1 Nov ASTM A – Designation: A – 05 Standard Speci?cation for Chemical Passivation Treatment. 1 Sep Designation: A — 05€* This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee A01 Provided by IMS under license with ASTM. Advanced Plating Technologies, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin company, is an industry leading provider of passivation of stainless steel to ASTM A, AMS
|Published (Last):||15 September 2008|
|PDF File Size:||11.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.61 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
ASTM A – 05 Standard Specification for Chemical Passivation Treatments for Stainless Steel Parts
A is a standard covering treatments to passivate stainless steel regardless of what it will be used for and then a9677-05 methods to show that it was passivated.
All information presented is for general reference and does not represent a professional opinion nor the policy of an author’s employer. As you see, we added your question to a thread which already answers it.
Regards, Ted Astj, P. Lee Kremer has pointed out that A is not a Specification, only a Practice.
F86 aastm to surgical implants of any metallic alloy, and basically just says “do whatever treatment is applicable and appropriate to ensure corrosion resistance”.
In reading through the specification I believe the drawing is incorrect.
Since you’re considering an AMS spec, I assume you have aerospace customers. There are other differences- ASTM A allows the use of any mix of nitric and water, so long as you show it works Nitric 5 solution.
ASTM A vs. AMS vs. ASTM F86? Which is the right passivation spec?
These ASTM-approved tests may include: John Wilt [returning] – Cambridge, Massachusetts. If the part passes the verification test, what differences in function can occur in the part’s use if differing acid baths are used?
These tests include the following practices:. Determining the suitability of A for your specific parts is up to you, or requirements set by your customer. March a67-05, A. What should I tell my customer? Rest in peace, Ken. But again, please describe your situation. July 6, A. The 3 consensus specifications used at this time, and asym should be used for all specifications of passivation are:.
In the ASTM A and the nitric acid concentrations mentioned must be percentage by volume of a reagent of 67 wt. The standards that collectively make up the ASTM A passivation specification ensure that nitric and citric stainless steel passivation is performed properly and with quality results.
ASTM A967 Passivation Standard
Thanks for your time. Both contain a carryover of QQ-PC with the addition of the more recently developed citric acid based process. You should never ask for “standard passivation” on imports. What requirement or standard is he auditing you against, since clearly it is not A? April 12, Astn. But if it’s a medical instrument or implant, then you’re also going to zstm to show the appropriate tribute to an F standard.
November 27, — this entry appended to this thread by editor in lieu of spawning a duplicative thread A. Especially in the fastener industry I have seen it is difficult to source a specific product according to a specific type within these standards.
Ray, Thank you for answering. Stainless Steel Passivation and More Able Electropolishing provides metal passivation services that meet the ASTM A standards, as well as other finishing treatments that improve the corrosion resistance of stainless steel and various other alloys.
ASTM F86 [link by ed. Which is the right passivation spec? Hello, While carrying out passivation tests we came across the following apparent contrast.
In simple terms, he’s saying that given 2 SS surfaces which have different concentrations of free iron, the chemical reaction will take longer in the surface with more free iron. If you do not specify, they can use whatever they want, even ways that are not in any of the specifications!
If you’re having it done for you, the testing is someone else’s problem, so you might consider AMS Also, how common is it for a purchaser of a good to specify a specific passivation type in a standard rather than reference the entire standard and leave the type selection up to the manufacturer? October 23, A.
Indeed also my conclusion is that it is an omission.