Author Topic: New possible replacement alloy for 4130 tubing:  (Read 15587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Jack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3776
Re: New possible replacement alloy for 4130 tubing:
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2013, 11:00:19 AM »
Any comments on using 316L filler on 4130? I have used it on just about everything except 4130.

I sure wouldn't if I was using the parts for any critical structure such as suspension or roll cage. The ER 70 series filler rod picks up enough of the alloying elements in the process of welding the 4130 that the weld is for the most part very similar to the main material. If you were to use any of the stainless filler rods you'd be significantly changing the alloy in the joint and the resulting weld may or may not be satisfactory for the job. Without extensive testing, beyond the capabilities of most welding shops, I sure wouldn't be willing to risk my life with any untested procedure.


Offline unobtainium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: New possible replacement alloy for 4130 tubing:
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2013, 12:52:20 AM »
Through another part of my job, I've done lengthy testing on 4130N for tensile and Charpy tests. I can tell you it's downright scary what happens to 4130 in less than perfect conditions. Charpy values under 6 joules are common in the HAZ, and HV10 values exceeding 320. There are much better materials out there. Docol is a step in the right direction. Now, I'm not saying 4130 can't work, it just takes more careful control of welding parameters/excellent fit-up than most people think.
That, and in my experience, bending or deforming is superior to cracking/fracturing in a crash.
It's amazing sometimes how certain things are not considered critical. Take for instance grinding of the welds. All sanctioning bodies forbid it. That said, it's done all the time, then re-welded. This in my mind is usually worse, especially with 4130. (Docol will not benefit either). The extra heat you put in to the joint area by doing this is terrible from a metallurgy perspective.  The whole reason for not allowing grinding, is to see what kind of welding can be done on your first crack, not your second or third. This is to try and ensure high quality welds.
I'm testing the Docol with AED to see what happens under welding conditions. I'll be testing the good and the bad alike. I agree it could be a good replacement for DOM, as that is a whole other can of worms. The tighter control on the higher quality Docol should help overall. That is the one thing I like about 4130, is the quality of the material overall. That said, nobody seems to watch the carbon content very closely, and it is a huge factor in the overall picture of fracture toughness and heat input/HAZ concerns.

Offline Jack Gifford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
Re: New possible replacement alloy for 4130 tubing:
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2013, 02:21:53 AM »
"... Charpy values under 6 joules..."?
"... HV10 values exceeding 320..."?
Am I in the minority here- do most of you forums readers attach meaning to these statements? If not, it seems that the author could save us all some effort with a brief tutorial.

"... DOM is a whole other can of worms..."? Drawn-over-mandrel is a forming process, not a metallurgical specification.
M/T Pontiac hemi guru
F/BFL 1-mile Loring record 2020

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1502
Re: New possible replacement alloy for 4130 tubing:
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2013, 08:47:16 AM »
I know what the statements mean, but I do have a degree in Metallurgical Engineering. :-D

It's fairly technical stuff, but not beyond the grasp for most of us forum-heads.

Wikipedia is probably a good place for the basics of impact testing.

Back to the DOCOL material - I'm of the mind that it's not a true direct replacement for 4130, but it is a step above mild steel (let's say 1010) in terms of mechanical properties for a given dimension of material.

This type of High Strength Low Alloy (HSLA) steel is the result of a lot of engineering by major automobile manufacturers and steel producers.  There has been a huge amount of expenditure and effort to develop these materials.

This DOCOL is the first I've heard about this kind of technology being put into use for us everyday "hot rodders", which I see as a step in the positive direction.

It's not the answer to every problem, but is kinda cool, nonetheless.
1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline rouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Impound is the place to be
Re: New possible replacement alloy for 4130 tubing:
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2013, 08:51:32 AM »
I agree with you Jack, no need to get to technical in terminology, basically  charpy v notch impact testing is to check for brittleness the higher the number the better. The hardness number is better in a set range, for example BHN hardness number 200-275 is good, then 325 would be bad. Many different welding parameters can effect the impact toughness, and or, the hardness of the joint. So welding in accordance with established good practices is very important in insuring safe quality weld joints.

The subject of this thread is this new material, and as far as I'm concerned the only place it has for racing chassis is an alternate for CS. Any sanctioning body that approves it for and alternative for 4103 will be going way, way out on a limb.

When the FAA says it's OK I might take a closer look, but for now, NO WAY.

Rouse
Johnnie Rouse
Bike 4680 P-PP2000 SCTA record 153.325    A-PF3000 182.920
                              Texas Mile 152.518 PP class  186 A-PF Class
If you love your freedom thank a vet.

Offline unobtainium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: New possible replacement alloy for 4130 tubing:
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2013, 09:23:40 AM »
Yeah, sorry. The point being that 4130 is easy to get wrong. Fantastic material, just requires more careful fabrication/welding.
DOM is kind of vague is what I was getting at.  There is no spec on it, so the strength can vary quite a bit based on carbon content.
It should be specified 1020, 0r 1026,etc.
The fact is that Docol 800 actually exceeds 4130 in tensile strength, with a slightly lower yield point. This along with Docol 800's ability to be deformed more before cracking/breaking is a big plus in my opinion in a crash.  I guess my thinking goes back to my earlier point about fabrication/welding practices.
This could be a "safer" material for roll structures simply because anybody is allowed to weld it.
I'll post my testing results here for conversation when I'm done.