Stainless steel 304 "Stainless" properties

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the corrosion issues observed in 304 stainless steel parts after a 48-hour salt spray test, particularly around stamped areas where parts are riveted together. Participants explore potential causes for the corrosion, comparing the behavior of 304 stainless steel to 316 stainless steel, and consider various factors that might contribute to the observed staining.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the corrosion resistance of stainless steel is due to a chromium oxide layer that can be breached by mechanical stresses, such as stamping, leading to oxidation and rusting.
  • Others propose that the presence of steel particles from tooling could contribute to rust stains if not properly cleaned after stamping.
  • A participant mentions experiences with similar corrosion in 316 stainless steel around stress points, indicating a potential for stress corrosion cracking.
  • There is a question raised about the rivet material and whether galvanic corrosion between dissimilar metals might be a factor in the corrosion observed.
  • Some participants discuss the possibility of martensite transformation or sensitization of the material, which could affect corrosion resistance.
  • One participant speculates that allowing time for the passivation layer to reform before salt spraying might mitigate corrosion issues.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the exact cause of the corrosion issues. Multiple competing views and hypotheses are presented, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note various factors that could influence corrosion, including the specific mechanical processes involved, the environment in which the stainless steel is used, and the potential interactions between different materials.

GN1
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

my first post. I hope some one can help.

I work for a manufacturer and we make a particular item from 304 stainless. We have two parts we put together and then stamp (rivet) to hold in place.

When we perform a 48 hour salt spray we occasionally find the there are small 'rust or brown' stain marks around this stamped area.

If we salt spray the virgin parts without stamping we never see this issue.

Does anyone know why this might occur? I'm assuming its down to a structural change in the material but any ideas or insight could be valuable.

We also manufacture the same part in 316 and never see the issue with riveted parts after salt spray.

Thanks.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It is my understanding that stainless steel is corrosion resistant because of a chromium oxide layer on the surface. This layer can be breached by scratching (or other mechanical stresses like stamping?) This breaching exposes iron atoms to the atmosphere resulting in oxidation and thus rusting. This can be corrected by a process called passivation which reestablishes the protective layer. This done by treating the surface with citric or nitric acids.

316 SS does contain more nickel and molybdenum which might contribute to it being more impervious to corrosion than 304 SS.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and GN1
GN1 said:
'rust or brown' stain marks around this stamped area.

In addition to the above, if there are dark parts where a Steel tool strikes the stainless fairly firmly, it can be from very small particles of steel residue left where the riveted area is struck. These can leave rust stains if the residual steel is not removed. Spraying carbon steel tool marks on a piece of stainless steel with salt solution would seem to be a good way to get them to show up quickly.

If this is the problem, I'd suggest cleaning the areas that turn brown with a stainless steel wire brush before washing, chemically treat the struck area with something that will dissolve/remove the loose (carbon) steel, or determine if there is alternate tooling/barriers that will not cross-contaminate the surface.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jack action and russ_watters
Many years ago I was guiding a federal inspector on a tour at a plant in Florida. a lot of the equipment at this plant is outdoors. He stopped me at one point, he was looking at small stainless steel lines with Swagelok fittings. "Why are these rusty?" he asked, pointing to some rust in the crevice where the tubing entered the fitting. I explained: we are outdoors, in south Florida, it is wet and salty here. "Well," he says, "these should be done in stainless steel, shouldn't they?" I told him they are stainless, 316. His walkdown report said "system engineer is ignorant."

Thanks for reviving that memory :eek:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Asymptotic, russ_watters and GN1
Thank you for all of the replies. I'm taking this all on-board.

This is in the UK and both parts are 304 SS. One part is slotted and the other has legs. The leg goes through the slot and is rivets, pushed down onto the part with a rotational action until it spreads out and cannot be removed.
 
gleem said:
It is my understanding that stainless steel is corrosion resistant because of a chromium oxide layer on the surface. This layer can be breached by scratching (or other mechanical stresses like stamping?) This breaching exposes iron atoms to the atmosphere resulting in oxidation and thus rusting. This can be corrected by a process called passivation which reestablishes the protective layer. This done by treating the surface with citric or nitric acids.
AKA rouging:
https://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=105
 
gmax137 said:
"Well," he says, "these should be done in stainless steel, shouldn't they?" I told him they are stainless, 316. His walkdown report said "system engineer is ignorant."
:eek::rolleyes:

One would expect 316 to eventually corrode if in service at elevated temperatures near the ocean. It's corrosion resistance is much better than 304, but there are better alloys, derivatives of 316, or high nitrogen stainless steels like AL-6XN (6 Mo, developed for naval landing gear), or SMO-254/-654 (7 Mo), and some high-Cr duplex stainless steels, that even greater corrosion resistance.
https://www.imoa.info/molybdenum-uses/molybdenum-grade-stainless-steels/steel-grades.php
https://www.notzgroup.com/media/wysiwyg/PDF/NME/15_Outokumpu_Ultra_range_Datasheet_May_2015.pdf

There's a reason that marine structural alloys are tested at Kure Beach (marine environment) in North Carolina!
http://corrosionjournal.org/doi/abs/10.5006/0010-9312-1.4.178
https://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20040220/laque-center-plans-for-future-move-amid-coastal-change

It could be a martensite transformation, but it could be sensitized material as well. 304/316 have C up to 0.08 wt%, which can render them more susceptible to pitting corrosion if sensitized (carbide precipitation on grain boundaries associated with Cr depletion in the matrix near the carbides), or damage to the surface, or the Cr level is too low, or some combination thereof. Galvanic corrosion could be a factor if the rivet material is substantially different. Based on the stamping operation, one might consider if the surface has become active as opposed to passive.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Asymptotic
  • #10
Not my specialty so please take this as a wild guess.
If the cause is damage to the surface passivation layer, perhaps a delay before salt spray would allow the passivation to reform.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
10K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
504K