Effect of raw materials and hardening process on hardness of manually forged knife

Balkhaya and Suwarno

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1855, 030010 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4985480

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4985480
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1855/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Effect of Raw Materials and Hardening Process on
Hardness of Manually Forged Knife
Balkhaya1,a), Suwarno1,b)
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya (ITS), Surabaya
60111, Indonesia,
a)
Corresponding author: balwakdrag@gmail.com
b)
warnoise@gmail.com

Abstract. Knives are normally made by forging process either using a machine or traditional method by means of
hammering process. This present work was conducted to study the effects of steel raw materials and hardening
process on the hardness of manually forged knives. The knife samples were made by traditional hammering
(forging) process done by local blacksmith. Afterward, the samples were heat treated with two different hardening
procedures, the first was based on the blacksmith procedure and the second was systematically done at the
laboratory. The forging was done in the temperature ranged between 900-950°C, while the final temperature ranged
between 650-675oC. The results showed that knives made of spring steel and heat treated in simulated condition at
the laboratory obtained higher level of hardness, i.e. 62 HRC. In general, knives heat treated by local blacksmith had
lower level of hardness that those obtained from simulated condition. Therefore, we concluded that the traditional
knife quality in term of hardness can be improved by optimizing the heat treatment schedule.

INTRODUCTION
There are many kinds of cutting devices in machinery and food processing equipment. The quality of the
cutting component depends on the material characteristics and its production method. A cutting device has a
same function with a knife. They must be sharp on the cutting side and tough in the core. The manufacturing
process of blades from steel bar, ingot, or plate is typically done by forging [1]. Traditionally, a blacksmith uses
manual forging to make a knife. Commonly, knives produced by traditional blacksmiths have poor quality, i.e.
soft and blunt. There are two common methods to make the traditional blade, i.e. pattern welding and damascus
method [2-3]. The pattern welding process is by forging two dissimilar steels to have combined properties of the
blade. While the damascus method forges a single bar of steel with an engineered composition [4]. On the
hardness level, a damascus blade has a better sharpness than that made of alloy steel of AISI 52100 or AISI
1086 [5]. Theoretically, quality of a knife produced by blacksmith can be improved by selecting a right material,
good manufacturing process, and perfect finishing process. In the present work, we studied the traditional
forging method done by a local blacksmith to make a knife from various kinds of waste steels. Our goal was to
study the parameters of forging process to control hardness of the blades.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS

Materials used in this study were steels with different chemical compositions, i.e. spring steel, SKT 4, AISI,
1050, and AISI 4340. The chemical compositions of the steels were listed in Table 1.
The geometries of raw materials before the forging process were in the form of a thick plate or cylinder.
Subsequently, they were cut as shown in Fig. 1. For the plate, the dimensions were 70 mm in length, 30 mm in
width, and 10 mm in thickness. While for the bar, the dimensions were 20 mm in diameter and 6.8 mm in
length.

Green Process, Material, and Energy: A Sustainable Solution for Climate Change
AIP Conf. Proc. 1855, 030010-1–030010-7; doi: 10.1063/1.4985480
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1529-4/$30.00

030010-1
 TABEL 1. Chemical composition of observed materials.
element Chemical composition % (wt)
AISI 1050 AISI 4340 JIS SKT4 Spring Steel
Fe 98.6 95.8 94.5 97.27
C 0.46 0.35 0.47 0.62
Si 0.22 0.23 0.40 0.27
Mn 050 0.73 0.83 0.84
P 0.023 0.11 0.02 0.01
S < 0.01 0.13 < 0.01 < 0.01
Cr 0.026 0.80 1.13 0.82
Mo < 0.01 0.18 0.41 0.01
Ni 0.019 1.57 1.73 0.04
Al < 0.01 0.018 0.023 < 0.01
Co < 0.01 0.01 0.021 < 0.01
Cu 0.035 0.11 0.12 < 0.01
Nb < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
Ti < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
Sn 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01

FIGURE 1. Dimensions of workpieces in the preparation stage.

Traditional Knife Forging Process

'XULQJWKHIRUJLQJSURFHVVDZRUNSLHFHZDVKHDWHGLQDWUDGLWLRQDOEODFNVPLWK¶VIXUQDFHIt was heated at a
temperature of 950oC based on an infrared thermocouple. The sample was forged until the temperature dropped
to 650oC. Each heating process was followed by repeated hammering process ranged between 32 to 39 times for
each 5 cm in length of the sample in which one hammering cycle was approximately 28-35 seconds. Cycles of
heating and forging process demonstrated in Fig. 2 was repeated to shape a knife. It was followed by a grinding
SURFHVVWRIODWWHQWKHNQLIH¶VVXUIDFHDQGWRIRUPWKHNQLIH¶VFXWWLQJHGJH.

FIGURE 2. Schematic of a traditional knife forging cycle.

The hardening process was done using two schedules, i.e. traditional way in accordance to the blacksmith
method and simulated method at the laboratory. The traditional heat treatment method was done by heating the
sample in a homemade furnace as shown in Fig. 3a at a temperature of 850oC for 10 minutes and quenching it in
water. Meanwhile, simulated heat treatment was done by heating the sample in laboratory furnace at a
temperature of 850oC for 60 minutes and keeping it at the temperature for 30 minutes and subsequently,
quenching it in water.

030010-2
 (a) (b)
FIGURE 3. Type of furnaces used in the experiment: (a) traditional furnace. (b) Electric muffle
furnace
Hardness Measurement
Hardness measurement was done on the surface and on the cross-section of the samples. In prior to the test,
the knife was cut into a 10 mm-width as shown in Fig. 4a. The length and the thickness was kept intact similar
to the dimension of the knife.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 4. The specimen from a sample: (a) hardness test performed in a cross-section of the sample, (b) Mounted
specimen.

The sample was mounted in a resin as shown in Fig. 4b to simplify the measurement process. Subsequently,
the specimen was grinded with 80, 120, and 220 grid paper. The hardness test was performed by using a
Rockwell C hardness test machine. This test machine used a diamond indenter with the 120o angle and 150 Kp
load.

Microstructure Observation
Microstructure observation was performed in a mounted sample. The specimen was prepared by grinding the
sample with SiC papers and polishing it with alumina powder. The SiC papers used for grinding the sample
ranged from grid 80 to grid 2000. The etching process was done in a nital solution. The microstructure
investigation was done on the surface, and on the sharp edge of the sample.

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Hardness Test Results

The hardness of knife sample after various treatments is presented in Fig.5. The figure shows the hardness of a
knife made of AISI 1050 steel in which the forging and heat treatment increased the hardness of the knives.

030010-3
 FIGURE 5. Hardness of knives made of AISI 1050 before and after different heat treatment schedule.

Comparing the raw material and specimen after forging, it can be seen that the hardness on the sample
surface is 27 HRC, and after the forging, the hardness slightly increased to 30 HRC. The hardness level
increased significantly after the hardening process. The hardness increased to 56 HRC for a surface section and
55 HRC for the inner section for the traditional heat treatment (HT). While the hardening process in laboratory
furnace (HF), the hardness point increased to 58 HRC in surface section and 57 HRC in inner section. However
the difference between the hardness level in the surface and cross-section was insignificant that was allegedly
caused by the very thin of the sample so the hardening process was in fact a through hardening.

FIGURE 6. Hardness of knives made of AISI 4340 before and after different heat treatment schedule.

Fig. 6 shows the results of the hardness test for knife sample made of AISI 4340 steel that indicated a similar
trend. The raw material hardness in both the inner section and the surface hardness was 39 HRC. After forging,
the hardness increased to 50 HRC on the surface. Moreover, the hardness increased after the traditional heat
treatment process (HT) to 60-61 HRC. Similar result was also obtained for the sample heat treated in furnace
hardening process (HF), i.e. 60-61 HRC.

030010-4
 FIGURE 7. Hardness of knives made of JIS SKT 4 before and after different heat treatment schedule.

Figure 7 shows the hardness test results for JIS SKT 4 steel. The initial sample of a raw JIS SKT 4 had
different hardness levels between the inner section and the surface hardness which were 52 and 48 HRC,
respectively. After forging, the hardness numbers were of the surface section and the inner section were 53 HRC
and 54 HRC, respectively. The hardness increased after the hardening treatment, i.e. 60-62 HRC both on the
surface and in the inner section.

FIGURE 8. Hardness of knives made of spring steel before and after different heat treatment schedule.

Figure 8 shows hardness number of knife specimen made of spring steel. The hardness of raw material was
44 HRC in surface section, and 45 HRC in inner section. Post-forging-hardness was 46 HRC in both surface and
inner section. After hardening, knife hardness yielded almost similar values for both the surface and inner
section, which were 60 HRC for HT method, and 62 HRC for HF method.
The overall test results show that forging process at high-temperature regime led to an increased hardness for
the knives. The increased hardness can also be observed at the inner section of the knife due to grain
deformation inflicted by forging force which caused by alteration of the grain and by the dislocation increased
dislocation density. HF process produce better hardness point compared to HT thanks to the even heating in HF
process. The hardness results in both hardening process HT and HF show that there is significant hardness
escalation. This is due to austenite transformation to martensite during the cooling process. Austenite
transformation to martensite is a diffusionless transformation so that leaves the austenite and martensite
composition equal. The formation of martensite is due to entrapped carbon in the grain boundary of austenite
structure as the result of quenching process. It leads to diffusionless transformation so that the austenite is
unable to transform into pearlite due to lack of time. These whole phenomena lead to an increased hardness
SRLQWIRUHDFKNQLIH¶VPDWHULDO

030010-5
 The test results for the sample after heat-treatment in all four materials are different for different materials
and treatments. Spring steeOKDVWKHKLJKHVWKDUGQHVVZKLFKLV+5&:KLOH-,66.7¶VKDUGQHVVSRLQWLV
HRC. Those values are higher than those of both AISI 4340 steel and AISI 1050 steel. The differences in the
level of hardness is caused by the differences in carbon content in each material (Table 1). The higher the
carbon content, the better the hardenability for each material. In addition, alloying element such as Cr, Mo, Mn
and Mo contribute to the material hardenability.
The hardness of martensite structure depends on the carbon content of the steel. The atom carbons are
presumed to transform the crystal structure from FCC austenite to BCT martensite. The C solubility in BCC
increases if martensite is formed, which is one characteristic causing the formation of BCT structure. The higher
the carbon composition in the material, the more interstitial position excluded so that the probability for the
formation of BCT structure is higher.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
FIGURE 9. Microstructure of knives after heat treatment: (a) AISI 1050 steel, (b) AISI 4340 steel, (c) JIS SKT4 steel, (d)
Spring Steel.

Figure 9 shows the microstructure of sample after the hardening process. Martensitic structure has needles form
and fine plate (dark) which is more dominant compared to retained austenite structure (bright). It leads to the
increased hardness after hardening process. In a specific steel, the amount of martensite fraction in the
microstructure solely depends on quenching temperature. Therefore, the continuous cooling transformation
(CCT) diagram is important tool or analysis. From CCT, the martensite start (Ms) and martensite finish (Mf) for
each kind of material can be identified. In AISI 1050 for example, the martensite is formed at 320oC and
completed at 260oC. While the martensite is formed at 290oC and completed at 150oC for AISI 4340 steel. The
martensite in both JIS SKT 4 and spring steel are formed at 280 oC and completed at 100oC. The Ms and Mf are
affected by the change in chemical composition of the material itself, and the austenitizing technique. The

030010-6
martensite formation for a steel with 0.2-0.4% C will likely to complete under the room temperature while the
martensite formation of an above 0.4% C steel will complete above the room temperature [5]. Due to the
phenomena, it can be concluded that higher carbon composition leads to lower Mf temperature that is caused by
higher number of unchanged austenite instead of transformed into martensite.

CONCLUSIONS
The high-temperature manual forging process increases the hardness of knives of each material. In fact, the
hardness level increased after different treatments. The highest hardness level of 62 HRC was obtained by
spring steel with hardening furnace (HF) method while the lowest hardness level of 55 HRC was obtained by
AISI 1050 steel with traditional hardening (HT). Hardening process was evidenced to produce optimum
hardness of all knives. Therefore, hardening process employed by blacksmith can be optimized to increase the
quality of knives.

REFERENCES
[1]. F. Fatollahi, Fard, S. Damascus, MSE, Vol. 121, p. 1-10 (2011).
[2]. F. zkan, H. Kirdan, I. H. Kara, F. H sem, Y. Akinay, Ug, H. C., Sun, Y., Ahlatic, H, Mechanical
Propertis of pattern welding 1075-15N20 Steel. Mater test. Vol. 56, p. 897-900 (2014).
[3]. J. D. Verhoeven, A. H. Pendra, H. F. Clark, Wear tests of steel knife blades. Wear. Vol. 265, p. 1093-1099
(2008).
[4]. J. D. 9HUKRHYHQ7KH0\VWHU\RI'DPDVFXV%ODGHV6FLHQWL¿F$PHULFDQ9RO1Rp. 74-79 (2001).
[5]. M. Yoso, T. Takaiwa, T. Minagi, T. Kanaizumi, K. Kubota, T. Hayashi, S. Morito, T. Ohba, Study of
Javanes Sword from a Viewpoint of steel strength. Alloys Compd. Vol. 557, p. 690-694 (2013).

030010-7