>>1939912> tempering above 400f can result in a lower toughness because of tempered martensite embrittlement.I didn't say to temper above it, I said not many people temper below it.
> if you bothered to read the article posted along with the chart, then you'd also see that tempering above 400f can result in a lower toughness because of tempered martensite embrittlement.Again, I didn't say to temper above. Besides, the article mentioned TME with regard to 8670 and 52100, which aren't quite comparable to 10XX series steels.
The article has several charts that show increasing hardness up to 400F with 5160, 8670, and 52100, up to 450F with 26C3, and up to 500F with L6.
Here's another chart from that same article showing tempering temps with toughness for 1084 and 1095. Notice how the toughness increases up to 400F (450F for 1095).
Back to the original argument, based on
>>1939261 you could only temper up to 400F to keep 60hrc, but per
>>1939810 you could get the benefits of additional toughness by tempering all the way up to 450 or 500F before hitting 60hrc.
For a given hardness, 1095 would likely be tougher. For a given tempering schedule, 1075 will be tougher, but at the cost of hardness.
>>1939919you're right, my bad. But past the eutectoid point, isn't there carbon that won't dissolve? that's where the "austenite + cementite" region starts on the phase diagram. I could be wrong, so please correct me
>>1939922okay
