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.
|Published (Last):||24 January 2017|
|PDF File Size:||17.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
And there are other differences. It’s not possible to diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages. One of the differences is in the definition of ‘a lot’ for testing purposes. November 7, A. If the part passes the verification test, what differences in function can occur in the part’s use if ans acid baths are used?
This auditor you are dealing with, what organization is he with? 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. Both contain a carryover of QQ-PC with the addition of the more recently developed citric acid based process. May 15 — 16, Boston, MA. We design our own parts, and do our own passivation in house, and hence prefer the testing requirements of ASTM A Do you pawsivation any experience in passivating parts unlike in the AMS suggestions?
Is one better than another for medical devices? I really appreciate your collaboration. Ken Vlach – Goleta, California. If you do not specify, they can use whatever they want, even ways that are not in any of the specifications! If so, how could I support that statement? All The specifications are the same, then why are the Names different?
Hello, we’ve sent many parts to our different passivation vendors and keep getting parts that are “Flash attacked” or etched. F86 refers to surgical implants of any metallic alloy, and basically just says “do whatever treatment is applicable and appropriate to ensure corrosion resistance”.
We appended your question to a thread which should clearly answer it for you: Gain access to the technologies and people in aerospace and defense manufacturing. Some customers ask for the parts to pass salt spray testing longer than A’s required 2 hours, etc.
ASTM A vs. AMS vs. ASTM F86? Which is the right passivation spec?
My customer wants to put A on his print for standard passivation, but my plater tells me that he passivates to A I assume that A was developed running several extreme conditions but I’ve been passivatioh for that information and couldn’t find anything about it.
Selection of the correct passivation process is determined by the stainless steel alloy involved and by the specification requirements. The best thing do to is ask the customer what they expect.
It was cancelled in early in favor of AMS June 11—13, Chicago, IL. In reading ASTM A and AMS it seems that there is quite a bit of overlap but with differences in the bath variables or verification requirements.
ASTM A967 vs. AMS 2700? Which is the right passivation spec?
We will check for issues with solution entrapment and other design concerns. If your lassivation must comply with AMS Method 1, Type 2, pqssivation suggestion is that the parts be cleaned better before passivation because some people claim that even minuscule traces of oils can cause this etchingperhaps by generating some sort of organic acid which etches the parts.
This has been a hit and miss for us with the different companies. AMS exempts C from testing.
John Wilt [returning] – Cambridge, Massachusetts. In simple terms, he’s saying that given 2 SS surfaces which have different concentrations of free iron, the chemical reaction will take longer in the surface with more free iron.
But our favorite choice would be Type 8. A discussion started in but continuing through Q.
But again, please describe your situation. 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.