304 versus 316
304 versus 316
(OP)
I don't have cryo experience and was wondering whether I could use 316 in lieu of 304 for low temp applications down to -196 C? I am trying to ban all 304 from our site for pitting resistance reasons but have been told we need 304 to achieve the required properties down at these temps. As far as I am aware 316 would be equal to the task?





RE: 304 versus 316
RE: 304 versus 316
RE: 304 versus 316
RE: 304 versus 316
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube
RE: 304 versus 316
People use more 304L these days
RE: 304 versus 316
RE: 304 versus 316
For cryogenic service (typical LNG or LN2) corrosion is not a problem (usually) so both of them are OK. If you have an important corrosion factor, or if you think the difference in money is not a problem in your case I would use 316, if not I would use 304.
And.. what about 304 vs 304L (or 316 vs 316L)??
I know the difference in carbon percentage, with the corresponding problem for welding (not so big actually) but, do you think one of them is better for cryogenic service??
Personally, if there are not other reasons or data in the process data sheet I use to select SA-240 304, and it works perfectly, but which are your opinions?
In cryogenic service pressure is not usually very high (for example in a LNG plant the highest could be 20barg in the recondenser) and so thickness are not very very big, so welding is not extremely difficult (I wouldn't use 304 for a reactor with a 200mm wall!).
RE: 304 versus 316
Surely all of the above discussions should take into account the aplication, only nashof (Mechanical)has indicated an application preference. The physical loads and form of manufacture are also an indicator to whether one or other of the materials is suitable. For example neither should be used for high torsional loads on say a valve stem.
Below Zero