Some pictures I've taken of some samples

  • Thread starter Thread starter snowJT
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pictures
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the fracture characteristics of 1095 steel compared to ductile cast iron and cast iron, highlighting that 1095 exhibits a finer surface despite being less brittle. Participants question why the smoother surface of 1095 requires more energy to break than the cast irons, which are expected to have cleaner breaks due to their brittleness. The conversation also touches on the importance of heat treatment and the carbon content in influencing the mechanical properties of these materials. Suggestions are made to conduct further tests on additional steel samples to compare fracture surfaces. Overall, the relationship between brittleness, surface texture, and energy required for fracture remains a key point of inquiry.
snowJT
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
I've included some pictures I've taken of some samples I've broken.. and 1095 steel has a more finer surface than ductile cast iron, and cast iron, however, it is not as brittle..

I would of thought that the more brittle the material was the more cleaner the break... but... anyone have an explanation of this?

Pictures

1095 - impact 2ft lbs

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b300/DrGame/1095steel.jpg

ductile cast iron - impact 2 ft lbs

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b300/DrGame/ductilecastiron.jpg

cast iron - impact 1 ft lbs

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b300/DrGame/castiron.jpg
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
What is the magnification on those pics? And what do the left and right represent?
 
oh sorry, well the actual specimen is from a charpy test, the material has a cross section of 1x1 cm, and the left and right side is both halves of the specimen, they're just small samples I put on my scanner.
 
snowJT said:
oh sorry, well the actual specimen is from a charpy test, the material has a cross section of 1x1 cm, and the left and right side is both halves of the specimen, they're just small samples I put on my scanner.
Unfortunately, some of the surface is out of focus, and from the magnfication, it is difficult to see a difference.

What was the state of the 1095? As-forged or annealed?

Also remember 1095 steel is considered high carbon, so it's fracture surface may not be too dissimilar from a cast iron with the min amount of carbon. Heat treatment is important in the mechanical properties of carbon steel - really any steel or alloy.

Classification of Cast Iron

Would it be possible to obtain images from a microscope?

It would be worthwhile to do the same test for 1020, 1040, 1060, 1080 (all with the nomimal same thermo-mechanical treatment) and a low carbon cast iron and compare the fracture surfaces.
 
I do have additional samples of 1020, and 1040

But, what I'm wondering is why the sufrace of the 1095 appears to have a smoother surface than the cast irons, yet it was tested to need more energry to break it

Is it possible for something to need more energy to break if its even more brittle than the cast irons?
 

Similar threads

Structural Difference in Annealing vs Untreated Steel
Replies
1
Views
6K
Morh's Cicle with two shear forces
Replies
2
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top