A01.14 - Methods of Corrosion Testing

ABSTRACT
These test methods cover the detection of detrimental intermetallic phase in duplex austenitic/ferritic stainless steel to the extent that toughness and corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes. Test method A-sodium hydroxide etch test, test method B-Charpy impact test, and test method C-ferric chloride corrosion test shall be made for classification of structures of duplex stainless steels.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in certain duplex stainless steels as listed in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes. Similar test methods for other duplex stainless steels are described in Test Method A1084, but the procedures described in this standard differ significantly from Test Methods A, B, and C in A1084.  
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750 °F (320 to 955 °C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermal or thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.  
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases. Rapid cooling of the product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.  
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the product.  
1.5 These test methods include the following:  
1.5.1 Test Method A—Sodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 3 – 7).  
1.5.2 Test Method B—Charpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 8 – 13).  
1.5.3 Test Method C—Ferric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 14 – 20).  
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.  
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.  
1.8 Examples of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance are given in Appendix X1 and Appendix X2.  
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.11 This internat...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Test Method A shall only be used to supplement the results of Test Methods B and C. It shall not be used as a rejection criterion, nor shall it be used as an acceptance criterion. Test Methods B and C are intended to be the procedures giving the acceptance criteria for this standard.  
4.2 Test Method A can reveal potentially detrimental phases in the metallographic structure. As the precipitated detrimental phases can be very small, this test demands high proficiency from the metallographer, especially for thinner material.  
4.3 The presence of detrimental phases is readily detected by Test Methods B and C provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected.  
4.4 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence to the extent that the normally expected toughness and corrosion resistance of the material are significantly affected.  
4.5 This standard covers testing of samples taken from coil, coil- and plate mill plate, sheet, tubing, piping, bar and deformed bar, though some of these products might not be suitable for testing according to Method B (see Test Method B for further details). Other product forms have thus far not been sufficiently tested and documented to be an integral part of this standard, though the standard does not prohibit testing of these product forms according to the three test methods. For these other product forms, this standard gives only limited and non-exhaustive guidance as to interpretation of result and associated acceptance criteria.  
4.6 Testing on product forms outside the present scope of this standard shall be agreed between purchaser and supplier.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this test method is to allow detection of the presence of detrimental chromium-containing phases in selected lean duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. Such phases can form during manufacture and fabrication of lean duplex products. This test method does not necessarily detect losses of toughness nor corrosion resistance attributable to other causes, nor will it identify the exact type of detrimental phases that caused any loss of toughness or corrosion resistance. The test result is a simple pass/fail statement.  
1.2 Lean duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are typically duplex stainless steels composed of 30 % to 70 % ferrite content with a typical alloy composition having Cr > 17 % and Mo Table 1. Similar test methods for some higher alloyed duplex stainless steels are described in Test Methods A923, but the procedures described in this standard differ significantly for all three methods from the ones described in Test Methods A923.  
1.3 Lean duplex stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of detrimental chromium-containing compounds such as nitrides and carbides and other undesirable phases. Typically this occurs during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 300 °C to 955 °C (570 °F to 1750 ºF) with a maximum susceptibility in the temperature range around 650 °C to 750 °C (1200 °F to 1385 ºF). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and the thermal or thermo-mechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of an amount of these phases can be detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.  
1.4 Because of the low molybdenum content, lean duplex stainless steels only exhibit a minor susceptibility to sigma or other types of molybdenum containing intermetallic phases. Heat treatment, that could lead to formation of small amounts of molybdenum containing intermetallics, would result in a large amount of precipitation of detrimental nitrides or carbides, long before any signs of sigma and similar phases would be observed.  
1.5 Correct heat treatment of lean duplex stainless steels can eliminate or reduce the amount and alter the characteristics of t...

ABSTRACT
This practices covers the detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. Different method of preparing steel test specimens are presented. Four practices, including Practice W, X, Y, and Z, are used for determining susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. These practices cover the following tests; oxalic acid etch test, ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test, copper-copper sulphate-50% sulfuric acid test, and copper-copper sulphate-16% sulfuric acid test. Test specimens shall be examined for the ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test and copper-copper sulphate-50% sulphuric acid test under a binocular microscope at 40x magnification. The bend test evaluations for the steel test specimens are presented.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following four tests:  
1.1.1 Practice W—Oxalic acid etch test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in stabilized ferritic stainless steels by classification of the etching structures (see Sections 3 – 10).  
1.1.2 Practice X—Ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 11 – 16).  
1.1.3 Practice Y—Copper-copper sulfate-50 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 17 – 22).  
1.1.4 Practice Z—Copper-copper sulfate-16 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 23 – 29).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices (1-6):2  
1.2.1 Practice W, oxalic acid test, is a rapid method of identifying, by simple electrolytic etching, those specimens of certain ferritic alloys that are not susceptible to intergranular corrosion associated with chromium carbide precipitation. Practice W is used as a screening test to avoid the necessity, for acceptable specimens, of more extensive testing required by Practices X, Y, and Z. See Table 1 for a listing of alloys for which Practice W is appropriate.    
1.2.2 Practices X, Y, and Z can be used to detect the susceptibility of certain ferritic alloys to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides or nitrides.  
1.2.3 Practices W, X, Y, and Z can also be used to evaluate the effect of heat treatment or of fusion welding on susceptibility to intergranular corrosion.  
1.2.4 Table 2 lists the identification ferritic stainless steels for which data on the application of at least one of the standard practices is available.    
1.2.5 Some stabilized ferritic stainless steels may show high rates when tested by Practice X because of metallurgical factors not associated with chromium carbide or nitride precipitation. This possibility must be considered in selecting the test method. Combinations of alloys and test methods for which successful experience is available are shown in Table 1. Application of these standard tests to the other ferritic stainless steels will be by specific agreement between producer and user.  
1.3 Depending on the test and alloy, evaluations may be accomplished by weight loss determination, microscopical examination, or bend test (Sections 30 and 31). The choices are listed in Table 1.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific safety precautionary statements, see 3.2.5, Section 7, 13.1, and 19.1.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade...

ABSTRACT
This specification covers the standard practices for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels. These practices include five intergranular corrosion tests, namely: (1) oxalic acid etch test for classification of etch structures of austenitic stainless steels; (2) ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, (3) nitric acid test and (4) copper-copper sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels; and (5) copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in molybdenum-bearing cast austenitic stainless steels. Methods for preparing the test specimens, rapid screening tests, apparatus setup and testing procedures, and calculations and report contents are described for each testing practice. The etch structure types used to classify the specimens are: step structure, dual structure, ditch structure, isolated ferrite, interdendritic ditches, end-grain pitting I, and end-grain pitting II.
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 Use of the etch test allows rapid acceptance of specific lots of material without the need to perform time-consuming and costly hot acid immersion tests on those lots.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A—Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 4 to 13, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 14 to 25, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 26 to 36, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper–Copper Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 37 to 46, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper–Copper Sulfate–50 % Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 47 to 58, inclusive).  
1.2 The Oxalic Acid Etch Test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades that are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as “acceptable.” The etch test is applicable only to those grades listed in the individual hot acid tests and classifies the specimens either as “acceptable” or as “suspect.”  
1.3 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper–copper sulfate–50 % sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper–copper sulfate–16 % sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or nonacceptable.  
1.4 The presence or absence of intergranular attack in these tests is not necessarily a measure of the performance of the material in other corrosive environments. These tests do not provide a basis for predicting resistance to forms of corrosion other than intergranular, such as general corrosion, pitting, or stress-corrosion cracking.
Note 1: See Appendix X1 for information regarding test selection.  
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitatio...

ABSTRACT
This practice covers the standard recommendations and precautions for cleaning, descaling, and passivating of new stainless steel parts, assemblies, equipment, and installed systems. Consideration shall be given in the design of parts, equipment, and systems that will require cleaning to minimize the presence of areas in which dirt, or cleaning solutions might become trapped, and to provide for effective circulation and removal of cleaning solutions. Materials shall be precleaned. Scales shall be removed through chemical descaling, acid pickling, and mechanical descaling. Degreasing and general cleaning shall be accomplished by immersion in, swabbing with, or spraying with alkaline, emulsion, chelate, acid, solvent, or detergent cleaners or a combination of these; by vapor degreasing; by ultrasonics using various cleaners; by steam, with or without a cleaner; or by high-pressure water-jetting. Recommended cleaning practices shall be followed for welds and weld-joint areas, specially critical applications, installed systems and post-erections. The following shall be used as the basis for cleanness acceptability: Visual inspection; wipe tests; residual pattern; water-break test; free iron test such as water-wetting or drying; high-humidity test; and copper sulfate test. Precision inspection shall be performed by solvent-ring test, black light inspection, atomizer test, and ferroxyl test. Precaution shall always be practiced to minimize iron contamination, in reuse of cleaning and pickling solution, in water rinsing, in circulation of cleaning solutions and rinse water, in protection of cleaned surfaces, for safety, and disposal of used solutions and water.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers recommendations and precautions for cleaning, descaling, and passivating of new stainless steel parts, assemblies, equipment, and installed systems. These recommendations are presented as procedures for guidance when it is recognized that for a particular service it is desired to remove surface contaminants that may impair the normal corrosion resistance, or result in the later contamination of the particular stainless steel grade, or cause product contamination. The selection of procedures from this practice to be applied to the parts may be specified upon agreement between the supplier and the purchaser. For certain exceptional applications, additional requirements which are not covered by this practice may be specified upon agreement between the supplier and the purchaser. Although they apply primarily to materials in the composition ranges of the austenitic, ferritic, martensitic, and duplex stainless steels, the practices described may also be useful for cleaning other metals if due consideration is given to corrosion and possible metallurgical effects.  
1.1.1 The term passivation is commonly applied to several distinctly different operations or processes relating to stainless steels. In order to avoid ambiguity in the setting of requirements, it may be necessary for the purchaser to define precisely the intended meaning of passivation. Some of the various meanings associated with the term passivation that are in common usage include the following:
1.1.1.1 Passivation is the process by which a stainless steel will spontaneously form a chemically resistant surface when exposed to air or other oxygen-containing environments. It was at one time considered that an oxidizing treatment was necessary to establish this passive metal oxide film, but it is now accepted that this film will form spontaneously in an oxygen-containing environment providing that the surface has been thoroughly cleaned or descaled.
1.1.1.2 Passivation is removal of exogenous iron or iron compounds from the surface of a stainless steel by means of a chemical dissolution, most typically by a treatment with an acid solution that will remove the surface contamination but will not significantly affect the stainless steel itself. This process is des...

ABSTRACT
This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. The treatments are the following: immersion treatment using nitric acid solutions, immersion treatment using citric acid solution, and electrochemical treatment. Immediately after the removal from the passivating solution, the parts shall be thoroughly rinsed, using stagnant, countercurrent, or spray washes, singly or in combination, with or without a separate chemical treatment for neutralization of the passivation media. The chemical reactions of the passivating media on the surface of the stainless steel shall be stopped by rinsing of the stainless steel part, with or without a separate neutralization treatment. A chemical treatment shall be applied which will accelerate the formation of the passive film on a chemically clean stainless steel surface. The passivated parts shall exhibit a chemically clean surface and shall, on visual inspection, show no etching, pitting, or frosting. The following tests shall be performed on each lot of stainless steel parts: water immersion test, high humidity test, salt spray test, copper sulfate test, and potassium ferricyanide-nitric acid test. A free iron test shall be used for the detection of free iron on the surface of stainless steel.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. It includes recommendations and precautions for descaling, cleaning, and passivation of stainless steel parts. It includes several alternative tests, with acceptance criteria, for confirmation of effectiveness of such treatments for stainless steel parts.  
1.2 Practices for the mechanical and chemical treatments of stainless steel surfaces are discussed more thoroughly in Practice A380/A380M.  
1.3 Several alternative chemical treatments are defined for passivation of stainless steel parts. Appendix X1 and Appendix X2 give some nonmandatory information and provides some general guidelines regarding the selection of passivation treatments appropriate to particular grades of stainless steel. This specification makes no recommendations regarding the suitability of any grade, treatment, or acceptance criteria for any particular application or class of applications.  
1.4 The tests in this specification are intended to confirm the effectiveness of passivation, particularly with regard to the removal of free iron and other exogenous matter. These tests include the following practices:  
1.4.1 Practice A—Water Immersion Test,  
1.4.2 Practice B—High Humidity Test,  
1.4.3 Practice C—Salt Spray Test,  
1.4.4 Practice D—Copper Sulfate Test,  
1.4.5 Practice E—Potassium Ferricyanide-Nitric Acid Test, and  
1.4.6 Practice F—Damp Cloth Test, and  
1.4.7 Practice G—Boiling Water Immersion Test.
Note 1: Free iron denotes iron present on the surface of the parts, including but not limited to iron contamination, iron-tool marks, residual-iron salts from pickling solutions, iron dust, atmospheric exposure, iron deposits in welds, embedded iron, and iron oxide.  
1.5 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issu...

ABSTRACT
These test methods cover the detection of detrimental intermetallic phase in duplex austenitic/ferritic stainless steel to the extent that toughness and corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes. Test method A-sodium hydroxide etch test, test method B-Charpy impact test, and test method C-ferric chloride corrosion test shall be made for classification of structures of duplex stainless steels.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in certain duplex stainless steels as listed in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes. Similar test methods for other duplex stainless steels are described in Test Method A1084, but the procedures described in this standard differ significantly from Test Methods A, B, and C in A1084.  
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750 °F (320 to 955 °C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermal or thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.  
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases. Rapid cooling of the product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.  
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the product.  
1.5 These test methods include the following:  
1.5.1 Test Method A—Sodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 3 – 7).  
1.5.2 Test Method B—Charpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 8 – 13).  
1.5.3 Test Method C—Ferric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 14 – 20).  
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.  
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.  
1.8 Examples of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance are given in Appendix X1 and Appendix X2.  
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.11 This internat...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Test Method A shall only be used to supplement the results of Test Methods B and C. It shall not be used as a rejection criterion, nor shall it be used as an acceptance criterion. Test Methods B and C are intended to be the procedures giving the acceptance criteria for this standard.  
4.2 Test Method A can reveal potentially detrimental phases in the metallographic structure. As the precipitated detrimental phases can be very small, this test demands high proficiency from the metallographer, especially for thinner material.  
4.3 The presence of detrimental phases is readily detected by Test Methods B and C provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected.  
4.4 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence to the extent that the normally expected toughness and corrosion resistance of the material are significantly affected.  
4.5 This standard covers testing of samples taken from coil, coil- and plate mill plate, sheet, tubing, piping, bar and deformed bar, though some of these products might not be suitable for testing according to Method B (see Test Method B for further details). Other product forms have thus far not been sufficiently tested and documented to be an integral part of this standard, though the standard does not prohibit testing of these product forms according to the three test methods. For these other product forms, this standard gives only limited and non-exhaustive guidance as to interpretation of result and associated acceptance criteria.  
4.6 Testing on product forms outside the present scope of this standard shall be agreed between purchaser and supplier.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this test method is to allow detection of the presence of detrimental chromium-containing phases in selected lean duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. Such phases can form during manufacture and fabrication of lean duplex products. This test method does not necessarily detect losses of toughness nor corrosion resistance attributable to other causes, nor will it identify the exact type of detrimental phases that caused any loss of toughness or corrosion resistance. The test result is a simple pass/fail statement.  
1.2 Lean duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are typically duplex stainless steels composed of 30 to 70 % ferrite content with a typical alloy composition having Cr > 17 % and Mo Table 1. Similar test methods for some higher alloyed duplex stainless steels are described in Test Methods A923, but the procedures described in this standard differ significantly for all three methods from the ones described in Test Methods A923.  
1.3 Lean duplex stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of detrimental chromium-containing compounds such as nitrides and carbides and other undesirable phases. Typically this occurs during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 300 to 955°C (570 to 1750ºF) with a maximum susceptibility in the temperature range around 650 to 750°C (1200 to 1385ºF). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and the thermal or thermo-mechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of an amount of these phases can be detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.  
1.4 Because of the low molybdenum content, lean duplex stainless steels only exhibit a minor susceptibility to sigma or other types of molybdenum containing intermetallic phases. Heat treatment, that could lead to formation of small amounts of molybdenum containing intermetallics, would result in a large amount of precipitation of detrimental nitrides or carbides, long before any signs of sigma and similar phases would be observed.  
1.5 Correct heat treatment of lean duplex stainless steels can eliminate or reduce the amount and alter the characteristics of these detrimental p...

ABSTRACT
This specification covers the standard practices for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels. These practices include five intergranular corrosion tests, namely: (1) oxalic acid etch test for classification of etch structures of austenitic stainless steels; (2) ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, (3) nitric acid test and (4) copper-copper sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels; and (5) copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in molybdenum-bearing cast austenitic stainless steels. Methods for preparing the test specimens, rapid screening tests, apparatus setup and testing procedures, and calculations and report contents are described for each testing practice. The etch structure types used to classify the specimens are: step structure, dual structure, ditch structure, isolated ferrite, interdendritic ditches, end-grain pitting I, and end-grain pitting II.
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 Use of the etch test allows rapid acceptance of specific lots of material without the need to perform time-consuming and costly hot acid immersion tests on those lots.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A—Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 4 to 13, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 14 to 25, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 26 to 36, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper–Copper Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 37 to 46, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper–Copper Sulfate–50 % Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 47 to 58, inclusive).  
1.2 The Oxalic Acid Etch Test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades that are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as “acceptable.” The etch test is applicable only to those grades listed in the individual hot acid tests and classifies the specimens either as “acceptable” or as “suspect.”  
1.3 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper–copper sulfate–50 % sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper–copper sulfate–16 % sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or nonacceptable.  
1.4 The presence or absence of intergranular attack in these tests is not necessarily a measure of the performance of the material in other corrosive environments. These tests do not provide a basis for predicting resistance to forms of corrosion other than intergranular, such as general corrosion, pitting, or stress-corrosion cracking.
Note 1: See Appendix X1 for information regarding test selection.  
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use....

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Test Method A shall only be used to supplement the results of Test Methods B and C. It shall not be used as a rejection criterion, nor shall it be used as an acceptance criterion. Test Methods B and C are intended to be the procedures giving the acceptance criteria for this standard.  
4.2 Test Method A can reveal potentially detrimental phases in the metallographic structure. As the precipitated detrimental phases can be very small, this test demands high proficiency from the metallographer, especially for thinner material.  
4.3 The presence of detrimental phases is readily detected by Test Methods B and C provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected.  
4.4 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence to the extent that the normally expected toughness and corrosion resistance of the material are significantly affected.  
4.5 This standard covers testing of samples taken from coil, coil- and plate mill plate, sheet, tubing, piping, bar and deformed bar, though some of these products might not be suitable for testing according to Method B (see Test Method B for further details). Other product forms have thus far not been sufficiently tested and documented to be an integral part of this standard, though the standard does not prohibit testing of these product forms according to the three test methods. For these other product forms, this standard gives only limited and non-exhaustive guidance as to interpretation of result and associated acceptance criteria.  
4.6 Testing on product forms outside the present scope of this standard shall be agreed between purchaser and supplier.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this test method is to allow detection of the presence of detrimental chromium-containing phases in selected lean duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. Such phases can form during manufacture and fabrication of lean duplex products. This test method does not necessarily detect losses of toughness nor corrosion resistance attributable to other causes, nor will it identify the exact type of detrimental phases that caused any loss of toughness or corrosion resistance. The test result is a simple pass/fail statement.  
1.2 Lean duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are typically duplex stainless steels composed of 30 to 70 % ferrite content with a typical alloy composition having Cr > 17 % and Mo Table 1. Similar test methods for some higher alloyed duplex stainless steels are described in Test Methods A923, but the procedures described in this standard differ significantly for all three methods from the ones described in Test Methods A923.  
1.3 Lean duplex stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of detrimental chromium-containing compounds such as nitrides and carbides and other undesirable phases. Typically this occurs during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 300 to 955°C (570 to 1750ºF) with a maximum susceptibility in the temperature range around 650 to 750°C (1200 to 1385ºF). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and the thermal or thermo-mechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of an amount of these phases can be detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.  
1.4 Because of the low molybdenum content, lean duplex stainless steels only exhibit a minor susceptibility to sigma or other types of molybdenum containing intermetallic phases. Heat treatment, that could lead to formation of small amounts of molybdenum containing intermetallics, would result in a large amount of precipitation of detrimental nitrides or carbides – long before any signs of sigma and similar phases would be observed.  
1.5 Correct heat treatment of lean duplex stainless steels can eliminate or reduce the amount and alter the characteristics of these detrimental ...

ABSTRACT
This practices covers the detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. Different method of preparing steel test specimens are presented. Four practices, including Practice W, X, Y, and Z, are used for determining susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. These practices cover the following tests; oxalic acid etch test, ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test, copper-copper sulphate-50% sulfuric acid test, and copper-copper sulphate-16% sulfuric acid test. Test specimens shall be examined for the ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test and copper-copper sulphate-50% sulphuric acid test under a binocular microscope at 40x magnification. The bend test evaluations for the steel test specimens are presented.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following four tests:  
1.1.1 Practice W—Oxalic acid etch test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in stabilized ferritic stainless steels by classification of the etching structures (see Sections 3 – 10).  
1.1.2 Practice X—Ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 11 – 16).  
1.1.3 Practice Y—Copper-copper sulfate-50 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 17 – 22).  
1.1.4 Practice Z—Copper-copper sulfate-16 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 23 – 29).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices (1-6)2:  
1.2.1 Practice W, oxalic acid test, is a rapid method of identifying, by simple electrolytic etching, those specimens of certain ferritic alloys that are not susceptible to intergranular corrosion associated with chromium carbide precipitation. Practice W is used as a screening test to avoid the necessity, for acceptable specimens, of more extensive testing required by Practices X, Y, and Z. See Table 1 for a listing of alloys for which Practice W is appropriate.  (A) Polished surface examined at 250 to 500× with a metallurgical microscope (see 3.1.6). All other microscopical examinations are of the corroded surface under 40× binocular examination (see Section 27).(B) A = Applicable.(C) Preferred criterion, these criteria are the most sensitive for the particular combination of alloy and test.(D) Weight loss measurements can be used to detect severely sensitized material, but they are not very sensitive for alloys noted with this superscript and may not detect slight or moderate sensitization.(E) NA = Not applicable.  
1.2.2 Practices X, Y, and Z can be used to detect the susceptibility of certain ferritic alloys to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides or nitrides.  
1.2.3 Practices W, X, Y, and Z can also be used to evaluate the effect of heat treatment or of fusion welding on susceptibility to intergranular corrosion.  
1.2.4 Table 2 lists the identification ferritic stainless steels for which data on the application of at least one of the standard practices is available.  (A) Types 430, 434, 436, and 446 are nonstabilized grades that are generally not used in the as-welded or sensitized condition in other than mildly corrosive environments. In the annealed condition, they are not subject to intergranular corrosion. For any studies of IGA on Types 430, 434, 436, or 446, the indicated test methods are suggested.  
1.2.5 Some stabilized ferritic stainless steels may show high rates when tested by Practice X because of metallurgical factors not associated with chromium carbide or nitride precipitation. This possibility must be considered in selecting the test method. Combinations of alloys and test methods for which successful experience is available are shown in Table 1. Application of these standard tests to the other ferritic stainless steels will be by specific agreement between produc...

ABSTRACT
This practices covers the detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. Different method of preparing steel test specimens are presented. Four practices, including Practice W, X, Y, and Z, are used for determining susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. These practices cover the following tests; oxalic acid etch test, ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test, copper-copper sulphate-50% sulfuric acid test, and copper-copper sulphate-16% sulfuric acid test. Test specimens shall be examined for the ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test and copper-copper sulphate-50% sulphuric acid test under a binocular microscope at 40x magnification. The bend test evaluations for the steel test specimens are presented.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following four tests:  
1.1.1 Practice W—Oxalic acid etch test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in stabilized ferritic stainless steels by classification of the etching structures (see Sections 3 – 10).  
1.1.2 Practice X—Ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 11 – 16).  
1.1.3 Practice Y—Copper-copper sulfate-50 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 17 – 22).  
1.1.4 Practice Z—Copper-copper sulfate-16 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 23 – 29).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices (1-6)2:  
1.2.1 Practice W, oxalic acid test, is a rapid method of identifying, by simple electrolytic etching, those specimens of certain ferritic alloys that are not susceptible to intergranular corrosion associated with chromium carbide precipitation. Practice W is used as a screening test to avoid the necessity, for acceptable specimens, of more extensive testing required by Practices X, Y, and Z. See Table 1 for a listing of alloys for which Practice W is appropriate.  (A) Polished surface examined at 250 to 500× with a metallurgical microscope (see 3.1.6). All other microscopical examinations are of the corroded surface under 40× binocular examination (see Section 27).(B) A = Applicable.(C) Preferred criterion, these criteria are the most sensitive for the particular combination of alloy and test.(D) Weight loss measurements can be used to detect severely sensitized material, but they are not very sensitive for alloys noted with this superscript and may not detect slight or moderate sensitization.(E) NA = Not applicable.  
1.2.2 Practices X, Y, and Z can be used to detect the susceptibility of certain ferritic alloys to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides or nitrides.  
1.2.3 Practices W, X, Y, and Z can also be used to evaluate the effect of heat treatment or of fusion welding on susceptibility to intergranular corrosion.  
1.2.4 Table 2 lists the identification ferritic stainless steels for which data on the application of at least one of the standard practices is available.  (A) Types 430, 434, 436, and 446 are nonstabilized grades that are generally not used in the as-welded or sensitized condition in other than mildly corrosive environments. In the annealed condition, they are not subject to intergranular corrosion. For any studies of IGA on Types 430, 434, 436, or 446, the indicated test methods are suggested.  
1.2.5 Some stabilized ferritic stainless steels may show high rates when tested by Practice X because of metallurgical factors not associated with chromium carbide or nitride precipitation. This possibility must be considered in selecting the test method. Combinations of alloys and test methods for which successful experience is available are shown in Table 1. Application of these standard tests to the other ferritic stainless steels will be by specific agreement between produc...

ABSTRACT
This specification covers the standard practices for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels. These practices include five intergranular corrosion tests, namely: (1) oxalic acid etch test for classification of etch structures of austenitic stainless steels; (2) ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, (3) nitric acid test and (4) copper-copper sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels; and (5) copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in molybdenum-bearing cast austenitic stainless steels. Methods for preparing the test specimens, rapid screening tests, apparatus setup and testing procedures, and calculations and report contents are described for each testing practice. The etch structure types used to classify the specimens are: step structure, dual structure, ditch structure, isolated ferrite, interdendritic ditches, end-grain pitting I, and end-grain pitting II.
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 Use of the etch test allows rapid acceptance of specific lots of material without the need to perform time-consuming and costly hot acid immersion tests on those lots.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A—Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 4 to 13, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 14 to 25, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 26 to 36, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper–Copper Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 37 to 46, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper–Copper Sulfate–50 % Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 47 to 58, inclusive).  
1.2 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades that are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as “acceptable.” The etch test is applicable only to those grades listed in the individual hot acid tests and classifies the specimens either as “acceptable” or as “suspect.”  
1.3 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper–copper sulfate–50 % sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper–copper sulfate–16 % sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or nonacceptable.  
1.4 The presence or absence of intergranular attack in these tests is not necessarily a measure of the performance of the material in other corrosive environments. These tests do not provide a basis for predicting resistance to forms of corrosion other than intergranular, such as general corrosion, pitting, or stress-corrosion cracking.
Note 1: See Appendix X1 for information regarding test selection.  
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use....

ABSTRACT
These test methods cover the detection of detrimental intermetallic phase in duplex austenitic/ferritic stainless steel to the extent that toughness and corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes. Test method A-sodium hydroxide etch test, test method B-Charpy impact test, and test method C-ferric chloride corrosion test shall be made for classification of structures of duplex stainless steels.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes.  
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750°F (320 to 955°C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermal or thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.  
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases. Rapid cooling of the product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.  
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the product.  
1.5 These test methods include the following:  
1.5.1 Test Method A—Sodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 3 – 7).  
1.5.2 Test Method B—Charpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 8 – 13).  
1.5.3 Test Method C—Ferric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 14 – 20).  
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.  
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.  
1.8 Examples of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance are given in Appendix X1 and Appendix X2.  
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Test Method A shall only be used to supplement the results of Test Methods B and C. It shall not be used as a rejection criterion, nor shall it be used as an acceptance criterion. Test Methods B and C are intended to be the procedures giving the acceptance criteria for this standard.  
4.2 Test Method A can reveal potentially detrimental phases in the metallographic structure. As the precipitated detrimental phases can be very small, this test demands high proficiency from the metallographer, especially for thinner material.  
4.3 The presence of detrimental phases is readily detected by Test Methods B and C provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected.  
4.4 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence to the extent that the normally expected toughness and corrosion resistance of the material are significantly affected.  
4.5 This standard covers testing of samples taken from coil, coil- and plate mill plate, sheet, tubing, piping, bar and deformed bar, though some of these products might not be suitable for testing according to Method B (see Test Method B for further details). Other product forms have thus far not been sufficiently tested and documented to be an integral part of this standard, though the standard does not prohibit testing of these product forms according to the three test methods. For these other product forms, this standard gives only limited and non-exhaustive guidance as to interpretation of result and associated acceptance criteria.  
4.6 Testing on product forms outside the present scope of this standard shall be agreed between purchaser and supplier.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this test method is to allow detection of the presence of detrimental chromium-containing phases in selected lean duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. Such phases can form during manufacture and fabrication of lean duplex products. This test method does not necessarily detect losses of toughness nor corrosion resistance attributable to other causes, nor will it identify the exact type of detrimental phases that caused any loss of toughness or corrosion resistance. The test result is a simple pass/fail statement.  
1.2 Lean duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are typically duplex stainless steels composed of 30-70 % ferrite content with a typical alloy composition having Cr > 17 % and Mo Table 1. Similar test methods for some higher alloyed duplex stainless steels are described in ASTM A923, but the procedures described in this standard differ significantly for all three methods from the ones described in A923.TABLE 1 List of the Lean Duplex Grades Covered by this Standard    
Grades  
UNS S32101, UNS S32304
1.3 Lean duplex stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of detrimental chromium-containing compounds such as nitrides and carbides and other undesirable phases. Typically this occurs during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 300 to 955°C (570 to 1750ºF) with a maximum susceptibility in the temperature range around 650 to 750°C (1200 to 1385ºF). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and the thermal or thermo-mechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of an amount of these phases can be detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.  
1.4 Because of the low molybdenum content, lean duplex stainless steels only exhibit a minor susceptibility to sigma or other types of molybdenum containing intermetallic phases. Heat treatment, that could lead to formation of small amounts of molybdenum containing intermetallics, would result in a large amount of precipitation of detrimental nitrides or carbides – long before any signs of sigma and similar phases would be observed.  
1.5 Correct heat treatment of lean duplex stainless steels can el...

ABSTRACT
This specification covers the standard practices for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels. These practices include five intergranular corrosion tests, namely: (1) oxalic acid etch test for classification of etch structures of austenitic stainless steels; (2) ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, (3) nitric acid test and (4) copper-copper sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels; and (5) copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in molybdenum-bearing cast austenitic stainless steels. Methods for preparing the test specimens, rapid screening tests, apparatus setup and testing procedures, and calculations and report contents are described for each testing practice. The etch structure types used to classify the specimens are: step structure, dual structure, ditch structure, isolated ferrite, interdendritic ditches, end-grain pitting I, and end-grain pitting II.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A—Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper–Copper Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper–Copper Sulfate–50 % Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades that are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as “acceptable.” The etch test is applicable only to those grades listed in the individual hot acid tests and classifies the specimens either as “acceptable” or as “suspect.”  
1.3 The ferric sulfate–sulfuric acid test, the copper–copper sulfate–50 % sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper–copper sulfate–16 % sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or nonacceptable. Note 1—See Appendix X1 for information regarding test selection.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. (Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6, 11.1.1, 11.1.9, and 35.1.)

ABSTRACT
This practice covers the standard recommendations and precautions for cleaning, descaling, and passivating of new stainless steel parts, assemblies, equipment, and installed systems. Consideration shall be given in the design of parts, equipment, and systems that will require cleaning to minimize the presence of areas in which dirt, or cleaning solutions might become trapped, and to provide for effective circulation and removal of cleaning solutions. Materials shall be precleaned. Scales shall be removed through chemical descaling, acid pickling, and mechanical descaling. Degreasing and general cleaning shall be accomplished by immersion in, swabbing with, or spraying with alkaline, emulsion, chelate, acid, solvent, or detergent cleaners or a combination of these; by vapor degreasing; by ultrasonics using various cleaners; by steam, with or without a cleaner; or by high-pressure water-jetting. Recommended cleaning practices shall be followed for welds and weld-joint areas, specially critical applications, installed systems and post-erections. The following shall be used as the basis for cleanness acceptability: Visual inspection; wipe tests; residual pattern; water-break test; free iron test such as water-wetting or drying; high-humidity test; and copper sulfate test. Precision inspection shall be performed by solvent-ring test, black light inspection, atomizer test, and ferroxyl test. Precaution shall always be practiced to minimize iron contamination, in reuse of cleaning and pickling solution, in water rinsing, in circulation of cleaning solutions and rinse water, in protection of cleaned surfaces, for safety, and disposal of used solutions and water.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers recommendations and precautions for cleaning, descaling, and passivating of new stainless steel parts, assemblies, equipment, and installed systems. These recommendations are presented as procedures for guidance when it is recognized that for a particular service it is desired to remove surface contaminants that may impair the normal corrosion resistance, or result in the later contamination of the particular stainless steel grade, or cause product contamination. The selection of procedures from this practice to be applied to the parts may be specified upon agreement between the supplier and the purchaser. For certain exceptional applications, additional requirements which are not covered by this practice may be specified upon agreement between the supplier and the purchaser. Although they apply primarily to materials in the composition ranges of the austenitic, ferritic, and martensitic stainless steels, the practices described may also be useful for cleaning other metals if due consideration is given to corrosion and possible metallurgical effects.  
1.1.1 The term passivation is commonly applied to several distinctly different operations or processes relating to stainless steels. In order to avoid ambiguity in the setting of requirements, it may be necessary for the purchaser to define precisely the intended meaning of passivation. Some of the various meanings associated with the term passivation that are in common usage include the following:
1.1.1.1 Passivation is the process by which a stainless steel will spontaneously form a chemically inactive surface when exposed to air or other oxygen-containing environments. It was at one time considered that an oxidizing treatment was necessary to establish this passive film, but it is now accepted that this film will form spontaneously in an oxygen-containing environment providing that the surface has been thoroughly cleaned or descaled.  
1.1.1.2 Passivation is removal of exogenous iron or iron compounds from the surface of a stainless steel by means of a chemical dissolution, most typically by a treatment with an acid solution that will remove the surface contamination but will not significantly affect the stainless steel itself. This process is described in a general ...

SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. It includes recommendations and precautions for descaling, cleaning, and passivation of stainless steel parts. It includes several alternative tests, with acceptance criteria, for confirmation of effectiveness of such treatments for stainless steel parts.  
1.2 Practices for the mechanical and chemical treatments of stainless steel surfaces are discussed more thoroughly in Practice A380.  
1.3 Several alternative chemical treatments are defined for passivation of stainless steel parts. Appendix X1 gives some nonmandatory information and provides some general guidelines regarding the selection of passivation treatment appropriate to particular grades of stainless steel. It makes no recommendations regarding the suitability of any grade, treatment, or acceptance criteria for any particular application or class of applications.  
1.4 The tests in this specification are intended to confirm the effectiveness of passivation, particularly with regard to the removal of free iron and other exogenous matter. These tests include the following practices:  
1.4.1 Practice A—Water Immersion Test,  
1.4.2 Practice B—High Humidity Test,  
1.4.3 Practice C—Salt Spray Test,  
1.4.4 Practice D—Copper Sulfate Test,  
1.4.5 Practice E—Potassium Ferricyanide–Nitric Acid Test, and  
1.4.6 Practice F—Damp Cloth Test.Note 1—Free iron denotes iron present on the surface of the parts, including but not limited to iron contamination, iron-tool marks, residual-iron salts from pickling solutions, iron dust, atmospheric exposure, iron deposits in welds, embedded iron and iron oxide.  
1.5 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.6 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portions, Section 14 of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

ABSTRACT
This specification covers the standard practices for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels. These practices include five intergranular corrosion tests, namely: (1) oxalic acid etch test for classification of etch structures of austenitic stainless steels; (2) ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, (3) nitric acid test and (4) copper-copper sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels; and (5) copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in molybdenum-bearing cast austenitic stainless steels. Methods for preparing the test specimens, rapid screening tests, apparatus setup and testing procedures, and calculations and report contents are described for each testing practice. The etch structure types used to classify the specimens are: step structure, dual structure, ditch structure, isolated ferrite, interdendritic ditches, end-grain pitting I, and end-grain pitting II.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:
1.1.1 Practice A—Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper–Copper Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper–Copper Sulfate–50 % Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:  
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.  
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.  
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum-bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid solutions.  
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades that are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as “acceptable.”  
1.4 The ferric sulfate–sulfuric acid test, the copper–copper sulfate–50 % sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper–copper sulfate–16 % sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or nonacceptable.
1.5 In most cases either the 15-h copper–copper sulfate–16 % sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate–sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.  
1.6 The 240-h ni...

ABSTRACT
This practices covers the detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. Different method of preparing steel test specimens are presented. Four practices, including Practice W, X, Y, and Z, are used for determining susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. These practices cover the following tests; oxalic acid etch test, ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test, copper-copper sulphate-50% sulfuric acid test, and copper-copper sulphate-16% sulfuric acid test. Test specimens shall be examined for the ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test and copper-copper sulphate-50% sulphuric acid test under a binocular microscope at 40x magnification. The bend test evaluations for the steel test specimens are presented.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following four tests:  
1.1.1 Practice W—Oxalic acid etch test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in stabilized ferritic stainless steels by classification of the etching structures (see Sections 3 through 10).  
1.1.2 Practice X—Ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 11 to 16).  
1.1.3 Practice Y—Copper-copper sulfate-50 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 17 to 22).  
1.1.4 Practice Z—Copper-copper sulfate-16 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 23 to 29).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices (1-6) :  
1.2.1 Practice W, oxalic acid test, is a rapid method of identifying, by simple, electrolytic etching, those specimens of certain ferritic alloys that are not susceptible to intergranular corrosion associated with chromium carbide precipitation. Practice W is used as a screening test to avoid the necessity, for acceptable specimens, of more extensive testing required by Practices X, Y, and Z. See Table 1 for a listing of alloys for which Practice W is appropriate.  
1.2.2 Practices X, Y, and Z can be used to detect the susceptibility of certain ferritic alloys to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides or nitrides.  
1.2.3 Practices W, X, Y, and Z can also be used to evaluate the effect of heat treatment or of fusion welding on susceptibility to intergranular corrosion.  
1.2.4 Table 2 lists the identification ferritic stainless steels for which data on the application of at least one of the standard practices is available.  
1.2.5 Some stabilized ferritic stainless steels may show high rates when tested by Practice X because of metallurgical factors not associated with chromium carbide or nitride precipitation. This possibility must be considered in selecting the test method. Combinations of alloys and test methods for which successful experience is available are shown in Table 1. Application of these standard tests to the other ferritic stainless steels will be by specific agreement between producer and user.  
1.3 Depending on the test and alloy, evaluations may be accomplished by weight loss determination, microscopical examination, or bend test (Sections 30 and 31). The choices are listed in Table 1.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific safety precautionary statements, see 3.2.5, Section 7, 13.1, and 19.1.
TABLE 1 Methods for Evaluating Ferritic Stainless Steels for Susceptibility to Intergranular Corrosion    Alloy
Time of Test, h
Evaluation Criteria
  Weight Loss
Microscopical
Examination
Bend Test
   PRACTICE W—OXALIC ACID ETCH TEST
  4390.025NAAANA 18Cr-2Mo0.025NAAANA XM270.025NAAANA XM330.025NAAANA 26...

ABSTRACT
These test methods cover the detection of detrimental intermetallic phase in duplex austenitic/ferritic stainless steel to the extent that toughness and corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes. Test method A-sodium hydroxide etch test, test method B-Charpy impact test, and test method C-ferric chloride corrosion test shall be made for classification of structures of duplex stainless steels.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes.
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750°F (320 to 955°C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermal or thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases. Rapid cooling of the product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the product.
1.5 These test methods include the following:
1.5.1 Test Method A—Sodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 3-7).
1.5.2 Test Method B—Charpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 8-13).
1.5.3 Test Method C—Ferric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 14-20).
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.
1.8 Examples of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance are given in Appendix X1 and Appendix X2.
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
3.1 The sodium hydroxide etch test may be used for the acceptance of material but not for rejection. This test method may be used with other evaluation tests to provide a rapid method for identifying those specimens that are free of detrimental intermetallic phases as measured in these other tests.
...

ABSTRACT
This specification covers the standard practices for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels. These practices include five intergranular corrosion tests, namely: (1) oxalic acid etch test for classification of etch structures of austenitic stainless steels; (2) ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, (3) nitric acid test and (4) copper-copper sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels; and (5) copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in molybdenum-bearing cast austenitic stainless steels. Methods for preparing the test specimens, rapid screening tests, apparatus setup and testing procedures, and calculations and report contents are described for each testing practice. The etch structure types used to classify the specimens are: step structure, dual structure, ditch structure, isolated ferrite, interdendritic ditches, end-grain pitting I, and end-grain pitting II.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:
1.1.1 Practice A—Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper–Copper Sulfate–Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper–Copper Sulfate–50 % Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:  
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.  
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.  
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum-bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate–sulfuric acid solutions.  
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades that are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as “acceptable.”  
1.4 The ferric sulfate–sulfuric acid test, the copper–copper sulfate–50 % sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper–copper sulfate–16 % sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or nonacceptable.
1.5 In most cases either the 15-h copper–copper sulfate–16 % sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate–sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.  
1.6 The 240...

ABSTRACT
These test methods cover the detection of detrimental intermetallic phase in duplex austenitic/ferritic stainless steel to the extent that toughness and corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes. Test method A-sodium hydroxide etch test, test method B-Charpy impact test, and test method C-ferric chloride corrosion test shall be made for classification of structures of duplex stainless steels.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes.
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750°F (320 to 955°C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermal or thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases. Rapid cooling of the product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the product.
1.5 These test methods include the following:
1.5.1 Test Method ASodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections ).
1.5.2 Test Method BCharpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections ).
1.5.3 Test Method CFerric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections ).
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.
1.8 Examples of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance are given in and .
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

ABSTRACT
This practice covers the standard recommendations and precautions for cleaning, descaling, and passivating of new stainless steel parts, assemblies, equipment, and installed systems. Consideration shall be given in the design of parts, equipment, and systems that will require cleaning to minimize the presence of areas in which dirt, or cleaning solutions might become trapped, and to provide for effective circulation and removal of cleaning solutions. Materials shall be precleaned. Scales shall be removed through chemical descaling, acid pickling, and mechanical descaling. Degreasing and general cleaning shall be accomplished by immersion in, swabbing with, or spraying with alkaline, emulsion, chelate, acid, solvent, or detergent cleaners or a combination of these; by vapor degreasing; by ultrasonics using various cleaners; by steam, with or without a cleaner; or by high-pressure water-jetting. Recommended cleaning practices shall be followed for welds and weld-joint areas, specially critical applications, installed systems and post-erections. The following shall be used as the basis for cleanness acceptability: Visual inspection; wipe tests; residual pattern; water-break test; free iron test such as water-wetting or drying; high-humidity test; and copper sulfate test. Precision inspection shall be performed by solvent-ring test, black light inspection, atomizer test, and ferroxyl test. Precaution shall always be practiced to minimize iron contamination, in reuse of cleaning and pickling solution, in water rinsing, in circulation of cleaning solutions and rinse water, in protection of cleaned surfaces, for safety, and disposal of used solutions and water.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers recommendations and precautions for cleaning, descaling, and passivating of new stainless steel parts, assemblies, equipment, and installed systems. These recommendations are presented as procedures for guidance when it is recognized that for a particular service it is desired to remove surface contaminants that may impair the normal corrosion resistance, or result in the later contamination of the particular stainless steel grade, or cause product contamination. For certain exceptional applications, additional requirements which are not covered by this practice may be specified upon agreement between the manufacturer and the purchaser. Although they apply primarily to materials in the composition ranges of the austenitic, ferritic, and martensitic stainless steels, the practices described may also be useful for cleaning other metals if due consideration is given to corrosion and possible metallurgical effects.
1.1.1 The term passivation is commonly applied to several distinctly different operations or processes relating to stainless steels. In order to avoid ambiguity in the setting of requirements, it may be necessary for the purchaser to define precisely the intended meaning of passivation. Some of the various meanings associated with the term passivation that are in common usage include the following:
Passivation is the process by which a stainless steel will spontaneously form a chemically inactive surface when exposed to air or other oxygen-containing environments. It was at one time considered that an oxidizing treatment was necessary to establish this passive film, but it is now accepted that this film will form spontaneously in an oxygen-containing environment providing that the surface has been thoroughly cleaned or descaled.
Passivation is removal of exogenous iron or iron compounds from the surface of a stainless steel by means of a chemical dissolution, most typically by a treatment with an acid solution that will remove the surface contamination but will not significantly affect the stainlees steel itself. This process is described in a general way in and defined precisely in with further reference to the requirements of and Part II of the table on acid cleaning of steel. Unless otherwise specified, it is...

ABSTRACT
This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. The treatments are the following: immersion treatment using nitric acid solutions, immersion treatment using citric acid solution, and electrochemical treatment. Immediately after the removal from the passivating solution, the parts shall be thoroughly rinsed, using stagnant, countercurrent, or spray washes, singly or in combination, with or without a separate chemical treatment for neutralization of the passivation media. The chemical reactions of the passivating media on the surface of the stainless steel shall be stopped by rinsing of the stainless steel part, with or without a separate neutralization treatment. A chemical treatment shall be applied which will accelerate the formation of the passive film on a chemically clean stainless steel surface. The passivated parts shall exhibit a chemically clean surface and shall, on visual inspection, show no etching, pitting, or frosting. The following tests shall be performed on each lot of stainless steel parts: water immersion test, high humidity test, salt spray test, copper sulfate test, and potassium ferricyanide-nitric acid test. A free iron test shall be used for the detection of free iron on the surface of stainless steel.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. It includes recommendations and precautions for descaling, cleaning, and passivation of stainless steel parts. It includes several alternative tests, with acceptance criteria, for confirmation of effectiveness of such treatments for stainless steel parts.  
1.2 Practices for the mechanical and chemical treatments of stainless steel surfaces are discussed more thoroughly in Practice A380.  
1.3 Several alternative chemical treatments are defined for passivation of stainless steel parts. Appendix X1 gives some nonmandatory information and provides some general guidelines regarding the selection of passivation treatment appropriate to particular grades of stainless steel. It makes no recommendations regarding the suitability of any grade, treatment, or acceptance criteria for any particular application or class of applications.  
1.4 The tests in this specification are intended to confirm the effectiveness of passivation, particularly with regard to the removal of free iron and other exogenous matter. These tests include the following practices:  
1.4.1 Practice A—Water Immersion Test,  
1.4.2 Practice B—High Humidity Test,  
1.4.3 Practice C—Salt Spray Test,  
1.4.4 Practice D—Copper Sulfate Test,  
1.4.5 Practice E—Potassium Ferricyanide–Nitric Acid Test, and
1.4.6 Practice F—Free Iron Test.
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The SI units given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.6 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portions, Sections 14 through 18 of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

ABSTRACT
This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. The treatments are the following: immersion treatment using nitric acid solutions, immersion treatment using citric acid solution, and electrochemical treatment. Immediately after the removal from the passivating solution, the parts shall be thoroughly rinsed, using stagnant, countercurrent, or spray washes, singly or in combination, with or without a separate chemical treatment for neutralization of the passivation media. The chemical reactions of the passivating media on the surface of the stainless steel shall be stopped by rinsing of the stainless steel part, with or without a separate neutralization treatment. A chemical treatment shall be applied which will accelerate the formation of the passive film on a chemically clean stainless steel surface. The passivated parts shall exhibit a chemically clean surface and shall, on visual inspection, show no etching, pitting, or frosting. The following tests shall be performed on each lot of stainless steel parts: water immersion test, high humidity test, salt spray test, copper sulfate test, and potassium ferricyanide-nitric acid test. A free iron test shall be used for the detection of free iron on the surface of stainless steel.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. It includes recommendations and precautions for descaling, cleaning, and passivation of stainless steel parts. It includes several alternative tests, with acceptance criteria, for confirmation of effectiveness of such treatments for stainless steel parts.
1.2 Practices for the mechanical and chemical treatments of stainless steel surfaces are discussed more thoroughly in Practice A 380.
1.3 Several alternative chemical treatments are defined for passivation of stainless steel parts. Appendix X1 gives some nonmandatory information and provides some general guidelines regarding the selection of passivation treatment appropriate to particular grades of stainless steel. It makes no recommendations regarding the suitability of any grade, treatment, or acceptance criteria for any particular application or class of applications.
1.4 The tests in this specification are intended to confirm the effectiveness of passivation, particularly with regard to the removal of free iron and other exogenous matter. These tests include the following practices:
1.4.1 Practice A - Water Immersion Test,
1.4.2 Practice B - High Humidity Test,
1.4.3 Practice C - Salt Spray Test,
1.4.4 Practice D - Copper Sulfate Test,
1.4.5 Practice E - Potassium Ferricyanide-Nitric Acid Test, and
1.4.6 Practice F - Free Iron Test.
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The SI units given in parentheses are for information only.
The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portions, Sections 14 through 18 of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. It includes recommendations and precautions for descaling, cleaning, and passivation of stainless steel parts. It includes several alternative tests, with acceptance criteria, for confirmation of effectiveness of such treatments for stainless steel parts.
1.2 Practices for the mechanical and chemical treatments of stainless steel surfaces are discussed more thoroughly in Practice A 380.
1.3 Several alternative chemical treatments are defined for passivation of stainless steel parts. gives some nonmandatory information and provides some general guidelines regarding the selection of passivation treatment appropriate to particular grades of stainless steel but makes no recommendations regarding the suitability of any grade, treatment, and acceptance criteria for any particular application or class of applications.
1.4 The tests in this specification are intended to confirm the effectiveness of passivation, particularly with regard to the removal of free iron and other exogenous matter. These tests include the following practices:
1.4.1 Practice A—Water Immersion Test,
1.4.2 Practice B—High Humidity Test,
1.4.3 Practice C—Salt Spray Test,
1.4.4 Practice D—Copper Sulfate Test,
1.4.5 Practice E—Potassium Ferricyanide-Nitric Acid Test, and
1.4.6 Practice F—Free Iron Test.
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The SI units given in parentheses are for information only.
1.6 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portions, Sections 14 through 18 of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers recommendations and precautions for cleaning, descaling, and passivating of new stainless steel parts, assemblies, equipment, and installed systems. These recommendations are presented as procedures for guidance when it is recognized that for a particular service it is desired to remove surface contaminants that may impair the normal corrosion resistance, or result in the later contamination of the particular stainless steel grade, or cause product contamination. For certain exceptional applications, additional requirements which are not covered by this practice may be specified upon agreement between the manufacturer and the purchaser. Although they apply primarily to materials in the composition ranges of the austenitic, ferritic, and martensitic stainless steels, the practices described may also be useful for cleaning other metals if due consideration is given to corrosion and possible metallurgical effects.
1.1.1 The term passivation is commonly applied to several distinctly different operations or processes relating to stainless steels. In order to avoid ambiguity in the setting of requirements, it may be necessary for the purchaser to define precisely the intended meaning of passivation. Some of the various meanings associated with the term passivation that are in common usage include the following:
1.1.1.1 Passivation is the process by which a stainless steel will spontaneously form a chemically inactive surface when exposed to air or other oxygen-containing environments. It was at one time considered that an oxidizing treatment was necessary to establish this passive film, but it is now accepted that this film will form spontaneously in an oxygen-containing environment providing that the surface has been thoroughly cleaned or descaled.
1.1.1.2 Passivation is removal of exogenous iron or iron compounds from the surface of a stainless steel by means of a chemical dissolution, most typically by a treatment with an acid solution that will remove the surface contamination but will not significantly affect the stainlees steel itself. This process is described in a general way in 6.2.11 and defined precisely in 6.4 with further reference to the requirements of Annex A2 and Part II of the table on acid cleaning of steel. Unless otherwise specified, it is this definition of passivation that is taken as the meaning of a specified requirement for passivation.
1.1.1.3 Passivation is the chemical treatment of a stainless steel with a mild oxidant, such as a nitric acid solution, for the purpose of enhancing the spontaneous formation of the protective passive film. Such chemical treatment is generally not necessary for the formation of the passive film.
1.1.1.4 Passivation does not indicate the separate process of descaling as described in Section 5, although descaling may be necessary before passivation can be effective.
1.2 This practice does not cover decontamination or cleaning of equipment or systems that have been in service, nor does it cover descaling and cleaning of materials at the mill. On the other hand, some of the practices may be applicable for these purposes. While the practice provides recommendations and information concerning the use of acids and other cleaning and descaling agents, it cannot encompass detailed cleaning procedures for specific types of equipment or installations. It therefore in no way precludes the necessity for careful planning and judgment in the selection and implementation of such procedures.
1.3 These practices may be applied when free iron, oxide scale, rust, grease, oil, carbonaceous or other residual chemical films, soil, particles, metal chips, dirt, or other nonvolatile deposits might adversely affect the metallurgical or sanitary condition or stability of a surface, the mechanical operation of a part, component, or system, or contaminate a process fluid. The degree of cleanness required on a surface depends on the application. In some...

ABSTRACT
This practices covers the detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. Different method of preparing steel test specimens are presented. Four practices, including Practice W, X, Y, and Z, are used for determining susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steel. These practices cover the following tests; oxalic acid etch test, ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test, copper-copper sulphate-50% sulfuric acid test, and copper-copper sulphate-16% sulfuric acid test. Test specimens shall be examined for the ferritic sulphate-sulfuric acid test and copper-copper sulphate-50% sulphuric acid test under a binocular microscope at 40x magnification. The bend test evaluations for the steel test specimens are presented.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following four tests:
1.1.1 Practice W—Oxalic acid etch test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in stabilized ferritic stainless steels by classification of the etching structures (see Sections 3 through 10).
1.1.2 Practice X—Ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 11 to 16).
1.1.3 Practice Y—Copper-copper sulfate-50 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 17 to 22).
1.1.4 Practice Z—Copper-copper sulfate-16 % sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 23 to 29).
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices (1-6):
1.2.1 Practice W, oxalic acid test, is a rapid method of identifying, by simple, electrolytic etching, those specimens of certain ferritic alloys that are not susceptible to intergranular corrosion associated with chromium carbide precipitation. Practice W is used as a screening test to avoid the necessity, for acceptable specimens, of more extensive testing required by Practices X, Y, and Z. See Table 1 for a listing of alloys for which Practice W is appropriate.
1.2.2 Practices X, Y, and Z can be used to detect the susceptibility of certain ferritic alloys to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides or nitrides.
1.2.3 Practices W, X, Y, and Z can also be used to evaluate the effect of heat treatment or of fusion welding on susceptibility to intergranular corrosion.
1.2.4 lists the identification ferritic stainless steels for which data on the application of at least one of the standard practices is available.
1.2.5 Some stabilized ferritic stainless steels may show high rates when tested by Practice X because of metallurgical factors not associated with chromium carbide or nitride precipitation. This possibility must be considered in selecting the test method. Combinations of alloys and test methods for which successful experience is available are shown in . Application of these standard tests to the other ferritic stainless steels will be by specific agreement between producer and user.
1.3 Depending on the test and alloy, evaluations may be accomplished by weight loss determination, microscopical examination, or bend test (Sections 30 and 31). The choices are listed in Table 1.
1.4 sibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific safety precautionary statements, see 3.2.5, Section 7, 13.1, and 19.1.

SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in mill products of duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes.
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750°F (320 to 955°C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases in the mill product. Rapid cooling of the mill product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the mill product.
1.5 These test methods include the following:
1.5.1 Test Method A—Sodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 3-7).
1.5.2 Test Method B—Charpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 8-13).
1.5.3 Test Method C—Ferric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 14-20).
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.
1.8 An example of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance is given in .
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A— Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper-Copper Sulfate-50% Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:  
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.  
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.  
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid solutions.  
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades which are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as "acceptable."  
1.4 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or non-acceptable.  
1.5 In most cases either the 24-h copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.  
1.6 The 240-h nitric acid test must be applied to stabilized and molybdenum-bearing grades intended for service in nitric acid and to all stainless steel grades which might be subject to end grain corrosion in nitric acid service.  
1.7 Only those stainless steel grades are listed in Table 1 for which data on the application of the oxalic acid etch test and on their performance in various quantitative evaluation tests are available.  
1.8 Extensive test results on various types of stainless steels evaluated by these practices have been published in Ref (1).  
1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  (Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6, 11.1.1, ...

SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A— Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper-Copper Sulfate-50% Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:  
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.  
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.  
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid solutions.  
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades which are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as "acceptable."  
1.4 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or non-acceptable.  
1.5 In most cases either the 24-h copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.  
1.6 The 240-h nitric acid test must be applied to stabilized and molybdenum-bearing grades intended for service in nitric acid and to all stainless steel grades which might be subject to end grain corrosion in nitric acid service.  
1.7 Only those stainless steel grades are listed in Table 1 for which data on the application of the oxalic acid etch test and on their performance in various quantitative evaluation tests are available.  
1.8 Extensive test results on various types of stainless steels evaluated by these practices have been published in Ref (1).  
1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  (Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6, 11.1.1, ...

SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A— Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper-Copper Sulfate-50% Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:  
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.  
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.  
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid solutions.  
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades which are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as "acceptable."  
1.4 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or non-acceptable.  
1.5 In most cases either the 24-h copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.  
1.6 The 240-h nitric acid test must be applied to stabilized and molybdenum-bearing grades intended for service in nitric acid and to all stainless steel grades which might be subject to end grain corrosion in nitric acid service.  
1.7 Only those stainless steel grades are listed in Table 1 for which data on the application of the oxalic acid etch test and on their performance in various quantitative evaluation tests are available.  
1.8 Extensive test results on various types of stainless steels evaluated by these practices have been published in Ref (1).  
1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  (Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6, 11.1.1, ...

SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:
1.1.1 Practice A—Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper-Copper Sulfate-50 % Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum-bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid solutions.
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades that are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as "acceptable."
1.4 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper-copper sulfate-50 % sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper-copper sulfate-16 % sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or nonacceptable.
1.5 In most cases either the 15-h copper-copper sulfate-16 % sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.
1.6 The 240-h nitric acid test must be applied to stabilized and molybdenum-bearing grades intended for service in nitric acid and to all stainless steel grades that might be subject to end grain corrosion in nitric acid service.
1.7 Only those stainless steel grades are listed in Table 1 for which data on the application of the oxalic acid etch test and on their performance in various quantitative evaluation tests are available.
1.8 Extensive test results on various types of stainless steels evaluated by these practices have been published in Ref  (1)².
1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. (Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6, 11.1.1, 11.1.9, and 35.1.)

SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A— Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper-Copper Sulfate-50% Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:  
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.  
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.  
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid solutions.  
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades which are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as "acceptable."  
1.4 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or non-acceptable.  
1.5 In most cases either the 24-h copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.  
1.6 The 240-h nitric acid test must be applied to stabilized and molybdenum-bearing grades intended for service in nitric acid and to all stainless steel grades which might be subject to end grain corrosion in nitric acid service.  
1.7 Only those stainless steel grades are listed in Table 1 for which data on the application of the oxalic acid etch test and on their performance in various quantitative evaluation tests are available.  
1.8 Extensive test results on various types of stainless steels evaluated by these practices have been published in Ref (1).  
1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  (Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6, 11.1.1, ...

SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. It includes recommendations and precautions for descaling, cleaning, and passivation of stainless steel parts. It includes several alternative tests, with acceptance criteria, for confirmation of effectiveness of such treatments for stainless steel parts.
1.2 Practices for the mechanical and chemical treatments of stainless steel surfaces are discussed more thoroughly in Practice A 380.
1.3 Several alternative chemical treatments are defined for passivation of stainless steel parts. gives some nonmandatory information and provides some general guidelines regarding the selection of passivation treatment appropriate to particular grades of stainless steel but makes no recommendations regarding the suitability of any grade, treatment, and acceptance criteria for any particular application or class of applications.
1.4 The tests in this specification are intended to confirm the effectiveness of passivation, particularly with regard to the removal of free iron and other exogenous matter. These tests include the following practices:
1.4.1 Practice A—Water Immersion Test,
1.4.2 Practice B—High Humidity Test,
1.4.3 Practice C—Salt Spray Test,
1.4.4 Practice D—Copper Sulfate Test,
1.4.5 Practice E—Potassium Ferricyanide-Nitric Acid Test, and
1.4.6 Practice F—Free Iron Test.
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The SI units given in parentheses are for information only.
1.6 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portions, Sections 14 through 18 of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. It includes recommendations and precautions for descaling, cleaning, and passivation of stainless steel parts. It includes several alternative tests, with acceptance criteria, for confirmation of effectiveness of such treatments for stainless steel parts.
1.2 Practices for the mechanical and chemical treatments of stainless steel surfaces are discussed more thoroughly in Practice A 380.
1.3 Several alternative chemical treatments are defined for passivation of stainless steel parts. gives some nonmandatory information and provides some general guidelines regarding the selection of passivation treatment appropriate to particular grades of stainless steel but makes no recommendations regarding the suitability of any grade, treatment, and acceptance criteria for any particular application or class of applications.
1.4 The tests in this specification are intended to confirm the effectiveness of passivation, particularly with regard to the removal of free iron and other exogenous matter. These tests include the following practices:
1.4.1 Practice A—Water Immersion Test,
1.4.2 Practice B—High Humidity Test,
1.4.3 Practice C—Salt Spray Test,
1.4.4 Practice D—Copper Sulfate Test,
1.4.5 Practice E—Potassium Ferricyanide-Nitric Acid Test, and
1.4.6 Practice F—Free Iron Test.
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The SI units given in parentheses are for information only.
1.6 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portions, Sections 14 through 18 of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers several different types of chemical passivation treatments for stainless steel parts. It includes recommendations and precautions for descaling, cleaning, and passivation of stainless steel parts. It includes several alternative tests, with acceptance criteria, for confirmation of effectiveness of such treatments for stainless steel parts.
1.2 Practices for the mechanical and chemical treatments of stainless steel surfaces are discussed more thoroughly in Practice A 380.
1.3 Several alternative chemical treatments are defined for passivation of stainless steel parts. gives some nonmandatory information and provides some general guidelines regarding the selection of passivation treatment appropriate to particular grades of stainless steel but makes no recommendations regarding the suitability of any grade, treatment, and acceptance criteria for any particular application or class of applications.
1.4 The tests in this specification are intended to confirm the effectiveness of passivation, particularly with regard to the removal of free iron and other exogenous matter. These tests include the following practices:
1.4.1 Practice A—Water Immersion Test,
1.4.2 Practice B—High Humidity Test,
1.4.3 Practice C—Salt Spray Test,
1.4.4 Practice D—Copper Sulfate Test,
1.4.5 Practice E—Potassium Ferricyanide-Nitric Acid Test, and
1.4.6 Practice F—Free Iron Test.
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The SI units given in parentheses are for information only.
1.6 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portions, Sections 14 through 18 of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in mill products of duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes.
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750°F (320 to 955°C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases in the mill product. Rapid cooling of the mill product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the mill product.
1.5 These test methods include the following:
1.5.1 Test Method A—Sodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 3-7).
1.5.2 Test Method B—Charpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 8-13).
1.5.3 Test Method C—Ferric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 14-20).
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.
1.8 An example of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance is given in .
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A— Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper-Copper Sulfate-50% Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:  
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.  
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.  
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid solutions.  
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades which are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as "acceptable."  
1.4 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or non-acceptable.  
1.5 In most cases either the 24-h copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.  
1.6 The 240-h nitric acid test must be applied to stabilized and molybdenum-bearing grades intended for service in nitric acid and to all stainless steel grades which might be subject to end grain corrosion in nitric acid service.  
1.7 Only those stainless steel grades are listed in Table 1 for which data on the application of the oxalic acid etch test and on their performance in various quantitative evaluation tests are available.  
1.8 Extensive test results on various types of stainless steels evaluated by these practices have been published in Ref (1).  
1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  (Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6, 11.1.1, ...

SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following five tests:  
1.1.1 Practice A— Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 3 to 7, inclusive),  
1.1.2 Practice B—Ferric Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 8 to 14, inclusive),  
1.1.3 Practice C—Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 15 to 21, inclusive),  
1.1.4 Practice E—Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 22 to 31, inclusive), and  
1.1.5 Practice F—Copper-Copper Sulfate-50% Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Molybdenum-Bearing Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels (Sections 32 to 38, inclusive).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices:  
1.2.1 Susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides is readily detected in all six tests.  
1.2.2 Sigma phase in wrought chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates only in nitric acid.  
1.2.3 Sigma phase in titanium or columbium stabilized alloys and cast molybdenum bearing stainless alloys, which may or may not be visible in the microstructure, can result in high corrosion rates in both the nitric acid and ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid solutions.  
1.3 The oxalic acid etch test is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain stainless steel grades which are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack associated with chromium carbide precipitates. These specimens will have low corrosion rates in certain corrosion tests and therefore can be eliminated (screened) from testing as "acceptable."  
1.4 The ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, the copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test, and the nitric acid test are based on weight loss determinations and, thus, provide a quantitative measure of the relative performance of specimens evaluated. In contrast, the copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test is based on visual examination of bend specimens and, therefore, classifies the specimens only as acceptable or non-acceptable.  
1.5 In most cases either the 24-h copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test or the 120-h ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test, combined with the oxalic acid etch test, will provide the required information in the shortest time. All stainless grades listed in the accompanying table may be evaluated in these combinations of screening and corrosion tests, except those specimens of molybdenum-bearing grades (for example 316, 316L, 317, and 317L), which represent steel intended for use in nitric acid environments.  
1.6 The 240-h nitric acid test must be applied to stabilized and molybdenum-bearing grades intended for service in nitric acid and to all stainless steel grades which might be subject to end grain corrosion in nitric acid service.  
1.7 Only those stainless steel grades are listed in Table 1 for which data on the application of the oxalic acid etch test and on their performance in various quantitative evaluation tests are available.  
1.8 Extensive test results on various types of stainless steels evaluated by these practices have been published in Ref (1).  
1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The inch-pound equivalents are in parentheses and may be approximate.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  (Specific precautionary statements are given in 5.6, 11.1.1, ...

SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in mill products of duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes.
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750°F (320 to 955°C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases in the mill product. Rapid cooling of the mill product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the mill product.
1.5 These test methods include the following:
1.5.1 Test Method A—Sodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 3-7).
1.5.2 Test Method B—Charpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 8-13).
1.5.3 Test Method C—Ferric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 14-20).
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.
1.8 An example of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance is given in .
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of these test methods is to allow detection of the presence of intermetallic phases in mill products of duplex stainless steels to the extent that toughness or corrosion resistance is affected significantly. These test methods will not necessarily detect losses of toughness or corrosion resistance attributable to other causes.
1.2 Duplex (austenitic-ferritic) stainless steels are susceptible to the formation of intermetallic compounds during exposures in the temperature range from approximately 600 to 1750°F (320 to 955°C). The speed of these precipitation reactions is a function of composition and thermomechanical history of each individual piece. The presence of these phases is detrimental to toughness and corrosion resistance.
1.3 Correct heat treatment of duplex stainless steels can eliminate these detrimental phases in the mill product. Rapid cooling of the mill product provides the maximum resistance to formation of detrimental phases by subsequent thermal exposures.
1.4 Compliance with the chemical and mechanical requirements for the applicable product specification does not necessarily indicate the absence of detrimental phases in the mill product.
1.5 These test methods include the following:
1.5.1 Test Method A—Sodium Hydroxide Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 3-7).
1.5.2 Test Method B—Charpy Impact Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 8-13).
1.5.3 Test Method C—Ferric Chloride Corrosion Test for Classification of Structures of Duplex Stainless Steels (Sections 14-20).
1.6 The presence of detrimental intermetallic phases is readily detected in all three tests, provided that a sample of appropriate location and orientation is selected. Because the occurrence of intermetallic phases is a function of temperature and cooling rate, it is essential that the tests be applied to the region of the material experiencing the conditions most likely to promote the formation of an intermetallic phase. In the case of common heat treatment, this region will be that which cooled most slowly. Except for rapidly cooled material, it may be necessary to sample from a location determined to be the most slowly cooled for the material piece to be characterized.
1.7 The tests do not determine the precise nature of the detrimental phase but rather the presence or absence of an intermetallic phase to the extent that it is detrimental to the toughness and corrosion resistance of the material.
1.8 An example of the correlation of thermal exposures, the occurrence of intermetallic phases, and the degradation of toughness and corrosion resistance is given in .
1.9 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers recommendations and precautions for cleaning, descaling, and passivating of new stainless steel parts, assemblies, equipment, and installed systems. These recommendations are presented as procedures for guidance when it is recognized that for a particular service it is desired to remove surface contaminants that may impair the normal corrosion resistance, or result in the later contamination of the particular stainless steel grade, or cause product contamination. For certain exceptional applications, additional requirements which are not covered by this practice may be specified upon agreement between the manufacturer and the purchaser. Although they apply primarily to materials in the composition ranges of the austenitic, ferritic, and martensitic stainless steels, the practices described may also be useful for cleaning other metals if due consideration is given to corrosion and possible metallurgical effects.  
1.1.1 The term passivation is commonly applied to several distinctly different operations or processes relating to stainless steels. In order to avoid ambiguity in the setting of requirements, it may be necessary for the purchaser to define precisely the intended meaning of passivation. Some of the various meanings associated with the term passivation that are in common usage include the following:
1.1.1.1 Passivation is the process by which a stainless steel will spontaneously form a chemically inactive surface when exposed to air or other oxygen-containing environments. It was at one time considered that an oxidizing treatment was necessary to establish this passive film, but it is now accepted that this film will form spontaneously in an oxygen-containing environment providing that the surface has been thoroughly cleaned or descaled.
1.1.1.2 Passivation is removal of exogenous iron or iron compounds from the surface of a stainless steel by means of a chemical dissolution, most typically by a treatment with an acid solution that will remove the surface contamination but will not significantly affect the stainless steel itself. This process is described in a general way in 6.2.11 and defined precisely in 6.4 with further reference to the requirements of Annex A2 and Table A2.1, Part II. Unless otherwise specified, it is this definition of passivation that is taken as the meaning of a specified requirement for passivation.
1.1.1.3 Passivation is the chemical treatment of a stainless steel with a mild oxidant, such as a nitric acid solution, for the purpose of enhancing the spontaneous formation of the protective passive film. Such chemical treatment is generally not necessary for the formation of the passive film.
1.1.1.4 Passivation does not indicate the separate process of descaling as described in Section 5, although descaling may be necessary before passivation can be effective.  
1.2 This practice does not cover decontamination or cleaning of equipment or systems that have been in service, nor does it cover descaling and cleaning of materials at the mill. On the other hand, some of the practices may be applicable for these purposes. While the practice provides recommendations and information concerning the use of acids and other cleaning and descaling agents, it cannot encompass detailed cleaning procedures for specific types of equipment or installations. It therefore in no way precludes the necessity for careful planning and judgment in the selection and implementation of such procedures.  
1.3 These practices may be applied when free iron, oxide scale, rust, grease, oil, carbonaceous or other residual chemical films, soil, particles, metal chips, dirt, or other nonvolatile deposits might adversely affect the metallurgical or sanitary condition or stability of a surface, the mechanical operation of a part, component, or system, or contaminate a process fluid. The degree of cleanness required on a surface depends on the application. In some cases, no more than...

SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover the following four tests:  
1.1.1 Practice W -Oxalic acid etch test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in stabilized ferritic stainless steels by classification of the etching structures (see Sections 3 through 10).  
1.1.2 Practice X -Ferric sulfate-sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 11 to 16).  
1.1.3 Practice Y -Copper-copper sulfate-50% sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 17 to 22).  
1.1.4 Practice Z -Copper-copper sulfate-16% sulfuric acid test for detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in ferritic stainless steels (Sections 23 to 29).  
1.2 The following factors govern the application of these practices (1-6) :
1.2.1 Practice W, oxalic acid test, is a rapid method of identifying, by simple, electrolytic etching, those specimens of certain ferritic alloys that are not susceptible to intergranular corrosion associated with chromium carbide precipitation. Practice W is used as a screening test to avoid the necessity, for acceptable specimens, of more extensive testing required by Practices X, Y, and Z. See Table 1 for a listing of alloys for which Practice W is appropriate.  
1.2.2 Practices X, Y, and Z can be used to detect the susceptibility of certain ferritic alloys to intergranular attack associated with the precipitation of chromium carbides or nitrides.  
1.2.3 Practices W, X, Y, and Z can also be used to evaluate the effect of heat treatment or of fusion welding on susceptibility to intergranular corrosion.  
1.2.4 Table 2 lists the identification ferritic stainless steels for which data on the application of at least one of the standard practices is available.  
1.2.5 Some stabilized ferritic stainless steels may show high rates when tested by Practice X because of metallurgical factors not associated with chromium carbide or nitride precipitation. This possibility must be considered in selecting the test method. Combinations of alloys and test methods for which successful experience is available are shown in Table  
1. Application of these standard tests to the other ferritic stainless steels will be by specific agreement between producer and user.  
1.3 Depending on the test and alloy, evaluations may be accomplished by weight loss determination, microscopical examination, or bend test (Sections 30 and 31). The choices are listed in Table 1.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific safety precautionary statements, see 3.2.5, Section 7, 13.1, and 19.1.