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!

*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.

Jobs

Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts
2

Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

(OP)
I have a customer who makes marine accessories and uses a number of 304 stainless steel screws. They call out a 500 hour salt spray test for these screws. We get random salt spray failures even after passivation. I am trying to get the customer engineers to understand that this is not a valid test for these screws. Does anyone know of a document or source that specifically states that the B117 test should not be used for stainless steel parts?
By the way; I have tried to get them to change to 316L and they won't consider it because of the "prohibitive" cost.
I am almost to the point of recommending that we tell them that we will no longer supply these parts because of this salt spray test that they are putting the parts through.

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

The old Federal Spec "QQ-P-35 PASSIVATION TREATMENTS FOR CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL" is available at http://everyspec.com/FED_SPECS/Q/QQ-P-35C_2385/ .It asks for only 2 hours. The NEW one AMS 2700E asks for 2 hours too. You can search them it google and you may find it too. The 500 hours request for passivation has no basis. Ask the customer for the spec he got the 500 hours.

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

(OP)
Thanks KK,
That is the kind of info that I was looking for. I knew that I had seen the 2 hour requirement that is in QQ-P-35, but I couldn't for the life of me remember where it came from.
As far as I know, there is no actual scientific basis for the spec, it is something that someone at the customer "developed". This organization also tried to tell us that they had developed an "accelerated" test method that could determine if parts would pass the 500 hour test. The accelerated method consisted of wrapping copper wire around the parts to be tested, putting them into the SS chamber and then running current through the wire! When asked what the specification was for this, they were dumbfounded that we would ask such a thing.

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

I assume you are charging for the 500 hour salt spray test.
Charge accordingly for time, equipment etc. You need to make a profit on the 500 hour testing also.
If you are making a profit when you ship the parts, why fight it?

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

What is this guy making? I want to make sure that I never buy one.
304 will not stand up to seawater, even just spray.
And in a fastener application where there are tight crevices 316 will not survive long either.
316 only works in marine hardware where it can be washed off with fresh water regularly.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

(OP)
Monkey,
They are conducting the test in-house on received parts. All we are getting out of it is returns on parts that are failing their test.

Ed,
These are lightly loaded AB tapping screws that are holding auxiliary electronics in the cockpit area. If it was any type of structural components I would be running too.

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

So they are pre-corroding the screws so the customer doesn't have to wait for the "patina" to form? Yeesh.

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

The salt spray test method in AMS 2700 "is used to detect anodic surface contamination, including free iron, on corrosion resistant steel" for a minimum of 2 hours. This seems to be a different purpose than salt spray testing for overall corrosion attack for a certain time of exposure as is required, which would be a customer requirement. Am I incorrect in interpreting that the 2-hour requirement is not germane for this purpose?

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

The longest salt spray test that I have encountered was 5 hrs. The 2 hr test is most common. Never have seen a 500 hr test.

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

Stan,

The 5 hour maximum test makes sense if you are looking for anodic surface contamination. However, it is insufficient for general corrosion identification from exposure. That is a customer-specified property. In recent memory, our lab has conducted such testing for 300-series coupons for up to 200 hours of exposure.

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

By requiring 500 hours they are not looking for surface contamination, they are trying to find 304 that is marginally more corrosion resistant than general.

There are actually much more sensitive tests for Fe contamination.
My favorite is to use white Head and Shoulders shampoo. The active ingredient will complex with Fe and turn blue.
A thin layer of H&S, misting with DI water to keep damp, and a few hours. The most sensitive test that I have ever used.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Need justification to eliminate salt spray testing of 300 stainless parts

Seems like the best way to approach this is to certify to MS 2700E asks for 2 hours, anything tested in excess of that is on their nickle. Subcontracts folks have better words for what I am trying to say.

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


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close