Advanced Plating Technologies, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin company, is an industry leading provider of passivation of stainless steel to ASTM A, AMS AMS-QQ-P QQ-P Passivation of Corrosion Resistant Steels. RATIONALE. AMSE is issued to incorporate all changes approved by AMS Committee. ASTM F86 for Orthopedic implants, AMS for aerospace, ASTM A It is relatively easy to modify a passivation process to satisfy ASTM A [link is to.

Author: Tosida Shaktitaxe
Country: Vietnam
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 26 October 2013
Pages: 238
PDF File Size: 10.74 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.49 Mb
ISBN: 632-6-24215-757-4
Downloads: 90448
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mazukora

The passivation process consists of immersing the stainless steel in a solution of citric acid, or other acid plus oxidizing salts, which dissolves the embedded or deposited iron and restores the original corrosion-resistant surface a thin, transparent oxide film.

What requirement or standard is he auditing you against, since clearly it is not A? November 27, — this entry appended to this thread by editor in lieu of spawning a duplicative thread A. We passivatoon set up for this process but not the high concentration-high temp nitric process.

John Wilt [returning] – Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This auditor you are dealing with, what organization is he with? Type II passivation works well with Determining the suitability of A for your specific parts is up to you, or requirements set by your customer. Is one better than another for medical devices?

AMS Passivation Standard As a global organization of engineers and other technical experts, SAE International provides consensus-formed standards that help define the best practices for processing aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle components—including metal passivation services. Is this a correct assessment?

AMS Method 1 Type II Passivation for Medical Device

And there are other differences. Electropolishing and Passivation Standards.

Method 1 is subdivided into 8 Types corresponding to the types in old QQ-P while Method 2 is not subdivided. Do you have any recommendations for us a little bit more detailed specifications than these in the AMS [link by ed.

Based on the previous information, the concern is regarding the minimum requirements 27000 A The two standards are essentially equivalent. AeroDef April 30 – May 1 Gain access to the technologies and people in aerospace and defense manufacturing. Do you have any experience in passivating parts unlike in the AMS suggestions? I replied that the parameters are in compliance with standard A but he’s telling that we don’t have objective evidence to support the validation since A defines minimum requirements that could be insufficient to my process.


You can guess the increase in the amount of testing involved. It’s not possible to diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages.

David, Go ahead and try a small piece of in the Type 8 bath. The “right” spec is the one that your customer requires. If you do not specify, they can use whatever they want, even ways that are not in any of the specifications! In reading ASTM A and AMS it seems that there is quite a bit of overlap but with differences in the bath variables or passibation requirements.

It appears that the types are associated with method 1, not method 2.

ASTM A967 vs. AMS 2700? Which is the right passivation spec?

Hey guys, thanks to your input. This is actually an oversight of A that will be corrected in the next revision. Passivation restores the corrosion resistance of stainless steel parts.

A has a lot of excellent recommendations on general cleaning etc. ASTM A renumbered those to nitric 1 through 4, while AMS brought back the ones that had been removed and has types 1 through 8. It’s not possible to diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages. I was looking at this thread and had this question He passed away May 14, There are other differences- ASTM A allows the use of any mix of nitric and water, so long as you show it works Nitric 5 solution.

Passivation Our process control program includes lot-by-lot acceptance testing and regular testing of all chemical baths and operating parameters. Have the plater do so, and then certify to multiple standards. F86 refers to surgical implants of any metallic alloy, and basically just says “do whatever treatment is applicable and appropriate to ensure corrosion resistance”. In reading through the specification I believe the drawing is incorrect.


If you are interested, click the link next to my name and you can get my contact information, then I can direct you to my distributor in Germany. I assume that A was developed running several extreme conditions but I’ve been looking for that information and couldn’t find anything about it.

AMS considers different parts, or the same part made at different as, to be different lots with the exception for parts with the legacy QQ-P called out, when you can use the older definition. ASTM F86 [link by ed. Can you please tell me the differences between the passivation processes AMS [link by ed.

December 19, A. All information presented is for general reference and does not represent a professional opinion nor the policy of an author’s employer. Gain access to the technologies and people in aerospace and defense manufacturing. Regards, Ted Mooney, P. May 15 — 16, Boston, MA. Jan, Both standards are based heavily on the old QQ-P You used a gmail e-mail address and haven’t supplied company or industry information, so I don’t know if your company must comply with this spec or you are the author of the job requirements.

In order to prevent this corrosion, semi-finished or finished parts are given a passivation treatment. At Able Electropolishing, we meet the AMS passivation standard with our metal passivation services. All The specifications are the same, then why are the Names different?

Selection of the correct passivation process is determined by the stainless steel alloy involved and by the specification requirements.