Liquid Nitrogen vs Dry Ice

Larrin

Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
4,845
Do I need liquid nitrogen or is dry ice good enough? Short answer: Go as cold as you can to minimize retained austenite. A freezer is better than room temperature. Do you want to know why? Then read below...

At high temperature we form the nonmagnetic phase austenite and dissolve carbides so that we have carbon in solution. During rapid cooling we form martensite laths or plates. An example of what those look like can be seen here:

a23fig01.gif

The white grains are the austenite and those feather looking things are the martensite laths. Martensite forms based on temperature rather than time, so a reduction in temperature is required to form further martensite.

Mar19.gif

You can see a fun video of martensite formation in action here:

"Retained austenite" is the austenite that does not transform to martensite. You can see a whole bunch of it in those micrographs I linked before where only a small fraction of martensite is present. In knife steels we usually have a significantly smaller amount though it's possible to get a pretty good amount of it, perhaps up to 50% with a richly alloyed steel that was austenitized too high. But we are getting ahead of ourselves; why do some steels need to go below room temperature and others do not? That is all based on the martensite finish temperature, which is alloy dependent. Furthermore, the composition of the austenite changes based on the austenitizing temperature chosen, because more carbides are dissolved at higher temperature which enriches the austenite with further carbon, chromium, or other elements. Retained austenite measurements can be performed with a few methods such as X-ray diffraction to determine if any retained austenite is present, but these values are not always known or are unlikely to be available to the average knifemaker.

Certain alloying elements like carbon are especially effective at reducing the martensite start and martensite finish temperatures, as can be seen below:
Fig-1-Martensite-start-temperature-M-S-and-martensite-finish-temperature-M-F-versus.png

Can we estimate retained austenite? Several empirical equations have been developed to predict the martensite start temperature, which will also control in part our martensite finish. Here is a popular one from Andrews:

Ms (Celsius) = 539 - 423*C - 30.4*Mn - 12.1*Cr - 7.5*Mo - 7.5*Si

Martensite finish can also be estimated with the Koistinen-Marburger equation:

Martensite fraction = 1 - exp(-alpha*(Ms-T))

where alpha is a constant, originally calculated to be 0.011 but is dependent on composition, Ms is the martensite start temperature and T is the temperature of interest, such as room temperature, all in Celsius.

Therefore to determine if a steel needs to be cooled below room temperature to fully transform, the composition of the austenite must be measured or at least calculated, such as with Thermodynamic software. For example, a fully austenitized 1020 steel with 0.5% Mn and 0.4% Si would have 1.1% retained austenite at room temperature, 0.3% at dry ice, and 0.1% at liquid nitrogen temperature. This is using the 0.011 alpha parameter. 3V steel austenitized at 1960F would have 6.7, 2.2, and 0.6, respectively, all relatively low amounts. 1095 steel fully austenitized, however, would have 32% retained austenite! With lower austenitizing temperatures there would be less, of course, but its high carbon content means it usually has some retained austenite. Just because 1095 is a simple carbon steel does not mean that retained austenite is not a factor.

Why transform retained austenite to martensite at all? Well one major reason is for higher hardness, as austenite is much softer than martensite. You can see the effect in this chart below:
ih0611-htdr-fig1-lg.jpg

Once past a certain amount of carbon the hardness starts to level off or even decrease because of the effect of retained austenite. Retained austenite, however, can improve impact toughness so it is not always universally bad. Some knifemakers are concerned that if the austenite transforms during use that it will be untempered and therefore act as an easy site for fracture. Those concerns could very well be well founded. This is the reason that multiple tempers are recommended for high alloy steels, because tempering can also promote the transformation of austenite and therefore further tempers are required to temper the new martensite formed from the previous temper.

Well this was too much information in too small a space but I did my best.
 
Last edited:
I think you did very well and I appreciate you starting this thread. I think I know the answer but I want to be sure. If you harden a piece at the bottom of the Austenitizing range of a given alloy and harden another piece at the top of the range, which one will have the most RA as quenched?
 
I think you did very well and I appreciate you starting this thread. I think I know the answer but I want to be sure. If you harden a piece at the bottom of the Austenitizing range of a given alloy and harden another piece at the top of the range, which one will have the most RA as quenched?
Higher austenitizing range means more carbides dissolved, more carbon and alloy in solution, so lower martensite finish and hence more retained austenite.
 
Miscellaneous items:

I didn't cover at all the potential increase in wear resistance from using liquid nitrogen, which I discussed briefly here: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/3v-dry-ice.1540634/#post-17696879

If you want to know why we might be worried about retained austenite transforming to martensite during the use of a knife, you can google "deformation-induced" martensite transformation. In other words, deformation can lead to austenite transformation just like lower temperature can.
 
Thanks for the post, it's stuff I have a decent basic understanding of, but there remain many questions and areas in which it's difficult to find data. I know much has been talked about concerning 52100 and whether or not it benefits from cryo, or to some degree just from a home freezer (gonna tiptoe past that one). Part of it is that from literature I've seen, the Mf is typically at room temp or a bit above that for 52100. One would then think that cryo would be moot.
It makes sense for sure that since it's just a question of Mf temp that the farther you get toward it the less RA you have. I.e. a freezer is better than nothing, but cryo the best of all for some steels. Another interesting point is that some steels such as AEBL have a Mf which necessitates dry ice but not liquid nitrogen.
It would be nice to have a method to study that could be used to predict the Mf of a steel alloy, without having a TTT chart.
An example would be CruForgeV, I've never yet been able to locate a TTT for it and so I do not know what the true Mf of it would be. I have yet to experiment with CFV and dry ice, I do not have LN so that would be out, but I really doubt that that level of cold would be necessary for such a relatively simple alloy.
Thoughts?
 
I like the last chart there. I notice though that you don't have Mf listed in the top columns. That would be super handy, and Ms is already there... although those Ms temps look way lower than I'd have thought for those steels.
Also, a big difference in RA between LN and DI freezes? Odd. For 1095 too?
Lots of stuff there that blows my mind.
 
Thanks for the post, it's stuff I have a decent basic understanding of, but there remain many questions and areas in which it's difficult to find data. I know much has been talked about concerning 52100 and whether or not it benefits from cryo, or to some degree just from a home freezer (gonna tiptoe past that one). Part of it is that from literature I've seen, the Mf is typically at room temp or a bit above that for 52100. One would then think that cryo would be moot.
It makes sense for sure that since it's just a question of Mf temp that the farther you get toward it the less RA you have. I.e. a freezer is better than nothing, but cryo the best of all for some steels. Another interesting point is that some steels such as AEBL have a Mf which necessitates dry ice but not liquid nitrogen.
It would be nice to have a method to study that could be used to predict the Mf of a steel alloy, without having a TTT chart.
An example would be CruForgeV, I've never yet been able to locate a TTT for it and so I do not know what the true Mf of it would be. I have yet to experiment with CFV and dry ice, I do not have LN so that would be out, but I really doubt that that level of cold would be necessary for such a relatively simple alloy.
Thoughts?
It can be estimated, as I explained in my post at the start of this thread. The Ms calculations are pretty good, but it is tough to get very exact without a better estimate of the alpha parameter I described with the K-M equation. The empirical equations available for estimating alpha are not very good. The 0.011 is basically a worst case scenario, the actual value is usually greater which means Mf is higher.
 
I'll be reading this over some more and asking some questions, no doubt. But for now, thanks again.
 
I like the last chart there. I notice though that you don't have Mf listed in the top columns. That would be super handy, and Ms is already there... although those Ms temps look way lower than I'd have thought for those steels.
Also, a big difference in RA between LN and DI freezes? Odd. For 1095 too?
Lots of stuff there that blows my mind.
Looking at the 1095 TTT diagram it doesn't look too far off. Though the one I found has a lower carbon and manganese content than I assumed and has a fairly large grain size:
1095-ttt-point-89.jpg

It's a bit tricky because the thermodynamic software assumes an infinite hold at the austenitizing temperature, so you have to use a lower austenitizing temperature when making the calculations. It does look like in the TTT diagram of 1095 that the alpha parameter is likely larger than 0.011, which again is the hardest value to estimate. I would say that the calculations are likely useful for comparing alloys to each other qualitatively but nothing can replace experimental measurements, of course.
 
Thanks for all the info. I never did have much success with various formulas ,just never seemed to be close.
Bearing tests that I have been involved with do show an advantage of some RA. I have mentioned this in a number of my posts as there has been some hysteria to get 100% transformation !!
Transformation in use ? Multiple tempers usually stabilize the RA in my experience. Md [martensite due to working ] is often found in stainless steel cable ,producing a partially magnetic cable which confuses people. There are other weird transformations such as stress induced diffusion found in highly stressed , long term use of gears and bearings.
We have lots of things to discover ! I'll leave that to you young metallurgists. :)
 
Thanks for the post, it's stuff I have a decent basic understanding of, but there remain many questions and areas in which it's difficult to find data. I know much has been talked about concerning 52100 and whether or not it benefits from cryo, or to some degree just from a home freezer (gonna tiptoe past that one). Part of it is that from literature I've seen, the Mf is typically at room temp or a bit above that for 52100. One would then think that cryo would be moot.
It makes sense for sure that since it's just a question of Mf temp that the farther you get toward it the less RA you have. I.e. a freezer is better than nothing, but cryo the best of all for some steels. Another interesting point is that some steels such as AEBL have a Mf which necessitates dry ice but not liquid nitrogen.
It would be nice to have a method to study that could be used to predict the Mf of a steel alloy, without having a TTT chart.
An example would be CruForgeV, I've never yet been able to locate a TTT for it and so I do not know what the true Mf of it would be. I have yet to experiment with CFV and dry ice, I do not have LN so that would be out, but I really doubt that that level of cold would be necessary for such a relatively simple alloy.
Thoughts?


On the 52100 specifically, my understanding is that austenitizing above 1500f brings extra carbon into solution, resulting in retained austenitite. You would need cooler than room temp to finish the transformation. Austenitizing at 1475f results in only about 0.85% C in solution at quench, so minimal retained austenitite.
 
Thanks for all the info. I never did have much success with various formulas ,just never seemed to be close.
Bearing tests that I have been involved with do show an advantage of some RA. I have mentioned this in a number of my posts as there has been some hysteria to get 100% transformation !!
Transformation in use ? Multiple tempers usually stabilize the RA in my experience. Md [martensite due to working ] is often found in stainless steel cable ,producing a partially magnetic cable which confuses people. There are other weird transformations such as stress induced diffusion found in highly stressed , long term use of gears and bearings.
We have lots of things to discover ! I'll leave that to you young metallurgists. :)
The Ms equation is pretty good. I’ve compared it with my own experimentally measured data generated for somewhere around 40-50 alloys. The thermodynamic software is also pretty good as you can see from patents from Cucible, Uddeholm, etc. One must know the assumptions and alloys used for generating models and understand their limitations. Without comparisons with experimental data it’s impossible to know if any given model is any good.
 
What do you mean 'software ' I dealt with hardware as in steel !! :D
 
On the 52100 specifically, my understanding is that austenitizing above 1500f brings extra carbon into solution, resulting in retained austenitite. You would need cooler than room temp to finish the transformation. Austenitizing at 1475f results in only about 0.85% C in solution at quench, so minimal retained austenitite.
Back when Kevin was on here a lot he pushed the low aust ramp for 52100 and after he told me to just try it I could not agree more. Hitting 66-67rc out of the quench. Lots of voodoo out there with 52100 but I'm pretty happy with Cashens heat treat
 
Back when Kevin was on here a lot he pushed the low aust ramp for 52100 and after he told me to just try it I could not agree more. Hitting 66-67rc out of the quench. Lots of voodoo out there with 52100 but I'm pretty happy with Cashens heat treat

Cashen is who I got this info from. I think cruforge-v could benefit from similar heat treat.
 
Cashen is who I got this info from. I think cruforge-v could benefit from similar heat treat.
We have used a very similar(pretty much the same) heat treat on cru forge V before though it was wood working tools. No hard numbers but from my best guess we left them around 62rc(except the adze which was tempered to about 58rc) and they performed very well. Some chisels, a couple of adzes and a bent gouge. Very happy with it
 
Calculations used to support this post:

Larrin,

Thanks a lot for posting this. I am a relative newbie (although I really enjoy the science side of knife making) and this has left me with several questions.

1) So looking at this table, 1095 austenitized to 1500 F has essentially all of its carbon (0.94) in solution versus austenitization at say, 1450 F, where ~90% of its carbon is in solution (0.86)? Once it is initially quenched and then treated with liquid nitrogen to have a final retained austenite of ~3% (down from 32%), how does the presumed increased carbon (associated with the 1500 F temperature) in solution at the time of quench affect the steel relative to quenching from lower temperatures (e.g. 1450 F)? I would suspect that this would increase hardness by ~10% but does the toughness suffer from loss of RA?

2) Essentially, the increased Rockwell hardness seen at lower temperature heat treating (say 1460 F vs 1500 F) for some steels is primarily due to decreased retained austenite? Or is it also related to carbon percentage in solution?

3) Related: How much RA is just right for maximal steel performance? Is that empiric/steel specific or are there general guidelines? Can cryo be a negative rather than a positive?

4) So based on carbon in solution at their austenitization temperatures, functionally this chart suggests that 3V and AEB-L are highly alloyed medium carbon steels (and thus explains their toughness)?

Thanks a lot in advance and please pardon any typos from my weary brain.

Mike
 
If you have been following info on Cryogenic HT -- LN temperature quenches and proper tempering produces eta carbides ! That changes things . Some research shows no gain below sub-zero [ -100 F.] due to reduction in RA but the gain is the formation of eta carbides !
 
If you have been following info on Cryogenic HT -- LN temperature quenches and proper tempering produces eta carbides ! That changes things . Some research shows no gain below sub-zero [ -100 F.] due to reduction in RA but the gain is the formation of eta carbides !
See post #4 in this thread.
 
Back
Top