Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

question on steel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • question on steel

    I have looked for the answer to this question on the "net" and in books, but I have yet to find the definitive answer. Carbon steels are generally rated as 1020-1080 where the last two digits indicate the % of carbon. If I understand it correctly, 1020 steel consists primarily of pure iron with approximately .002% of carbon added. My question is: .002% of what? Does it relate to .002% weight, or volume, or what? Trying to think about it logically, neither weight nor volume amounts would seem to work, but I don't know where to go from there. I'm sure with all the expertise on this board, someone can provide the answer. For me, this is just one of those things that I am having trouble getting my head around. Also, in a related question, are all additives used to make steels and their various alloys calculated in the same manner? I'm leaning towards the % of weight, but I'd like to know for sure just to expand my knowledge base.
    I have recently started to do some very simple blacksmithing, and to accomplish what I want to do requires a knowledge of metallurgy which far exceeds my current level of knowledge. I've read some on the subject, and talked to a few people, but it seems to be one of those things akin to the black arts. Why is it that as I get older, everything gets to be so much more complicated than it needs to be? Are there no simple answers anymore?
    Thanks...Ed
    There is no shortage of experts, the trick is knowing which one to listen to!

  • #2
    i am going to guess by weight, as the volume would change with the heat?

    Comment


    • #3
      Steel

      This is an excellent web page that is for blacksmiths.(knife makers)
      http://www.knives.com/steel.html
      I have it on my shop wall.
      Bill
      I cut it off twice and it's still too short!

      Comment


      • #4
        I thought 1020 steel contains 0.2% Carbon by weight and all alloys are by weight otherwise how would you make it all athe alloying constituents are added by weight or by using a high element alloy.
        When I started work I worked in a copper refinery and the silver copper alloys were made by adding silver bullion to the copper melt.
        All the other alloys were made using a master copper alloy which were made by someone who could control the burn off of the usually lower melting point metal (ie cadmium) only one that I remember that didnt use a master alloy was brass. The brass was melted in an induction furnace so as to limit zinc burn off.
        Peter
        I have tools I don't know how to use!!

        Comment


        • #5
          It's by weight.
          -Dan S.
          dans-hobbies.com

          Comment


          • #6
            .002 is .2%. As the boys say, by weight. The 10xx format is the AISI designation. (American Iron and Steel Institute - not the ANSI, which is something different.) There are loads of other ways to specifiy steels.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rantbot
              .002 is .2%. As the boys say, by weight. The 10xx format is the AISI designation. (American Iron and Steel Institute - not the ANSI, which is something different.) There are loads of other ways to specifiy steels.
              He actually said .002% not .002 just to be pedantic
              And it is actually .2%, and I'm pretty sure it's by weight.

              Peter

              Comment


              • #8
                Steel

                You are all correct - it is by weight.
                Here is another excellent website.
                http://www.materialsengineer.com/E-steels.htm
                Good information.
                Bill
                I cut it off twice and it's still too short!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks to all. I'm not sure why I've had a problem with this subject, but I guess that I was basically on the right track. Thx for the new sites, I've added them to my favorites.
                  There is no shortage of experts, the trick is knowing which one to listen to!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Peter Neill
                    He actually said .002% not .002 just to be pedantic
                    That was my point. The original ".002%" is wrong, by a factor of 100. A fraction is converted to a percent by dividing by 100, not just by sticking on a "%."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Point taken, and you are correct. While 0.2% is in fact .002 of the whole, it is not correct to say .002%. I was trying to be understandable and correct, and wound up being neither. In any event, you have helped me in understanding what it is we're taking a % of. Thanks again.
                      There is no shortage of experts, the trick is knowing which one to listen to!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X