8620 to 11 - 14 Hatfield comparison
8620 to 11 - 14 Hatfield comparison
(OP)
I am reviewing the manufacturing process of a cone shaped piece currently made of 8620 material. The material is cut flat and rolled into the cone shape, cold working the 8620. @28" large diameter, 16" small diameter. Then a mild steel mounting ring and base are welded to it. The piece is then fully annealed and the 8620 is carburized and drawn back to approximately 40 Rc. The end result being a piece with high strength and good abrasion resistance.
A suggestion has been made to change the material to 11% - 14% Hatfield Manganese steel. I have spoken with local steel suppliers and heat treaters but would like input from this forum as well. What advantages/disadvantages would there be to making this change?
Thanks in advance...
A suggestion has been made to change the material to 11% - 14% Hatfield Manganese steel. I have spoken with local steel suppliers and heat treaters but would like input from this forum as well. What advantages/disadvantages would there be to making this change?
Thanks in advance...
RLJ





RE: 8620 to 11 - 14 Hatfield comparison
RE: 8620 to 11 - 14 Hatfield comparison
Thanks for the response. Do you know of a good web source for chemical composition and performance data on these two materials?
RLJ
RE: 8620 to 11 - 14 Hatfield comparison
Also the ease of manufacturing a component with Hadfield steel will have to be compared with 8620 steel
RE: 8620 to 11 - 14 Hatfield comparison
We currently case harden the 8620 to a depth of 0.120" with a total material thickness of 0.500". If the manufacturing benefits favor the 8620 we could always increase the depth of case hardening.
Which material is easier to cold work?
RLJ
RE: 8620 to 11 - 14 Hatfield comparison
RE: 8620 to 11 - 14 Hatfield comparison