AISI 1070 and 52100 properties, through hardened

[yshgao]

I need to verify these two metals based on the strength and wearing resistance. Both of them are high carbon steels even the carbon contents are a little difference. The HT of them could be the same, i.e. through hardening, quenched and tempered.

please can someone help me to get the following properties:

UTS
yield strength
surface hardness

thanks in advance,

 

[prdave00]

MatWeb is where I'd start...

AISI 1070:

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=9506f59dc73d41a7ab0da119f6775358

52100:

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=d0b0a51bff894778a97f5b72e7317d85

From there I'd go to a supplier like Latrobe Specialty Steel and either peruse their website for technical data (e.g.

http://www.latrobesteel.com/technical_datasheets.cfm)

or call them directly.

 

[tbuelna]

yshgao,

52100 is a through hardening chromium steel typically used for bearings. 1070 is a high carbon steel typically used for springs. Both their properties and heat treatments can vary widely, depending upon how they will be used.

If you'd be a little more specific about your particular application, I'd be happy to offer more specific advice.

Terry

 

[arunmrao]

Agree with tbuelna's comments. 52100,will have a better wear resistance compared to 1070 steel.

 

[yshgao]

Thanks Terry,

The application needs strength and also wearing resistance. The current metal is 100Cr6, which is 52100 in North America. The custom asked whether we can use C70S6, which is AISI 1070 in North America, to replace 52100.

52100 has more carbon (1.0 %), and higher Chromium (1.45%). But 1070's carbon is just 0.7%. Only thing makes 1070 special is that its Mn content is a little higher (0.5%) than 52100 (0.35%).

The heat treatment processes of these two metals are the same, i.e. through hardened, then quenched and tempered to reach high strength and surface performance.

Please tell whether 1070 is comparable with 52100 regarding to strength and wearing resistance.

In searching, I found that AISI 1095 is close to 52100. Is 1095 better than 1070 and comparable with 52100?

Thanks for helping.

Michael

 

[tbuelna]

Michael,

What do you mean by "strength" and "wear resistance"?

If your part is subject to high surface contact stress and/or high numbers of contact load cycles, then 52100 would be better. Since it can be obtained as a CEVM quality material. Its heat treatment would involve quench and temper with subzero stabilizing to minimize retained austenite.

If your part is more like a spring with a thin section, then 1070 processed using austempering would give better results.

These heat treat processes are not similar.

Good luck.
Terry

 

[yshgao]

Thanks for your help, Terry,

Just came back from a business trip and still want to keep this topic alive.

this part suffers from both of bending pressure of up to 80 bar and a severe wearing even under the oil lubricated condition. So, we concern its strength and the wear resistance properties. From the section view, it looks like a thin cantilever (thickness = 1.5 mm) but with the high surface contact stress from the holder.

The current material is 100Cr6 (or AISI 52100). I wonder it is possible to take C70S6 (or AISI 1070) as the alternative with the similar properties of strength and wear resistance. Or, is any other metal could be similar or better?

Please advise.

 

[tbuelna]

yshgao,

From your sketch, it looks like this part is a sliding vane in some sort of pump or motor. If you part is currently made from through-hardened 52100 steel, and you have a wear problem against the holder sliding surface, then switching to 1070 won't help. The 52100 material can be heat treated to a hardness of Rc 58 or better. If you've already done this and it's still scuffing, then your problem is likely due to too much slot clearance, too much vane cantilever, too much bending in the vane, or some combination of these. If the vane cantilevered length exceeds the supported length in the holder slot, then the vane will cock and edge load at the slot corner.

If the scuffing is mild, you might also try applying thin dense chrome to the vane. It is very hard and will reduce friction.

Hope that helps.
Terry

 

[yshgao]

Thanks Terry,

I got misunderstanding from the product engineer. The problem and target are the same. But, the part is the rotor, not the vane. If it is for the vane, 1070 could be understandable at least due to its spring characteristic. But for the rotor, it really does not make the sense to pick up 1070 as the candidate to replace 52100.

So, let us keep the same topic and switch to the rotor now. I think 1095 might be comparable with 52100. But please advise and tell what else could be similar.

Thanks a lot.