Replies to this message

Re: 316 vs 316L
Re: 316 vs 316L -- fuzz81	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: rconner ® 05/19/2006, 14:25:02 Author Profile eMail author Edit

Not claiming to be an expert in this but I believe 316L is reported to have enhanced resistance to intergranular corrosion, particularly when used in some fabrications (see e.g. https://www.sandmeyersteel.com/316-316L.html). It appears, however, that even 316L can also be "sensitized" to some extents by some exposures, as it appears noted at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1996/in96054.html.

Post Reply | Recommend Email | Alert Administrator

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Re: 316 vs 316L
Re: 316 vs 316L -- fuzz81	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: randykimball ® 05/19/2006, 12:03:22 Author Profile eMail author Edit

For a couple of things, 316L can be machined and roll formed easier. The worst suggestion of your lifetime may be the catalyst to the grandest idea of the century, never let suggestions go unsaid nor fail to listen to them.

Post Reply | Recommend Email | Alert Administrator

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| |

Re: Re: 316 vs 316L
Re: Re: 316 vs 316L -- randykimball	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: Juan Crawford ® 05/23/2006, 22:01:29 Author Profile eMail author Edit

At welding temperatures, chromium carbides are formed in the molten pool. The carbides are precipitated at the grain boundaries as the weld cools and solidifies, resulting in a depletion of the corrosion-resisting chromium in these areas. If a part is to be welded, reduced-carbon 316L will usually result in better corrosion resistance in the weld area. If welding is not required, there is little if any difference in the corrosion resistances of the two alloys.

Post Reply | Recommend Email | Alert Administrator

Where am I? Original Top of thread