52CrMoV4 1.7701 vs 5160 vs 6150 for spring material
52CrMoV4 1.7701 vs 5160 vs 6150 for spring material
(OP)
All,
I am looking for the pros and cons comparing 52CrMoV4 1.7701, 5160, and 6150 for spring application.
Currently have a requirement for 5,000 minimum cycle life, with stress levels at 136,000 lbs/in^2 at the top of its working deflection (bar dia of 2.687"). Possible saline conditions. Temperatures from 34F-151F.
Thanks in advance,
mgh
I am looking for the pros and cons comparing 52CrMoV4 1.7701, 5160, and 6150 for spring application.
Currently have a requirement for 5,000 minimum cycle life, with stress levels at 136,000 lbs/in^2 at the top of its working deflection (bar dia of 2.687"). Possible saline conditions. Temperatures from 34F-151F.
Thanks in advance,
mgh





RE: 52CrMoV4 1.7701 vs 5160 vs 6150 for spring material
5160 con: lowest hardenability (likely cannot through harden 2.687" bar), no vanadium to resist grain coarsening during hot deformation
6150 pro: lower cost than 52CrMoV4, sufficient hardenability for this application, contains vanadium to resist grain coarsening during hot deformation
6150 con: higher cost than 5160
52CrMoV4 pro: highest hardenability, highest resistance to hardness/strength loss due to elevated temperature exposure, contains vanadium to resist grain coarsening during hot deformation
52CrMoV4 con: highest cost
RE: 52CrMoV4 1.7701 vs 5160 vs 6150 for spring material
I assume all three have the same chemical compatibility in saline conditions?
-M
RE: 52CrMoV4 1.7701 vs 5160 vs 6150 for spring material