×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Passive vs active 304/316 SS

Passive vs active 304/316 SS

Passive vs active 304/316 SS

(OP)
I'm attempting to evaluate galvanic couples for a piece of machinery we manufacture and do not understand when to use the passive versus active condition for austenitic stainless.  I think the active condition should be used for intimate contact with dissimilar metals in a moist environment.  If that's true then when would the passive condition be used?  I've Googled a bit and not been able to reach a conclusion.  Can someone please enlighten me?

Thanks.

RE: Passive vs active 304/316 SS

All uses of stainless steel will see some benefit of passivation on corrosion.

Passivation is the process by which free iron and other contaminates are removed from the surface and the passive CrO layer is thickened.

RE: Passive vs active 304/316 SS

(OP)
OK, but I don't understand how to use this information to predict field performance of the equipment in question.  Specifically, I'm looking at cast 316 against painted aluminum extrusion (don't have the alloy in front of me at the moment) with screws through the stainless into the aluminum.  Screws are currently carbon but may be stainless.  Environment is agricultural chemicals, particularly fertilizers that cause corrosion failures.  I would like to predict field performance and if there are extreme galvanic couples, what to do to seal moisture out.

RE: Passive vs active 304/316 SS

The passive and active states relate to electrochemical activity.  If the passive film on a metal surface is broken (mechanically or chemically) then the metal will shift from the passive potential to the active potential.
When you are evaluating galvanic corrosion potentials you should assume the worst case.  Assume that the most anodic (least corrosion resistant) metal will be at its active potential, and corroding.
Yours is not an uncommon situation.  Often the story is very complex.  In direct contact the Al starts to corrode.  The corrosion both loosens the joint and the corrosion by products trap moisture and chemicals.  The result is that the steel bolts fail.  A visual exam shows only light corrosion on the Al so the bolts are replaced and the process starts over.

If you are looking at stainless bolts you either need to make sure that the are way over sized (very low stresses) or that you use an alloy that is resistant to chloride stress cracking.  You don't want to trade one problem for another.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Corrosion, every where, all the time.
Manage it or it will manage you.
http://www.trent-tube.com/contact/Tech_Assist.cfm

RE: Passive vs active 304/316 SS

My exprince is to never use stainless together with Aluminium. The Al will just corrode and leave a pocket of white powder around any bolt treaded into the Al. If corrosive environment similar to wet winter roads with salt, I would say that you will fail with this material mix.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources