Talk:Carbon steel

Type / Types

There are some discrepancies in section titled "Type" and "Types" that needs to be corrected. They are:

1. 2 sections named "Type" and "Types" exists in this article. They are discussing same idea. They should be merged.
   
2. In Introduction, article tells that "Carbon steel is steel in which the main interstitial alloying constituent is carbon in the range of 0.12–2.0%." However in this section article tells that "Low-carbon steel contains approximately 0.05–0.25% carbon". So 2 values for limit of Carbon content is mentioned at different places in this article. This discrepancy needs to be corrected

Density of Steel

0.284 lb/in3 is not a true density but a weight per volume. The lb unit is lb-force not lb-mass. I believe it is often stated this way so that steel vendors can quickly calculate shipping costs by multiplying .284 by the total steel volume. Maybe this should be pointed out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterwright (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That distinction is usually glossed over and doesn't really matter. Pounds per cubic inch is a density. Wikipedia seems to think the mass is the primary definition. I wouldn't change anything. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I see now. From the Pound (force) page lb-f and lb-m are equivalent at the surface of the earth. However, if you want to use newton's second law you have to first convert to slugs so that 1 (lb-m) = 1 (slug) * 1 (ft/s^2). Thank's for clarification BenFrantzDale. Hunterwright (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Heat treatment

Should the heat treatment stuff sould be moved to heat treatment?

Duk 18:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is shaping up well due to some good collaboration, maybe also because it is a well-bounded topic. Some reasons I think the heat-treatment section should stay:

• There isn’t anything to say about carbon-steel apart from heat-treatment past the composition part, and even that is irrelevant without regard to its response to h-t. It would then become a dictionary entry.

• The Heat Treatment article started as “specific to swords and knives”, a good place for tips particular to that art. In May it morphed into something else and then began to suffer from linking by word-association. Apart from heat treatment of carbon-steel, there are all the other steel alloys, all other metals, glass, seeds, milk, timber, gems, and so on. It will become a monster.

I suggest we clean up the Heat Treatment article, move it to Heat Treatment of Swords and Knives, and remove pointless red links from other articles. Meggar 03:29, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

How about: what is carbon steel good and less good for compared to other types of steel? -- Milo

• The temperatures for Full annealing and Normalizing show temperatures above Ac3 or ACm. Can someone explain or put a link to what this means, please? - Cesarhernandez1967

Ductility

High carbon steel or low carbon steel? which one is more ductile actually?

Thank you Dsdsasds (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Low carbon, but you should really ask questions like this in the future at the help desk. Wizard191 (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

References

If someone has a better way for me to list my references that would help alot, because most of my references come from the same book and it's just the page numbers that change. Wizard191 02:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Metrication

The article contain a mix of SI and non-SI units. Some sections of the article contain non-SI units, and these should be converted. I don't know for sure what Wikipedia's policy is regarding metrication, but some may find it helpful for both systems to appear in the article with SI units given prominence. Example: 0°C (32°F). --B.d.mills 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done Wizard191 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the carbide bur mean that one is made of carbon steel?--211.72.233.5 11:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

durability

How can the melting point be reduced while the temperature resistance is increased? Aren't those in opposite directions?68.180.38.41 09:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Just a guess: perhaps the creep temperature is increased? (The operating range of a metal doesn't go all the way up to its melting point.) That's just a guess, though. —Ben FrantzDale 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Simple enough search finds carbon steel to be the nomenclature. Teke ^(talk) 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Plain-carbon steel → Carbon steel – As indicated in the article history, "plain carbon steel" is the industry term for the material. It is Wikipedia's convention to use the most common name, which is "carbon steel" in this case. Carbon steel is the name given in Encyclopedia Britannica, and Encarta refers to the material as "carbon steel" in articles such as "Carbon" and "Iron and Steel Manufacture". Also, "carbon steel" gets 1.3 million Google results whereas "plain carbon steel" gets 69,900, over 17 times less (the number of "plain carbon steel" results were subtracted, since those pages show up in a "carbon steel" search). -- Kjkolb 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, though is there a non-plain carbon steel? And would that article be long enough to merit its own, or should it be combined into carbon steel? And is it just me or is the content between the two articles pretty much the same? WLU 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Carbon steel ... "Steel is considered to be carbon steel when no minimum content is specified or required for chromium, cobalt, molybdenum, nickel, niobium, titanium, tungsten, vanadium or zirconium, or any other element to be added to obtain a desired alloying effect; when the specified minimum for copper does not exceed 1.04 percent; or when the maximum content specified for any of the following elements does not exceed the percentages noted: manganese 1.65, silicon 0.60, copper 0.60." It must be an error regarding the specified minimum and maximum for copper (1.04% min and 0.6% maximum)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request edit on simple page

Hi, the Simple.wikipedia.org version of this page refers to 'poopoo head' from vandal. I don't know the site well enough to edit, can this be fixed? Apologies for the format here as I say I am not familiar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.35 (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The carbon does not form in the body-centered cubic ferrite phase...it sits in the interstital sites of the face-centered cubic austenite phase and on phase transformation to the bcc ferrite phase the intersitital solute carbon is expelled out of this site

"Sweet iron"

Folks, can anyone tell me what, metallurgically, "sweet iron" is? It is commonly used to make horse bits like this one ( which also has copper inlays). One source describes it as "...sweet iron, also known as mild steel and cold-rolled steel. This metal alloy is slightly softer than stainless steel, and instead of a perpetual shine, will quickly begin to rust." We'd like to kill some red links by explaining what it actually is. Another source says, "Sweet iron is likely not pure iron, but a mixture of iron and carbon combined to create some form of a carbon steel."-- but they sound like they don't know for sure. Help?? Montanabw^(talk) 05:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is, but it sounds from what you say that it's a colloquial name for mild steel. Why that makes it "sweet", I don't know. Also, I think of cold rolled steel as steel that's been cold rolled; I'm not sure it implies a particular chemical composition, just that it has been work hardened. But I'm not a metallurgist. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"30,000,000 PSI???"

It's more likely 30,000 PSI, right? A36 Steel is 36,000. Maraging Steel(a super steel) is only 500,000 PSI at most. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the Young's modulus value, not yield or tensile strength. Wizard191 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Temperature conversion problems

Whoever converted some of the temperature rates from F to C did it wrong. In one case 100F per second of temperature drop is listed as 37C, and while a temperature of 100F converts to 37C, this is incorrect for the rate of cooling. 100F actually converts to 57C when you take into account that 0C is 32F. Someone needs to fix this. 151.200.31.19 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Be bold. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right that the value is incorrect, but the proper conversion is: F = (9/5)C; therefore 38 degree C is 68.4 degree F. Wizard191 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference number 1 is a dead link

Could the originator of this article please check the link for number 1. It is dead and needs to be corrected. I may Be Bold and fix it myself, but free time is an issue for me right now. Bikeric (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Wizard191 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How carbon afffects strength

The article says that it's interstitial carbon that interferes with the movement of dislocations, thus strengthening the material. It's my understanding that ferrite (body centered cubic iron) can only hold a small amount of interstitial carbon, I think it's 0.08%. At higher concentration than that (which includes most all practical steels) the extra carbon is present in the form of discrete particles (e.g. cementite, an iron carbide)and it is the increasing amounts of these precipitates that cause increasing blocking of dislocations and strengthening of the material as the carbon content is raised.

As I don't have formal training in this area, could someone else concur or dispute whether the article should be amended on these lines ? - then if concur let's somebody make the fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian de Physics (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, I removed the content. Wizard191 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

From my Engineering Studies class notes..

Ferrite - 0.02% Carbon dissolving limit

Cementite - 6.69% Carbon dissolving limit 101.174.62.1 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mild and low-carbon steel

The article does not separate the two categories. It states the carbon content in low-carbon steel but not in mild steel which is much higher, thus a difference in material properties. 101.174.62.1 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mild steel redirects to a non-existent section, and there is duplication and confusion between the Type and Types sections. Can we clarify any distinction between mild steel and medium carbon steel ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent definitions

The section on Types defines carbon content ranges for Low, Medium, High and Ultra-high carbon steels, and refer to the "Classification of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels" reference for these values. However, they are quite different from the values quoted on that page. My vague recollection from metallurgy classes was that High would start at 0.6% (which would make sense, since Medium stops there). I had a look around and found that many web sites quote different percentages, so I haven't made any modifications. Also, High has "(ASTM 304)" written after it, but this appears to be a type of stainless steel. If someone who knows this stuff well and has a good source of data could fix this, I would appreciate it. Runox (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Percentages not qualified , and densities

The percentages quoted for the carbon content of steel are mostly not qualified. They are percentages by weight, and I would like to suggest that this should be made clearer. The only section that mentions that they are percentages by weight is "Higher-carbon steels"

The density of carbon (2,250 kg/m3) and iron (7,850 kg/m3) are quite different, which means that percentages of carbon by volume will be larger. E.g. take a 1% carbon steel composed of just iron and carbon. If I have my sums right every 1,000 kg of that will be composed of 990 kg of iron and 10 kg of carbon.The iron will occupy a volume of 990/7850 = 0.1261 m3. The carbon will occupy a volume of 10/2250 = 0.0044 m3. The total volume of the steel will be 0.1305 m3, of which the carbon will be 3.37% by volume.

The density of the 1% carbon steel will be 7,663 kg/m3.I notice that http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-alloys-densities-d_50.html gives the density of steel as 7,850 kg/m3, the same as for iron. For low carbon steel this is reasonable, but as the carbon content rises the density falls. This won't matter in most real world applications, but it shouldn't be forgotten.

David.Boettcher (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The calculations above may not allow for the smaller carbon atoms largely locating (interstitially?) between the larger iron atoms ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, carbon interstitial in the iron crystal matrix is how it works to harden / strengthen, by breaking up dislocation planes (to grossly simplify). It's essentially not changing the matrix spacing at all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carbon steel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018015022/http://www.ameristeel.com:80/products/msds/docs/carbon_steel.pdf to http://www.ameristeel.com/products/msds/docs/carbon_steel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Effects of Carbon-content

Shouldn't there be a paragraph or so on the effects of different carbon-contents? Example:

Higher carbon-content steels are stronger, but less malleable. This means that higher carbon-content steels can take more stress before showing signs of damage, but, instead of bending under stress, higher carbon-content steels tend to fracture, and so are much harder to repair when they are damaged. Higher carbon-content steels are also less dense than lower carbon-content steels, meaning that they are somewhat lighter, which is favorable for some roles (knives, saws, furniture, etc.) and unfavorable for others (hammers, axes, and other tools that work by delivering harsh impact). 2606:A000:4A96:7200:A0F3:A33C:C5DD:8F87 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

High- to Ultra-High-Carbon Percentage Mismatch

In the section "AISI Classification", the four classess are listed as containing 0.05-0.30% (Low), 0.3-0.6% (Medium), 0.6-1.0% (High), and 3.25-4% (Ultra-High) carbon. So what's a steel with 1.0-3.25% carbon content? "Really-Awfully-High-Carbon"?

Looking at the cited article ( http://www.keytometals.com/Articles/Art62.htm ), it describes ultrahigh-carbon (sic) steel as having 1.25-2.0% carbon - I can't find any references to 3.25% or 4% anywhere on the page, and it even states "Generally speaking, carbon steels contain up to 2% total alloying elements and can be subdivided into low-carbon steels, medium-carbon steels, high-carbon steels, and ultrahigh-carbon steels". Knowing only slightly more than nothing about steel composition ('it involves steel, and, um... stuff it's composed of?'), I don't want to go editing it... but is there a deliberate reason for the difference in figures, or did someone's finger just slip a couple keys to the right while editing?

71.234.116.22 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

BMS - Bright Mild Steel

Please would someone knowledgeable add information or a section about BMS - Bright Mild Steel ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman101 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

History

Dear historians of metallurgy: would it be possible to have a short history of the carbon steel? I am interested in piano strings and I can't find the date and the person who 'invented' or 'discovered' the addition of carbon to change its properties. I heard it was in Birmingham but I got different names and dates, ranging from 1822 to 1834. I know by modern analysis that iron strings by 1780's had a content of carbon about 0.03 %, mostly as residues rather than added on purpose. The addition of carbon took the pianos (and also other instruments) into a new era as they needed to support much more tension so the whole industry had to adapt to the change leading to what we know as the modern piano. That's why I think it's important to state who did it and when that happened.Cesarhernandez1967 (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Lack of photo

For Pete's sake, why not include at least a single photo showing an item made from carbon steel in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Knives

From the lede:

Carbon steel is a popular metal choice for knife making due to its high amount of carbon, giving the blade more edge retention.

...true, to an extent. Compared to bronze or iron age knives, the modern carbon steel has way better edge retention. But the iron age is over and, as also noted in the lede, stainless steel is often distinguished from carbon steel in the common vernacular.

Modern stainless steels have far better edge retention than carbon steels, due to having harder and larger vanadium carbides, and better wear resistance. The main advantage of carbon steel is low cost and ease of heat treatment. When I find the time I hope to post some citations for this. -- Hunan201p (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Second half of "Types: Higher-carbon steels" is written terribly.

The second half of "Types: Higher-carbon steels" is written terribly. Its not in the passive voice, missing capitals at the start of some sentences, has extra capitals on some words, meanders, has poor flow, grammar is bad/wrong.

Recommend delete all of text below till someone can re-write it.

There are two types of Higher carbon steels which are High Carbon Steel and the Ultra High Carbon Steel. The reason for the limited use of High Carbon Steel is simple which is it has extremely poor Ductility and Weldability and not to mention the cost it incurs during its production. the applications best suited for the High Carbon Steels is its use in the spring industry, farm industry and in the production of wide range of high-strength wires. now let's talk about the Ultra High Carbon Steels which are mostly famous because they have a special property called the Superplasticity. Superplasticity exists in Ultra High Carbon Steels because of their microstructure which contains uniform distribution of very light, shape like sphere, but non-continuous particles which are present abundantly in the ferritic matrix and to produce the Superplasticity in Ultra High Carbon Steel is very simple i.e. by applying the thermomechanical treatment 198.84.204.137 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Minor error in unit conversion

This text, under Heat Treatment -> Full Annealing, contains an inaccurate Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion:

"The steel must then be cooled slowly, in the realm of 20 °C (68 °F) per hour."

20 C above zero is equivalent to 68 F above zero, but that's relative to each scale's zero. This is about the rate of cooling per hour, so it's not 9/5 + 32, it's just 9/5. 20 C per hour is 36 F per hour, not 68 F per hour. 142.161.231.175 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You are right! I have made the necessary amendment. Thanks for drawing the error to our attention. Dolphin (t) 07:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)