.com/w1.aspx


From a quick glance, the steel that I received looks pretty close to Deihl's W-1 !
Now, mind you, a paid a real lot for this steel, because in order to give me flat stock, they had to custom saw it. (I'm embarrassed to say how much I paid for this stuff!)
Is what they sent me close enough in composition to call it W-2? Or, is it close enough to W-1 where an "error" was made by them, so I have enough grounds to complain? I want to be sure and have my ducks lined up before I start complaining.
What do you guys think of this steel? Hold on to it and treat it like overpriced 1095 ?
Thanks for any input.
- Mitch
 
The specs are in line but not exactly what I would want in W2. The Mn is too high, V a bit low and not sure if I would want that much Ni. I had troulbe with a good bit of different W2 before I found the good stuff. It about drove me crazy.

Below are the specs from a 2" piece of mine (thanks to Russ Andrews) for you to compare.

C .95,
Mn .22,
V .19,
Cr .15,
Si .23,
Mo .013,
Ni .08,
Cu .14

Hope this helps,
 
Thanks, Don, for finding someone who could flatten down your W-2 for me.:thumbup:
This so-called W-2 just has a bad "timbre"; something is just not right with it.
But, you're thinking that it's close enough in composition for Diehl to still be able to call it W-2, right?
- Thanks
 
Mitch, I thought you had "Tool Steels " by Roberts ?? Check out W-2 and you'll see that the only significant addition to W-2 [over W-1] is a bit of V for grain refinement. Everything else is a 'trace element'.Trace amounts usually mean below .25 %. Nothing in there that's detrimental or unusual.W-1 and W-2 are the simplest of the tool steels.
 
mete said:
Mitch, I thought you had "Tool Steels " by Roberts ?? Check out W-2 and you'll see that the only significant addition to W-2 [over W-1] is a bit of V for grain refinement. Everything else is a 'trace element'.Trace amounts usually mean below .25 %. Nothing in there that's detrimental or unusual.W-1 and W-2 are the simplest of the tool steels.
Click to expand...

O.K. Mete, Thanks. I'll read up on it in "Tool Steels". My concern is that Diehl sent me an inferior product, labeled as W-2.
 
This steel is the worst steel that I ever worked with, for some reason.
I'm thinking about just giving away 100 lbs. of it up at Ashokan next month.
 
I'd be interested in trying a piece of it if you can save me a bit that i can pick up from you at ashokan. I've never worked with W1 or W2 before. But any known steel is better than an unknown in my book.
 
Justin.Mercier said:
I'd be interested in trying a piece of it if you can save me a bit that i can pick up from you at ashokan. I've never worked with W1 or W2 before. But any known steel is better than an unknown in my book.
Click to expand...

Brother, you can have a whole bar.
 
Just for an example in comparison;
Aldo Bruno's 1084 FG (2008 Melt) kick's butt against Diehl's W-2 hands down, as does Kelly Cupples' 5160.
 
Like Mete said, it's a simple steel, but a wonderful one at that!

Not sure what the prob could be but based on the specs, it is W2, just the wrong W2 :D
 
Don Hanson III said:
Like Mete said, it's a simple steel, but a wonderful one at that!

Not sure what the prob could be but based on the specs, it is W2, just the wrong W2 :D
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe I'm just spoiled. Maybe I've just been real lucky with my steel sources in the past.
Well, now that I have your steel to work with, maybe my luck has changed for the better again.:)
 
Troop...
If you have one blade which didn't respond to HT as you
believe it should have, I'd suggest having that particular
piece analized....perhaps not all was W2.

Beond that...as mentioned....not all W2 is equal.....nor
responds the same to recommended HT.
 
Russ Andrews said:
Troop...
If you have one blade which didn't respond to HT as you
believe it should have, I'd suggest having that particular
piece analized....perhaps not all was W2.

Beond that...as mentioned....not all W2 is equal.....nor
responds the same to recommended HT.
Click to expand...

Russ, I could definitely have been sent a mixed batch by Diehl.
I gave this steel a 20 min soak at 1500, thinking that it had .86 carbon.
Well, now, after learning that this steel has .96 C, it seems like 1500 is too high for this steel.
I'll probably tone it down to 1450 for 10 mins, and quench it in Parks 50, and see what happens. In short, I'll treat it more like 1095, instead of 1084.
- Thanks
 
Yeah - that steel probably just sucks. You should scrap it. Tell you what - I'm building some high carbon boat anchors - I'll give you .20 cent a pound for it... :D


I'll bet money there is nothing wrong with that steel - you just haven't found the right treatment for it yet.

I know it is possible, within the chemistry specifications of 1095, to have a quench curve that goes all the way to the left side of the graph. No matter how fast you quench it you'll get pearlite. It can't get out of its own way. I haven't heard of this for W1 or W2, but I'll bet there is still a wide range of optimal HT.

I think there is enough V for the intended purpose.

You using a very fast oil. Is it old? Are you agitating? How does it respond to a brine quench? Try quenching from a lower temp? Thermal cycles (large grain makes steel suck). Cryo (oh God, did I just say that?)

Before you just junk it, I'm serious about buying it from you if you give up on it.
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
Yeah - that steel probably just sucks. You should scrap it. Tell you what - I'm building some high carbon boat anchors - I'll give you .20 cent a pound for it... :D


I'll bet money there is nothing wrong with that steel - you just haven't found the right treatment for it yet.

I know it is possible, within the chemistry specifications of 1095, to have a quench curve that goes all the way to the left side of the graph. No matter how fast you quench it you'll get pearlite. It can't get out of its own way. I haven't heard of this for W1 or W2, but I'll bet there is still a wide range of optimal HT.

I think there is enough V for the intended purpose.

You using a very fast oil. Is it old? Are you agitating? How does it respond to a brine quench? Try quenching from a lower temp? Thermal cycles (large grain makes steel suck). Cryo (oh God, did I just say that?)

Before you just junk it, I'm serious about buying it from you if you give up on it.
Click to expand...

Nathan,
"I have not yet begun to fight!"
This steel's been very challenging; It would be real easy to write this steel off....But, that would be too easy!!!:D
I'm going to lower the temp and soak time, and if that doesn't work, the guys up at Ashokan are going to be getting an early Christmas present. Either that, or you'll have more anchor material.;)
And......I always keep my Parks minty-fresh.:)
 
Like Russ and Nathan said, just need to work out the HT. Are you Normalizing? Very important! You'll figure it out...
 
I do "thermal cycling" during forging that Joe Szilaski taught me. (Sub-critical quenching between heats.)
I'm doing four normalizations after forging; Three from above critical temp to ambient. The fourth one, I put into the vermiculite for six hours to relieve stress and to anneal it somewhat.
After grinding, I then do a stress-relief soak at approx. 1250 for one hour.
Prior to hardening, I do three sub-critical normalizations, reducing the temp with each subsequent normalization.
- I'm probably just frying the steel with too high of a soak temp.
 
Maybe too much normalizing. Also, maybe best not to quench between each heat but a couple times during forging would be OK.

I do three normalizing after forging and one after grinding and no anneal.

I quench W2 at 1450f with a 10 min soak if the elec oven is used and no soak if forge is used. Both work great but I like the forge better.
 
Troop,
I
I'll be up at Ashokan in September. Just load all that steel in your truck , and we will move it over to mine. I would love to have it.
Stacy

BTW, I'm serious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top