metalman8357
Materials
- Oct 5, 2012
- 155
Hi all,
I recently sent out samples of a competitors product to determine their material by ICP-AES. I was assuming that it was most likely AISI 1018 to 1024, but I was surprised when the results came back showing AISI 1026-1029. When the samples were sent out, the test agency was never told that these parts were carburized, and it's possible that a part of the case could have been tested with the sample. These parts are 0.186" in diamter with an effective case depth of 0.004-0.009". Personally speaking, I think that this could have skewed the carbon content higher on the test results. Anyone agree, or is the sequestered carbon from carburizing too small to explain this difference?
I recently sent out samples of a competitors product to determine their material by ICP-AES. I was assuming that it was most likely AISI 1018 to 1024, but I was surprised when the results came back showing AISI 1026-1029. When the samples were sent out, the test agency was never told that these parts were carburized, and it's possible that a part of the case could have been tested with the sample. These parts are 0.186" in diamter with an effective case depth of 0.004-0.009". Personally speaking, I think that this could have skewed the carbon content higher on the test results. Anyone agree, or is the sequestered carbon from carburizing too small to explain this difference?