More steel analysis results for your edification

Phillip Patton

Phillip Patton

Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
5,362
Champalloy (L6)

C 0.70
Mn 0.42
P 0.011
S 0.011
Si 0.35
Ni 1.49
Cr 0.78
Mo 0.23


Admiral Steel 1095

C 0.88
Mn 0.35
P 0.007
S 0.001
Si 0.22
Ni 0.02
Cr 0.13
Mo 0.00


John Deere 5160

C 0.53
Mn 0.80
P 0.010
S 0.018
Si 0.20
Ni 0.15
Cr 0.80
Mo 0.04


Admiral Steel 5160

C 0.55
Mn 0.78
P 0.011
S 0.008
Si 0.20
Ni 0.09
Cr 0.73
Mo 0.03


Railroad Spring Clip thingy

C 0.54
Mn 0.70
P 0.005
S 0.019
Si 0.18
Ni 0.04
Cr 0.05
Mo 0.00

I'm very pleased with the L6, disappointed that the spring wasn't 1095, and I wish both 5160 samples and the 1095 would've been higher on the carbon. (why do they have to go with the low end of the range?) :grumpy:
 
Phil,
I can tell you that at least in the mill where I work, there is no differentiation in low and high end. This is one of those instances where good enough really is good enough. We don't shoot for the middle ground in a spec because there is no performance difference between the high end of a spec and a low end of a spec. Adding more of any of these alloying elelments is very costly and of no added desire to the customer so it just isn't done. You're upset over nothing according to our lab guy the performance difference would be so slight that any advantage seen would be only in your head. To put it into perspective,0.53% C is .53 tenths of a percent of a PART PER MILLION. Most people don't understand that. So 0.60% C is only 7 tenths of a percent of a part per million greater, which is essentially the same animal. I'm sure Mete and K. Cashen will jump in here and correct some terminology and put a different spin on it but this is what I know we do and why.
Matt
 
Yes the low end of the range is cheaper. While in general the performance isn't going to be significantly different from high end to low, I know of a number of cases where the difference is very significant. What the blade maker really wants is to get the same thing each time he orders so he doesn't have to go through experimentation each time to get the right HT. We had a problem with Admiral Steel and L6. They were nice enough to come onto the forum and explain the situation. That was a problem of an " L6 Like " steel vs proper L6. Both were good steels but handled differently....As for various scrap 'mystery' steel ,it's wise to never assume !!
 
Phillip Patton said:
Railroad Spring Clip thingy

C 0.54
Mn 0.70
P 0.005
S 0.019
Si 0.18
Ni 0.04
Cr 0.05
Mo 0.00

I'm very pleased with the L6, disappointed that the spring wasn't 1095, and I wish both 5160 samples and the 1095 would've been higher on the carbon. (why do they have to go with the low end of the range?) :grumpy:
Click to expand...


That's interesting to find out.I've just been exparimenting with some of those RR spring clips.Was it the round stock,pretzel shaped clips? If so I have an endless source of 5160 :D Thanks Matt and Phillip for sharing.
 
mdoyle said:
Phil,
I can tell you that at least in the mill where I work, there is no differentiation in low and high end. This is one of those instances where good enough really is good enough. We don't shoot for the middle ground in a spec because there is no performance difference between the high end of a spec and a low end of a spec. Adding more of any of these alloying elelments is very costly and of no added desire to the customer so it just isn't done. You're upset over nothing according to our lab guy the performance difference would be so slight that any advantage seen would be only in your head. To put it into perspective,0.53% C is .53 tenths of a percent of a PART PER MILLION. Most people don't understand that. So 0.60% C is only 7 tenths of a percent of a part per million greater, which is essentially the same animal. I'm sure Mete and K. Cashen will jump in here and correct some terminology and put a different spin on it but this is what I know we do and why.
Matt
Click to expand...

I'm no metallurgist, but I honestly disagree. If that were true, everything would have .50 carbon, which is all you really need to get steel hard.
I've done side by side tests of knives made from 1045 and 5160 (since I've had both pieces of steel analysed now, :D i know it's a .10% difference in carbon) and the 5160 knife vastly out-cut the 1045 blade. If I remember correctly, the 1045 knife did about 50 cuts on rope and the 5160 did 750.
Anyway, I've pretty much sworn off of 5160 in favor of higher carbon steels, so for me it's a moot point.

Actually I think your lab guy IS right. As long as the difference isn't TOO great (like .45 carbon for 5160) probably nobody will tell the difference.
Forget I said anything. :D
Hypereutectoids, on the other hand are more critical. If 1095 has .80 C, then there isn't going to be any left over carbon for making iron carbide, and you might as well be using 1080.
Small amounts of alloy CAN make a BIG difference. It only takes .23% Mo to turn an oil hardening steel into an air hardening steel. (L6)

Explain this PPM deal to me. I was under the impression that the percentages are by weight.

Thanks for running the test for me. I alway like the discussion that this sort if thing sparks. :)
 
valimas said:
That's interesting to find out.I've just been exparimenting with some of those RR spring clips.Was it the round stock,pretzel shaped clips? If so I have an endless source of 5160 :D Thanks Matt and Phillip for sharing.
Click to expand...

Mine weren't round, and I'm not sure I'd describe them as pretzel shaped. I'll post a picture of one.
 
Phil,
You are forgetting about the added Cr, Ni, And Mo that 1050 does not have. I would absolutely expect 5160 to outcut similarly treated 1050 because of these alloys contributing to wear resistance. Starting to get over my head tho so I'm ending it there. I work again this evening. I'll try get a more indepth explaination about the ppm as I don't want to speculate. Fairly sure it has nothing to do with weight tho but maybe someone else can help. You're welcome for the testing. I enjoy the learning from it;) and the discussions as well.
Matt
 
mdoyle said:
Phil,
You are forgetting about the added Cr, Ni, And Mo that 1050 does not have. I would absolutely expect 5160 to outcut similarly treated 1050 because of these alloys contributing to wear resistance. Starting to get over my head tho so I'm ending it there. I work again this evening. I'll try get a more indepth explaination about the ppm as I don't want to speculate. Fairly sure it has nothing to do with weight tho but maybe someone else can help. You're welcome for the testing. I enjoy the learning from it;) and the discussions as well.
Matt
Click to expand...

Actually I wasn't really comparing L6 with 1050, but rather something like 8670M, which is pretty similar, but definitely not air hardening.
As for the 5160 cutting better because of having carbide formers, i don't think they kick in unless you have extra carbon, which 5160 doesn't have.
I think the only thing the chromium does for 5160 is make it deep hardening, and maybe it does something for the toughness. Please, mete or Kevin, or somebody else help us out here. :D
 
Yeah really! Phil I think they just like to see how far we will go to embarass ourselves with our incomplete comprehension.:D ;) :foot:
Matt
 
mdoyle said:
Yeah really! Phil I think they just like to see how far we will go to embarass ourselves with our incomplete comprehension.:D ;) :foot:
Matt
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me! :D
 
Here's the picture of one of the springs. i should have had a ruler in the photo (duh!) but I think it's about 6" across.

Img_0035.jpg


And here's one of last nights sunset, which I'm sure you all were just dying to see. :D

Img_0026.jpg
 
Oh Those spring thingy's I think they have been phased out around here.I have a friend who works for the RR all he see's are the round stock springs.
 
valimas said:
Oh Those spring thingy's I think they have been phased out around here.I have a friend who works for the RR all he see's are the round stock springs.
Click to expand...

They've probably been phased out around here too. This one looks like it's been rusting for about 50 years. :)
 
Soooo, now that we figured out what it looks like and what it's made of How should we work it.....Heat treat?...Draw?....Would it be good in the damascus mix? That kind of stuff.

Larry
 
Nowicki said:
Soooo, now that we figured out what it looks like and what it's made of How should we work it.....Heat treat?...Draw?....Would it be good in the damascus mix? That kind of stuff.

Larry
Click to expand...

Right now I'm forging a leaf dagger from it and I plan on clay coating the center. I'd like to see what kind of hamon I can get.
Just treat it like 1055.
 
Hi Phil,
I was under the impression that when comparing two like steels with the same type and measure of alloy, the only difference being the amount of carbon; there will be more alloying effect with the lower carbon steel. In other words you need less alloy to produce the desired effect. When the RR spring things are made they are interested in ductability so only need the mid 50's carbon along with the alloying agents.

I have 100 or so of the spring clips you have pictured and have forged many in the last few years. They make wonderfull fillet knives and the like. The HT leaves a very distinct hamon with clay or torch. I quench at 125 in oil. No warpage and very clean.

You educated guys give me some feedback on the first part of this post.
Fred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top