Resources on CATRA testing

C

cm_bushman

Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
314
If this should be in the "testing" sub-forum, I apologize.

Can anyone direct me to some solid info on CATRA testing, the different types, standards, equipment used, some videos of tests in action, etc. (Hardheart, I'm looking at you!)? I'm hoping to get some insight into the process for a future project. Thanks!
 
cm_bushman said:
If this should be in the "testing" sub-forum, I apologize.

Can anyone direct me to some solid info on CATRA testing, the different types, standards, equipment used, some videos of tests in action, etc. (Hardheart, I'm looking at you!)? I'm hoping to get some insight into the process for a future project. Thanks!
Click to expand...

There is a lot of info out there, the problem is all of it is at different times, with different standards and small samples of different steels.

What that means is the lists aren't comparable and can't be overlapped and combined into one no matter what some people seem to think.

You won't find a long list of steels all lined up using the the same testing protocol.

The latest one I know of is here:

http://www.bucorp.com/files/CATRA_Test_Results.pdf
 
Last edited:
What that means is the lists aren't comparable and can't be overlapped and combined into one no matter what some people seem to think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm coming to find that is just the case. My hope is to just get some info more on the method rather than the results. I hope to find those myself, if possible. It seems the only way to get any comparable data, since as you said, what's out there is sporadic as to testing method and materials used.

This won't be easy or cheap, and so I may not be able to get anything going for a while, but knowing is the first step. Is there any resource that details CATRA testing, such as the equipment and size/shape of material to test, etc.? Something from the ISO or another institution perhaps?
 
cm_bushman said:
Yeah, I'm coming to find that is just the case. My hope is to just get some info more on the method rather than the results. I hope to find those myself, if possible. It seems the only way to get any comparable data, since as you said, what's out there is sporadic as to testing method and materials used.

This won't be easy or cheap, and so I may not be able to get anything going for a while, but knowing is the first step. Is there any resource that details CATRA testing, such as the equipment and size/shape of material to test, etc.? Something from the ISO or another institution perhaps?
Click to expand...

http://www.catra.org/
 
I think if someone published data comparing steels tested under identical parameters that there would be a lot of mad users and even more mad manufacturers, as the Steel-Of-The-Week didn't meet the hype or perceived expectations.

Spyderco does a lot of CATRA testing, but won't publish the results, probably for the reason outlined.
 
dano said:
I think if someone published data comparing steels tested under identical parameters that there would be a lot of mad users and even more mad manufacturers, as the Steel-Of-The-Week didn't meet the hype or perceived expectations.

Spyderco does a lot of CATRA testing, but won't publish the results, probably for the reason outlined.
Click to expand...


The opposite would really happen in reality because they already know what the answers are, some mad users maybe because the real percentage differences would be out. There is a HUGE difference between the lower alloy steels and the high alloy steels.

Alloy Content and Carbide content really matter here so the steels with the highest Alloy and Carbide content would be at the top and would filter down based on Alloy and Carbide content, that's comparing apples to apples here.

CATRA is a wear resistant test so the more wear resistant the steels are the better they will do.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Ankerson, you seem to be the testing king around here. Your tests make a CATRA comparison almost redundant!

Hopefully someday I can do just that dano, I think a resource of CATRA numbers is long overdue in the premium knife world, especially when users drop $200+ on production knives in a "supersteel" without any data from the manufacturer detailing how much further their money is really going toward what they need (of course, I figure if you've gone custom, you can get some good feedback on the steel, if you aren't already familiar with it; After all, you're buying a custom knife for a premium). One day!

This is part of a larger project I hope to execute in the future, with a comprehensive steel chart that compares several of the most important attributes of as many knife steels as possible. I've not seen any chart floating around that compares more than a few steels, and even then, results are overwhelmingly of the relative variety. For all of the flak KennethW's chart has gotten here, I believe he's on the right track, and hope to do something similar, only with solid test results rather than what's already available, which I believe is insufficient to make any sound decision on.
 
cm_bushman said:
Thanks Ankerson, you seem to be the testing king around here. Your tests make a CATRA comparison almost redundant!

Hopefully someday I can do just that dano, I think a resource of CATRA numbers is long overdue in the premium knife world, especially when users drop $200+ on production knives in a "supersteel" without any data from the manufacturer detailing how much further their money is really going toward what they need (of course, I figure if you've gone custom, you can get some good feedback on the steel, if you aren't already familiar with it; After all, you're buying a custom knife for a premium). One day!

This is part of a larger project I hope to execute in the future, with a comprehensive steel chart that compares several of the most important attributes of as many knife steels as possible. I've not seen any chart floating around that compares more than a few steels, and even then, results are overwhelmingly of the relative variety. For all of the flak KennethW's chart has gotten here, I believe he's on the right track, and hope to do something similar, only with solid test results rather than what's already available, which I believe is insufficient to make any sound decision on.
Click to expand...


I have been told that I am pretty close percentage wise in my rope cutting tests.

It's pretty hard to do that much testing, and expensive so taking on aspect and testing that is what is usually done.
 
dano said:
I think if someone published data comparing steels tested under identical parameters that there would be a lot of mad users and even more mad manufacturers, as the Steel-Of-The-Week didn't meet the hype or perceived expectations.

Spyderco does a lot of CATRA testing, but won't publish the results, probably for the reason outlined.
Click to expand...

Could this perhaps be the case the Charpy V notch testing? Seems like I have heard reports where steels that are touted as " tough " are not much tougher than say S30V. Like I thought CPM-M4 and S30V are around the same in Charpy testing. I could be totally off base. If this were the case that M4 and S30V were close. Could it be that because M4 is ran at higher hardness it is tougher than S30V which is a few points lower in hardness? I am just asking because I have been curious how much tougher steels like M4 and CTS-XHP would be against like D2 or S30V or S35VN.
 
Last edited:
Steel130 said:
Could this perhaps be the case the Charpy V notch testing? Seems like I have heard reports where steels that are touted as " tough " are not much tougher than say S30V. Like I thought CPM-M4 and S30V are around the same in Charpy testing. I could be totally off base. If this were the case that M4 and S30V were close. Could it be that because M4 is ran at higher hardness it is tougher than S30V which is a few points lower in hardness? I am just asking because I have been curious how much tougher steels like M4 and CTS-XHP would be against like D2 or S30V or S35VN.
Click to expand...

As Jim said, CATRA testing is highly dependent on wear resistance and blade geometry. To get meaningful results, the blades have to have the same edge profile and blade geometry. Toughness does not enter into the measurement. It is not an impact test.

Jim gave you the CATRA organization's web address. There is a detailed description of the testing method on the web site.
 
knarfeng said:
As Jim said, CATRA testing is highly dependent on wear resistance and blade geometry. To get meaningful results, the blades have to have the same edge profile and blade geometry. Toughness does not enter into the measurement. It is not an impact test.

Jim gave you the CATRA organization's web address. There is a detailed description of the testing method on the web site.
Click to expand...
I was meaning my question separate from the CATRA testing. I was curious how much difference there really is in toughness amongst most steels talked about today. Like I said. I though M4 and S30V were actually about the same toughness in Charpy tests. Anyway. I was digging through Crucibles site. Looks like M4 is tougher in Charpy tests than S30V or S35VN. According to them. I wonder how much of that testing has variables though?
 
Steel130 said:
I though M4 and S30V were actually about the same toughness in Charpy tests. Anyway. I was digging through Crucibles site. Looks like M4 is tougher in Charpy tests than S30V or S35VN. According to them. I wonder how much of that testing has variables though?
Click to expand...

You aren't comparing apples to apples when you look at the Crucible Charpy data.

Alloys do not have the same toughness at the different hardnesses.

The Crucible M4 data sheet provides Charpy data at a hardness of 63HRC.
The Crucible S30V data sheet does not state the hardness, but Crucible's recommended hardness for S30V is about 60.

So, if all you are doing is looking at the data sheets, you are comparing toughness of M4 at a hardness of 63 to the toughness of S30V at a hardness of 60. Not a good comparison.
 
knarfeng said:
You aren't comparing apples to apples when you look at the Crucible Charpy data.

Alloys do not have the same toughness at the different hardnesses.

The Crucible M4 data sheet provides Charpy data at a hardness of 63HRC.
The Crucible S30V data sheet does not state the hardness, but Crucible's recommended hardness for S30V is about 60.

So, if all you are doing is looking at the data sheets, you are comparing toughness of M4 at a hardness of 63 to the toughness of S30V at a hardness of 60. Not a good comparison.
Click to expand...
Ok I gotcha. So basically even though in general M4 is ran at a higher hardness than S30V. They would need to be ran at the exact same hardness to even be comparable? Thanks for explaining all this. It's things I have been wondering about.
 
CATRA's website should give you the answers you are looking for. Roger Hamby is also a pretty nice guy in correspondence, and will answer emails. CATRA makes the only test equipment and follows an ISO standard for test procedure, using their silica impregnated paper, or manila rope. The standard test setup is here http://catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm plus a video at the bottom. The procedure can be changed, but any differences in test results are likely caused by differences in the blades tested, not the equipment setup. S125V measuring 750 TCC doesn't seem too great compared to some results, but S125V measuring 1250 is a lot better. Well, not that great when 154CM scores 1000. Of course, it also scored 99. CATRA only tests the steel wear property when the wear property is the only variable. Change the angle, thickness, etc, and it goes out the window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top