Toughness testing of AEB-L, Niolox, CPM-154, 19C27, 40CP, and D2

Larrin said:
By the way, that paper I just quoted above uses the same unnotched sub size specimens we used: 2.5 x 10 x 55mm. They give values in J/cm^2 but when converted to J and then ft lbs we used I get approx 6 ft lbs for the cryo versions and 14 ft lbs without cryo. Unfortunately the paper doesn’t list the orientation used so there is a possibility they were transverse which would lower the values. Maybe I can email the author.
Click to expand...
Update: I received an email back from the author of the paper. He said, "The sheet orientation was not taken into account when cutting specimens for the impact test. According to opinion of representatives of the Uddeholm company, in the case of sintered Elmax tool steel, there is no significant difference whether impact tests are carried out on longitudinal or transverse specimens."

I don't know who he spoke to at Uddeholm but they are wrong.
 
Larrin said:
Update: I received an email back from the author of the paper. He said, "The sheet orientation was not taken into account when cutting specimens for the impact test. According to opinion of representatives of the Uddeholm company, in the case of sintered Elmax tool steel, there is no significant difference whether impact tests are carried out on longitudinal or transverse specimens."

I don't know who he spoke to at Uddeholm but they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Elmax is unidirectional rolled steel
 
DevinT said:
It was developed and used in Europe for a long time. Here in America, 440c was the main cutlery steel for the last hundred years.

John Verhoeven and Roman Landus both did research on AEB-L and published their faverable findings twenty years ago.

Both Uddeholm and Sandvik pushed their cutlery grades here in the eighties but it didn’t catch on. Several makers bought AEB-L but customers didn’t know what it was so it was hard to promote.

I have been using and promoting it’s use since the late eighties. It has a not so flashy chemical composition and it’s very low availability made it hard for makers to get excited about.

A few of us put enough pressure on Uddeholm that they started bringing in more material at better sizes.

It’s a very good cutlery steel, I recommend everyone try it.

Hoss
Click to expand...
Thanks for the history Hoss. The depth of your knowledge is always astonishing.
 
Definitely great work! The only thing i don´t understand is that Niolox did much worse in your toughness tests than CPM 154. Especially when you compare their carbide volumes and micrographs. In my testing Niolox/ SB1 did better than CPM 154 and much better than D2 in the toughness department. Not very scientific: "Bruchtest SB1 vs. D2 (1.2379)" on Youtube.

best regards
 
Last edited:
Eraser92 said:
Definitely great work! The only thing i don´t understand is that Niolox did much worse in your toughness tests than CPM 154. Especially when you compare their carbide volumes and micrographs. In my testing Niolox/ SB1 did better than CPM 154 and much better than D2 in the toughness department. Not very scientific: "Bruchtest SB1 vs. D2 (1.2379)" on Youtube.

best regards
Click to expand...
In a bend test the thickness matters. That’s why the D2 doesn’t bend as far. https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/03/13/why-doesnt-heat-treating-affect-steel-flex/

When you are pressing the edges together I don’t see a clear winner in terms of toughness.

It may be that Niolox wins in certain toughness tests. Or maybe my Niolox isn’t very good. Regardless, I’m not confident that your testing showed that Niolox is superior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top