Thanks to my Patreon supporters I have a salt pot furnace and was able to get some high temperature salts to test out austenitizing in the salt pot for this article. Patreon dollars also went towards metallography for this study. If you want to support further knife steel research become a Patreon supporter today!

YouTube Video

There is also a video for the following information:

Salt Pots and What I Used

“Salt bath” or “salt pot” heat treating refers to the use of molten salts for heating steel. Specific salts are used for different temperature ranges, so that they melt under the necessary temperature without certain bad things happening by overheating them. For these experiments I used “Neutral Salt B” by Hubbard-Hall which I purchased from High Temp Tools: https://hightemptools.com/products/high-temperature-salt  They list the working range as 1300-1700°F but also says 1700 can only be used for short periods of time. I have also used low temperature salts for austempering which is a totally different use of salt pots; you can read those experiments here. Of course I used a different low temperature salt for those austempering experiments, which you can also buy from High Temp Tools. If you are using molten salts to heat treat stainless or high speed steels you will also need different salts as that would need higher temperatures. These salts are certainly available; salt pot heat treating of high speed steel is actually pretty common, but I don’t know where to buy small amounts of them. If you know a good source let us all know in the comments.

The furnace I used was the EvenHeat Salt Bath 709 which accomodates a 9″ long pot (plus extra that sticks out), though they are also available in larger sizes. There is a control thermocouple within the furnace as well as within the pot itself. So when operating the furnace you heat to the target temperature using the furnace thermocouple first and wait for the salt to melt. Then you insert the second thermocouple into the molten salt and tell the controller to switch modes to the second thermocouple.

Why Use Salt Pots?

Salt pots have a few advantages. One is that you don’t need to protect the steel from oxygen. The steel is present within the molten salt so there is no atmosphere at all. No need for coatings or foil. Just stick the steel into the molten salt and pull it out to quench. Another is the rapid heat transfer. Liquid is much better at transferring heat than air. This is why sticking your hand into boiling water at 212°F (100°C) is much, much scarier than sticking your hand in an oven at the same temperature, or even 500°F (260°C) for that matter.

Salt Pots and Safety

Probably the number one thing you hear about operating salt pots is how dangerous they are. This is true; if you drop significant amounts of water into the salt bath it could explode and you would be in significant danger. You have to take it seriously, wear protective equipment such as a face shield and long sleeves, and avoid letting any water contact the salt. However, I have also heard some knifemakers take this to extremes, saying things like not to even leave any sharpie markings on the steel and this is exaggerating the level of danger. Don’t take it lightly, but if you follow proper procedures and take safety precautions you can use these furnaces without issues.

Time to Heat Steel in Molten Salt vs Air

As I mentioned, one of the big benefits of salt pots is the shorter time required for heating the steel. To test this I used 1/8 x 1-1/2 x 2-1/4 inch (3.3 x 40 x 55 mm) coupons of 1084 and used 1 minute increments (separate coupons for the different hold times). This is total time in the furnace, not soak time at temperature. Of course, larger coupons would take longer to heat up. I then did the same experiments by using my normal furnace where the coupon was heated in air:

Unfortunately I was a bit late on the 2 minute coupon and it was actually 2 minutes and 20 seconds, so we can’t see exactly how long it took to heat up the steel with the salt pot. But certainly by 3 minutes the steel had reached the target temperature. There was then a small increase in hardness up to 4-5 minutes in the salt as more carbide dissolved. With a 3 minute hold in the conventional furnace the hardness didn’t change at all, meaning it still hadn’t formed any austenite (somewhere under 1335°F/723°C or so). It wasn’t until 5-6 minutes that the steel reached the target temperature. So you can save a few minutes of heat treating time when using salt instead of air. How much this matters will depend on the individual, of course.

The required time to dissolve carbides also depends on the temperature. Below shows published micrographs of 1080 steel [1] with different hold times at only 730°C (1346°F) where it took 5 minutes just to transform the steel to austenite (g), and then another ten minutes to dissolve most of the carbide (h). You can also see how the transformation happened, as the white ferrite was replaced by dark martensite (austenite at high temperature before quenching) with increasing hold time. Then more carbide (white particles) were dissolved with further hold time. You can read more about how this happens in this article on austenitizing.

Micrographs from [1]

Time to Heat vs Time to Soak

1084 is a simple steel with only carbon, manganese, and silicon added to it. The main element that needs to diffuse for transforming the steel to austenite is carbon. Carbon is a very small element and therefore it diffuses very fast. However, when other alloying elements are added it can lead to significantly longer times required for austenitizing. I used 52100 with the factory-annealed condition to illustrate this. 52100 has 1.5% chromium which significantly slows down the time for carbides to dissolve, even at a higher temperature of 1525°F (830°C):

While the 1084 was nearly 66 Rc after only 3 minutes, 52100 with the same hold time at 50°F higher temperature was only 59 Rc. This isn’t because the steel didn’t heat up as fast but because the carbides in the steel did not dissolve as quickly from the chromium addition. The hardness didn’t “level off” until 7+ minutes in the molten salt, and was still climbing after 11 minutes. This is partly why I recommend having a sufficiently long soak time to ensure that you reach a steady state before quenching. Sometimes knifemakers in my comments will ask why I am soaking for so long (10-30 minutes) and say that they only use 5 minutes or even shorter. That results in poor consistency because the hardness can change significantly with a small change in soak time. This also means that the heat treatment becomes very sensitive to the size of the piece as well. Maintaining the same time but with different sized knives would yield very different results.

Another thing to note is that this was with the factory-annealed condition, with relatively coarse spheroidized (round) carbides. The austenitizing time could be shorter with a different starting microstructure. I wrote about this difference and how to use it with forge heat treating here: How to Thermal Cycle Knife Steel. Below shows the difference between pearlite and spheroidized carbides for austenitizing 52100:

Data from [2]

Rapid Austenitizing for Better Performance?

Rapid heating and short soak times are also used in some cases to achieve a finer grain size, and a finer grain size can result in higher toughness. I tested this by heat treating 1084 coupons with a total of 3 minutes in the salt at 1475°F. A true “soak time” includes only the time actually at temperature, so the true soak time is something like 1-2 minutes. I also tried a “triple quench” with another coupon by repeating this procedure two more times. The coupons were quenched in Parks 50 and tempered at 400°F twice. I compared with another coupon that was given a more conventional soak for ten minutes in my normal EvenHeat furnace in air with the same 1475°F, Parks 50 quench, and 400°F tempering.

The conventional heat treatment with the ten minute soak resulted in the same toughness but slightly higher hardness. So despite the potential for finer grain size this did not result in improved toughness. This is relatively similar to a result I saw with 8670 heat treatments where using a 5 minute soak resulted in lower hardness and toughness than a 10 or 15 minute soak:

Prior experiments with 8670 steel in a conventional furnace

Temperature matters much more than soak time for grain size, and in general you don’t need to be afraid of grain growth with a longer soak. Here is a study on 52100 [3] that illustrates this:

Data adapted from [3]

The big surprise was the triple quench which resulted in much lower toughness than the other two heat treatments. The ~11 ft-lbs of the triple quench makes the steel much closer to 1095 and O1, significantly higher carbon steels (~0.95% carbon), which were around 8 ft-lbs at the same hardness:

The older 1084 datapoints on this chart are slightly lower than these new values. That 1084 was from a different steel manufacturer.

The fracture grain of the single and triple quenched 1084 was very fine, so I knew the drop in toughness was not from significant grain growth. So I decided to look at the microstructure of the two conditions:

Single Quench 1084 (3 minutes in 1475°F salt)

“Triple Quenched” 1084 (3 minutes in 1475°F and quenched, repeated)

The main thing I noticed is that there was much more carbide in the single quench version. This makes some sense given that it had 1/3 the total soak time. However, the ten minute in air condition had a similar soak time and did not have a significant drop in toughness. It appears that performing the austenitize and soak repeatedly led to more rapid carbide dissolution than a single soak. Heat treating from a martensitic condition (after quenching the first time) is known to lead to more rapid austenite formation, so I believe this is what happened with the multiple quench. With more carbide dissolved, this put more carbon in solution which also reduces toughness for a given hardness. This is the same reason why O1 and 1095 have lower toughness, because they had high carbon in solution with the same 1475°F ten minute soak. You can read more about this (and some things that can be done to improve toughness with high carbon steels), in this article about austempering.

With O1 I was able to improve toughness by austenitizing at a lower temperature of 1425°F. It is quite likely that I could improve the toughness of the triple quenched 1084 by using a lower austenitizing temperature as well. However, I think this result is still a good warning to those that think that any “special heat treatment” they perform could potentially help and certainly wouldn’t hurt. With any specialized heat treatment, the potential improvement is usually small but the potential for being detrimental is always there, and probably more likely.

O1 toughness was improved by using a lower austenitizing temperature (1425 vs 1475°F)

We did a triple quench experiment with CruForgeV in a conventional furnace back in 2018. In this case we did each soak for 10 minutes in the furnace, the first two at 1450°F and the final at 1500°F. With this experiment we also saw an increase in hardness and a drop in toughness by triple quenching, though the drop in toughness was not as extreme as the salt pot triple quench of 1084. The smaller drop is likely due to 1) the chromium addition to CruForgeV so its carbides dissolve more slowly and it is not as sensitive to overheating, and 2) the lower temperature used in the first two quenches.

Single vs Triple quench of CruForgeV

Prior Triple Quench Salt Pot Experiments by Dr. John Verhoeven

There is an experiment reported by Dr. John Verhoeven in his book Steel Metallurgy for the Non-Metallurgist [4] that he wrote for knifemakers and bladesmiths. He tried it with 1045, 1086, and 5150 low alloy steels. First he heated the steels to 1650°F for 15 minutes and quenched in oil. This was the starting condition where he measured the grain size. Then he heated each steel to 1450°F for 4 minutes in a salt pot and quenched in oil, repeating the procedure two more times (triple quench). He found a decrease in grain size relative to the initial condition after the 1650°F and quench (larger ASTM number means finer grain size):

In this case his results make sense given that the 1650°F austenitize would definitely result in a larger grain size. The repeated cycles at 1450°F were beneficial in refining the grain size, though the result from one or two cycles was not tested. So I think it makes sense for this particular experiment to show a finer grain size from a rapid salt pot “triple quench” while my toughness experiments did not show an improvement. It is also possible that my triple quench actually did improve the grain size but the higher carbon in solution was a more important factor. Measuring very fine grain sizes is difficult.

Do I Recommend Salt Pots for Austenitizing?

I heat treat a wide range of steels with a wide range of austenitizing temperatures so having to use multiple salts and pots doesn’t really work for me. Cleaning out a pot to switch to a different type of salt is definitely not an exciting prospect. So I would probably only recommend salt bath furnaces for those that are using a narrow range of steel types and benefit from shorter soak times and the clean surface coming out, both of which lead to saving them time. But there are several knifemakers out there that swear by salt pots so there might be some benefits I am not thinking of.

Summary and Conclusions

Salt bath furnaces have much faster heating rates than conventional furnaces and also do not require any protection of the steel furnace (there is no oxygen present). Toughness experiments did not reveal an improvement to properties despite the potential for grain refinement with rapid heating and short soak times.

---

[1] Samuels, Leonard Ernest. Light microscopy of carbon steels. ASM International, 1999.

[2] Stickels, C. A. “Carbide refining heat treatments for 52100 bearing steel.” Metallurgical Transactions 5, no. 4 (1974): 865-874.

[3] Khzouz, Erik Ryan. “Grain growth kinetics in steels.” (2011).

[4] Verhoeven, John D. Steel metallurgy for the non-metallurgist. ASM International, 2007.

The post Rapid Heat Treating with Salt Pots appeared first on Knife Steel Nerds.

New Q&A video with questions from Patreon supporters. Go to Patreon.com/KnifeSteelNerds if you want to support knife steel research.

00:00 Ultra high toughness with ferrite/martensite steels?

05:09 Normalize 80CrV2 with stock removal?

09:18 How much forging to eliminate carbide stringers?

11:16 Will CruForgeV ever come back?

12:25 What is the most important property for knife steel?

15:04 Different CATRA test for cooking knives?

17:22 Does bainite have a place in knives?

20:22 Austenitizing soak time?

23:40 High temperature tempering is bad?

 

The post Most Important Property for Knife Steel? Q&A appeared first on Knife Steel Nerds.

Thanks to the new Knife Steel Nerds Patreon supporters! The newly performed research in this article is all paid for through Patreon funds, such as the purchase of expensive Damasteel. Patreon money is only used for knife steel research. Sara Rempelos, Theo N, Christopher Kuehl, Dirk Hoogenbosch, Nick, nats spawnee, Krisztián Szegi, Todd Ellner, Seth V, Jonathan Graham, Ben Secrist, Drew Certain, Scott Armstuts, Ronald Justin Agee, Jim Darnall, Chris G, Farrell K., Bill Behnke, Paige, Luis Hernandez, clockworkfish, Barry Gordon, KarRawr, Ming Lin, Theodore Loach, Matt Bobchin, Flo, J.T. Pouland, Mark Watt, 愷麒 王, and Nickolay Matershev.

Video

Here is the video version of the following information:

Damasteel History

Damasteel was developed and patented by Pelle Billgren and Kay Embretsen [1]. At the time, Billgren worked for the steel company Erasteel in Sweden and he was looking for new uses of their powder metallurgy steel. He connected with bladesmith and Damascus steel maker Embretsen and they worked together to make what eventually was branded as Damasteel. The original material they patented was a combination of Elmax steel and 304L, but by the time it was advertised in the USA in 1996 it had their final combination of RWL34 and PMC27. Damasteel was unique in that it was two different powders which were layered up with no “solid” sheet component. RWL34 is the same composition as ATS34/154CM, and it the name is a tribute to Robert Waldorf “Bob” Loveless who famously introduced those steels to the knife industry. PMC27 is a powder metallurgy version of Sandvik’s 12C27. You can read more about the history of Damasteel, Kay Embretsen, Damascus steels, and knife steel in general in my new book The Story of Knife Steel: Innovators Behind Modern Damascus and Super Steels. Around 2016, the RWL34/PMC27 combination was renamed DS93X. They also have low carbon austenitic stainless products for non-knife applications, and “san-mai” products with a core steel called Damacore. I previously wrote about Damacore in this article. The rest of this article focuses on the DS93X product with RWL34 and PMC27.

Composition and Microstructure

As shown on the chart, the two steels, RWL34 and PMC27, are very similar to their inspirations, ATS34 and 12C27. I get mixed information on whether 154CM or CPM-154 have a small vanadium addition, it has a very limited effect on properties, as there is so much chromium carbide in RWL34 that those act to keep the grain size small. The high chromium content also prevents significant content of vanadium carbides from forming; instead, the vanadium is found in the chromium carbides. There also are no molybdenum carbides to be found (Mo2C or Mo6C). Instead the molybdenum is found in the chromium carbides (M7C3 or M23C6, where M can be chromium, molybdenum, etc.).

RWL34 is the “bright” layer and PMC27 is the “dark” layer in the micrograph above. Because Damasteel is constructured with layering of powder, there can be somewhat diffuse transitions between the two steels, which on a small scale are not as sharp as in pattern-welded Damascus made with solid sheet steels. This does not appear to have any deleterious effect on the “macro” pattern observed in the final material.

12C27 has a very find microstructure without powder metallurgy due to careful composition design and processing. You can read more about how those steels were designed in this article on AEB-L. With powder metallurgy, the PMC27 remains very fine with very small carbides (the bottom material in the micrograph above). RWL34 has much more carbide than PMC27 (roughly 16 vs 4%) with its higher carbon and alloy content but the carbides remain relatively fine due to the powder metallurgy process. You can compare with the microstructure of many other knife steels in this article with many micrographs.

Heat Treatment

There are a surprising number of things to talk about with Damasteel heat treatment, and I have gotten quite a few questions about the datasheet. Until recently the (old) datasheet recommended an 8 minute hold time for 3.2 mm (1/8″), with an increase or decrease of one minute per 0.5 mm. However, a new datasheet was released this year (2023) which recommends a 15 minute hold time instead. The 15 minute hold is more in line with my recommendations.

Heat treatment instructions from the current Damasteel datasheet.

Adjusting by the minute based on thickness makes sense when using a conveyer belt furnace, but for conventional furnaces this is riding the line too close where different sizes of knives (even at the same thickness) can affect the time for the steel to heat up to temperature. Some knifemakers have tried to ride this line in hopes of a finer grain size; however, grain size is much more greatly controlled by temperature than by time. Instead it is more important that the steel sees enough time, to ensure that carbides are dissolved, sufficient carbon is in solution for hardness, and sufficient chromium is in solution for corrosion resistance. The danger of an insufficient soak is much worse, leading to poor hardness, toughness, and corrosion resistance. While the chances of an overly long soak time are quite low. The changes to the steel in terms of transformation and carbides dissolving will “level off” after a certain amount of time and then changes are very slow after that. So I recommend that the soak is “long enough” rather than trying to make it as short as possible.

Example of change in carbon and chromium in solution with austenitizing time for 52100. With short soak times the changes are great, while after sufficient soaking the behavior is more flat.

Another change between the old and new datasheet is the cold treatment recommendation. The old datasheet said to use a cold treatment for heat treatments IV and V, while the new datasheet does not include this instruction, and says only that “deep freezing is not necessary but completes the martensite transformation and increases hardness.” I do not recommend skipping a cold treatment when using the 1080°C/1975°F austenitze, for reasons I will explain shortly. I recommend sticking to 1050°C/1925°F if only quenching to room temperature.

Hardness values are listed for RWL34 and PMC27 for each of the five heat treatment conditions but it does not specify whether this assumes a cold treatment or a room temperature quench. Whether the cold treatment is included has a strong effect on these final values. Another interesting aspect is that rather than giving a final hardness for the “DS93X” Damasteel combination of the two steels, instead it gives hardness values separately for RWL34 and PMC27, presumably so that the knifemaker can select a heat treatment that works for both alloys. Also the PMC27 look rather low when compared with the data on 12C27 from Sandvik [2][3] as shown on the chart I created below. The RWL34 values are much more in line with reported heat treatment data from Hitachi ATS-34, Latrobe 14-4CrMo, and my own experiments with CPM-154.

Tempering chart for Damasteel from their datasheet.

Comparison of Sandvik 12C27 and Damasteel PMC27 heat treatment data.

In my heat treatment experiments I used the same 15 minute austenitize specified in the current datasheet, a plate quench, and tested either with a room temperature quench (no cryo), or a dip in liquid nitrogen (cryo). Rockwell hardness is affected by both steels, and would not only reflect the harder of the two steels. However, when comparing the resulting “composite” hardness of the Damasteel product, the values are basically the same as RWL34 cryo heat treatments and are not similar to PMC27. For example, in a combination of ~62 Rc 1095 and very soft nickel (approximately 8%), the composite hardness value was only ~51.5 Rc. You can read more in the previous article I wrote on experiments of many Damascus steels.

Note also that the hardness drops without cryo above 1925°F, which is why I recommend limiting the austenitize to 1925°F when cryo is not available. This is in line with other heat treatment data from Hitachi and Latrobe on ATS-34, as shown below. When “overaustenitizing,” the hardness drops from excessive retained austenite. Cryo can transform some or all of this retained austenite so that hardness will climb with even higher austenitizing temperatures. Excess retained austenite, even if the final hardness is acceptable (ie 60 Rc), will lead to poor performance, as the retained austenite is very soft and will lead to deformation at lower stresses than would be seen at the same hardness without the retained austenite. The steel will deform as if it is at a significantly lower hardness. You can read more in this article on cryo.

So why does the steel heat treat like RWL34 if roughly half of the steel is PMC27? The reason is because the two steels do not behave the same as when the two are heat treated separately. When combining two steels in Damascus, contrast is achieved after etching because the alloy contents are different, in this case the biggest difference is in the 4% Mo in the RWL34 which makes that steel resist etching better than the PMC27 which creates the bright layer. However, carbon is a very small “interstitial” element (between the iron atoms), which means it diffuses very rapidly. During the forge welding and forging process the carbon equalizes between the two steels, changing the heat treatment behavior of the two steels. It is slightly more complicated than this because some carbide will still be present in the CPM-154 even at a high forging temperatures such as 2150°F. So the carbon that will equalize will be the carbon “in solution” for the two steels at the forge welding and forging temperature. Using ThermoCalc for that temperature I estimate that RWL34 loses about 0.1% carbon while PMC27 gains about the same amount, resulting in the RWL34 having 0.95% carbon and PMC27 having 0.7% carbon. In this case, the resulting “carbon in solution” of the two steels during austenitizing ends up being very similar to the original RWL34, and thus the hardness values of PMC27 on its own are basically irrelevant to the heat treatment. This would make the PMC27 roughly the same composition as AEB-L, which also has its peak austenitizing temperature at 1925°F without cryo and 1975-2000°F with cryo (see this article). Instead it would be better if the datasheet just showed the resulting hardness data for heat treating the “DS93X” combination of the two steels. Below I have shown a heat treatment summary from my own experiments:

So with 1/8″ material, a 15 minute austenitize works well, thicker material may necessitate longer hold times. Using 1900-1925°F is good if not using cryo, with cryo you can austenitize as high as about 2000°F for higher hardness. Temper to desired hardness.

Edge Retention

The edge retention of Damasteel compared with other Damascus patterns was previously shown in this article on Damascus performance. The Damasteel did very well, comparable to “mid-tier” wear resistance steels such as CPM-3V or CPM-154. We used a heat treatment of 1950°F for 15 minutes, plate quench, liquid nitrogen cryo, and temper at 400°F. Read more about CATRA edge retention testing in this article.

High alloy Damascus combinations tested for edge retention with CATRA

A giant chart of other steels to compare against

The edge retention was tested with the “Hugin” pattern which is essentially a “ladder” pattern which puts a wave into the steel. We found ladder patterned Damascus to have better edge retention than “random” straight layers as shown on the ApexUltra/L6 chart.

Damasteel “Hugin” pattern CATRA coupon

The wavy appearance created in the “edge” of a ladder pattern bar (this is not Damasteel)

ApexUltra/L6 Damascus showed better edge retention with a ladder pattern

However, you will notice that the layers of the Hugin pattern flatten out as they approach the edge, which is not because the patterning doesn’t reach the center of the bar, but rather because of the shape of the initial billet which are layered with powder prior to forging flat (notice how the layers also flatten out as they approach the spine of the test knife). This results in layers parallel to the edges while looking more typical of layered steel in the center. Thus we were somewhat surprised that the edge retention was identical to the ladder patterned steel we tested of AEB-L/154CM, which are nearly identical steels. Could the Damasteel have even better edge retention if the layers “crisscrossed” the edge like traditional pattern-welded Damascus? To test this we made a new coupon using a “dense twist” pattern which does have layers crossing the edge with a higher density.

Damasteel “dense twist” CATRA coupon

Damasteel “dense twist” cross-section

However, when I tested the dense twist the result was largely the same as Hugin. If there was a true increase in performance it is very small. In either case, the edge retention of the Damasteel is very close to CPM-154 (the same as RWL34), despite the presence of a large amount of PMC27 with much less wear resistance (similar to AEB-L on the chart below). Therefore the ladder patterning leads to a significant boost in edge retention.

Thus it appears that the effect of the layers is minimal, and most of the effect comes from the change in shape of the microstructure instead. There is still directionality to the microstructure, especially carbide banding, which would have its shape changed through the ladder patterning. Below is an image of carbide banding:

Carbide banding in high speed steel (rolling direction is vertical) [4]

This carbide banding theory could be confirmed by testing CATRA edge retention of a single steel which was given ladder patterning. We effectively did this test already with the 3125 layer AEB-L/154CM where layers were no longer visible. We also tested layer counts of 25, 125, and 625. However, regardless of the layer count the edge retention was the same, as shown in the chart below:

The reason the layers are not visible is not simply because the layers got so thin they cannot be viewed. When the layers become thin enough, the larger alloying elements (not only carbon) will equalize between the steel leading to a roughly consistent composition throughout the steel in terms of molybdenum and chromium. No pattern was apparent in the 3125 layer steel.

3125 layer AEB-L/154CM steel with no apparent layers.

Toughness

I also tested the toughness of the Hugin pattern Damasteel with two heat treatments:

1. 1950°F for 15 minutes, plate quench, liquid nitrogen cryo, 400°F temper (~61 Rc)
2. 1975°F for 15 minutes, plate quench, liquid nitrogen cryo, 300°F temper (~64.0 Rc)

The toughness of Damasteel was close to the RWL34 on its own, with only a small boost due to the tougher PMC27 (compare with AEB-L on the chart). This was similar to other Damascus steels that we tested, where toughness was largely controlled by the “less tough” of the two steels. In our initial tests of the dense twist patter, we got a surprising amount of variability when compared with the Hugin pattern:

Because of this unexpected behavior, I made four more coupons and retested, and this time the behavior was more consistent. The average toughness did not change that much, however. It appears that when compensated for hardness the toughness was roughly the same between the dense twist and the Hugin pattern.

Summary and Conclusions

Damasteel DS93X is a high quality powder metallurgy stainless Damascus. It showed good toughness and edge retention in our testing. There are a couple issues with the datasheet and I have slightly different recommendations for heat treating, but their most recent datasheet did change their austenitizing time recommendation in what I think is a positive change. For 1/8″ material and thinner I recommend a 15 minute austenitize from 1900-2000°F (1035-1095°C), with a max of 1925°F (1050°C) if not using cryo after the quench. Temper to desired hardness with a minimum of 300°F/150°C. I didn’t test tempering temperatures higher than 400°F to see when tempered martensite embrittlement happens. Generally a 350-400°F (175-205°C) temper gives more balanced properties than maxing out the hardness with 300°F/150°C.

---

[1] Billgren, Per, and Kaj Embretsen. “Method relating to the manufacturing of a composite metal product.” U.S. Patent 5,815,790, issued September 29, 1998.

[2] https://www.alleima.com/en/products/strip-steel/strip-products/knife-steel/hardening-guide/hardening-programs/alleima-12c27-batch-hardening/

[3] https://www.alleima.com/en/products/strip-steel/strip-products/knife-steel/hardening-guide/hardening-programs/alleima-12c27-batch-hardening-deep-freezing-70c-95f/

[4] Mesquita, Rafael Agnelli, and Celso Antonio Barbosa. “High-speed steels produced by conventional casting, spray forming and powder metallurgy.” In Materials science forum, vol. 498, pp. 244-250. Trans Tech Publications Ltd, 2005.

The post Damasteel Heat Treatment and Properties appeared first on Knife Steel Nerds.