U . S.

Department of Commerce
National Bureau of Standards

Research Paper RP1878

Volume 40, April 1948

Part of the Journal of Research of the National BurEau of Sta ndards

Stabilization of Austenitic Stainless Steel

By Samuel J. Rosenberg and John H. Darr
A stu dy was m a de of t he resistance to in tergra nui a r atta ck of 23 18 % Cr- 10 % 1\i
a ustenitic co rros ion-res istin g steels in 12 different ini t ial co ndi t io ns. Suscept ibili ty to
intergranul a r attack was determin ed a fter seven se nsit izin g t rcat me nLs; foll owed b y exp os ure
for a m ax imum of 1.4 d ays in a boilin g a cidified copper s ulfate sol ut io n.
It ,,as fo und t hat max imum s usce pt ibili ty to in tergran ula r at tack was de velop ed by
se nsit iz ing e ither 8 o r 21 d a~' s at ' ,020 F. Th e straigh t ca rb on a uste n itic sLeels were quite
v ulner ab le to attack , alt ho ug h dec rcase in ca rbon co n ten t dec reased the deg ree of v uln e rab ili ty. Th e eolum bium - a nd t ita ni u m-t reate d steels we re sa t isfactor ily resis lan t to attac k
provid ed the Cbl C or Ti l C rat ios we re s [Link] ciently hi g h. These !"atiOH va ri ed , dep e ndin g on
the initial co ndi t ion of the steel. Th e carbon con te nt of the t reated steels h a d no influ e nce
upon t he res istance to in te rg ra nu la r attack , t he p re do min at ing fa cto r bein g lhe Cb/C or
T il C r a Li o.

1. Introduction
An undes irable charact eri s ti c of th e au stenitic
s tainless steels is th eir susceptibility to inter. gran ular em bri l tlement after exposure to moder a t ely eleva ted t emperatures. This susceptibility
to embrittlem ent may be decreased or eliminated,
i. e., th e s teels may be stabilized against inter granular embri ttlem ent, by the addition of
titanium or columbium , usually in conjunction
with a stabilizing heiLt treatm ent.
A diversity of opinion as to the relative amounts
of t itanium or columbium necessary for effective
s tabilization , the injurious efrect of carbon content, and the necessity for stabilizing h eat treat m ents, led the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy
D epartment, to r equ es t the National Bureau of
S tandard s to und ertake a study of fa ctors affec ting
the stabilization of th e 18- 8 typ e of st eels. This
p aper summarizes the results of su ch an inves~
t igation.

II. Theory of Sensitization and Stabilization

Intergranular embrittlemen t (or corrosionthe t erms are usually used synonomou sly) may
be considered as a disease of 18- 8 st eels, al thou gh
it is not p eculiar to the e st eels alon e. SpecifiAustenitic Stainless Steel

cally, th is type of corros ion is particularly pronounced in some 18- 8 st eels tha t have been subjected t o mod erately elev ated temperatures (700
to 1,400 F ) and are eith er imultaneou sly or
subsequ entl y subj ec ted to corrosive conditions.
Exposlll"e to th ese elevated t emp erature causes
the precipitation of what are generally conceded
to be chromium carb ides a t th e grain boundaries,
and s teels having such carbide precipitation have
been found to be more or l ess s usceptible to intel"granular corrosion, whereas steels th a t do not
exhibit this structure are generally immune.
Annealed 18..:.8 stainless st eel (qu enched from
t empera tures in the neighborhood of 1,800 to
2,000 F ) th eoretically cons ists of m eta stable
austenite, . in this case a s up ersaturated solid
solution of carbon or of cluomiuffi carbide in
chromium-nickel austenite. U pon r eheating t o
mod erately eleva ted t emperatures, chromium carbide (Cr4 C) precipitates a t the grain boundaries.
One school of thought believes that this precipitation reduces the cluomium content of the metal
near the grain boundaries to a level below that
necessary to resist corrosion. This appears to be
the most prevalent view. Others believe that
internal strains resulting from the precipitation
of carbides, and from the formation of alpha iron
from the metastable austenite, are the cause of
intergranular corrosion. Still anoth er belief is

321

that the electrolytic effect resulting from a difference in potential between grains and grain boundaries is responsible. Regardless of the underlying theory, however, it is generally agreed that
the presence of chromium carbides distributed in
the form of a thin, nearly continuous network at
thc grain boundari es is an indication of material
that is susceptible to intergranulal' corrosion. The
larger isolated carbides that result after sufficient
time at temperature has been allowed from coalescence of th e precipitated carbides and for replenishment by diffusion of chromium in the depleted areas do not appear to be associated with
intergranular corrosion.
The earliest efforts to prevent intergranular
embrit tlement were directed toward the manufacture of 18- 8 with low carbon conten t on the
theory that precipitation of chromium carbide
would thereby be minimized or even eliminated
[1, 2, 3].I It was also suggested that a treatment
at about 1,600 F resulted in a decreased susceptibility to intergranular corrosion upon subsequ ent exposure at lower temperatures. This
stabilizing (sometimes termed desensitizing)
treatment was presumed to precipitate sufficient
chromium carbid es as coalesccd particles, and also
to p ermit diffusion of chromium, so that th e
amount of carbon that would b e available to
precipitate as fine chromium carbides at lower
(sensitizing) temperatures would be negligible.
It was also rcported that decreasing the austenitic grain size diminished the severity of intergranular attack [4] by providing extra grain
boundary area for precipitation of carbides; that
cold rolled matcrial was more r esistant to intergranular attack [3] because of the availability of
numerous slip planes for the precipitation of
carbides upon subsequent h eating ; and that the
addition of elements that caused the formation
of delta ferrite was also beneficial [5] in that,
because of t h e lower solubility for carbides,
precipitation occurred in the areas of delta ferrite.
The most commonly used m ethod of preventing
intergranular corrosion in 18- 8 consists in adding
a strongly carbide-forming element to the steel.
The function of this elem ent is t o combine with
the carbon, thus allowing the chromium to r emain
in solid solution in th e austenite. To be effective
this alloy carbide should be less soluble in th e
1 Figures in brackets indicate the literat ure references at the en d of this
paper.

322

chromium-nickel austenite than is the chromium

carbid e. . Thc two elements mos t frequ en tly used
are titanium and columbium [6, 7] . It is known
that these elem ents are more strongly carbide
forming than is chromium , and evidence is available that the titanium and columbium carbides
are considerably less soluble in 18- 8 austenite
than is chromium carbide. Theoretically, if th e
carbon of 18- 8 stainless steel is fixed by either of
these stabilizing elem ents, that is, precipitated as
TiC or CbC, no chromium carbide would precipitate at the grain boundaries upon subsequent
reheating to sensitizing temperatures, and the
steel thereafter would exhibit no intercrystalline
embrittlement upon exposure to a corroding
medium.
Th e atomic weight of carbon is 12.01 , and that
of titanium is 49.90, and since titanium forms a
carbide corresponding to TiC, it is n ecessary,
theoretically, to have about four times as much
titanium as carbon in order to fix all the carbon as
titanium carbide. Columbium has an atomic
weight of 92 .91 , and as columbium forms a carbide
corresponding to CbC, the th eoretical minimum
amount of columbium that must be added to fix
the carbon is slightly less than eight times the
amount of carbon.
Stabilization consists in reheating the Cb- or
Ti-tl'eated steels wi thin t he temperature range
1,550 to 1,800 F , u sually at about 1,600 F .
At these temperatures, t he precipitation of titanium and columbium carbides within the austenitic
grains is facilitated . Th e slight amount of carbon
r emaining in solid solution after this tr eatment is
(theoretically) insufficient to cause any dele terious
effects (in the form of Cr 4C precipitated at the
grain boundaries) upon subsequent reheating to
sensitizing temperatures.

III. Materials
Most of the steels used in this investigation were
experimental melts, although a few commercial
steels were included . The experimental steels
were melted in an induction furnace and poured
into 3-in. square big end up tapered molds
equipped with hot tops. Each experimental heat
weighed about 75 pounds, and all were ma de in t he
foundry of the Naval R esearch Laboratory. The
ingots were shaped on all four sides as much as
necessary to produce clean surfaces, following
which they were hot forged to slabs about 3 in.
Journal of Research

wide by 1 in. thi ck. Some of these ingots were

forged at the Rustles Iron and Steel Division,
American Rolling Mill Co. , Baltimore, Md . ; all
others were forged at the Naval Research Laborat ory. The slabs were surface ground on four sides
and rolled into O.050-in. strip at the American
Rolling Mill Co ., Middletown, Ohio, the schedule
of operations being a,s follows :
(1) Hot roll at 2,000 to 2,200 F to 0.125 in.
and straighten.
(2) Anneal 6 minutes at 1,950 to 2,000 F
and air cool.
(3) Pickle.
(a) 2}6 minutes in 10-percent H 2S0 4 at
190 F .
(b) 45 minutes in cau stic permanganate
at 200 F .
(c) 10 minutes in l %-percent HF plus 10
per cent HN0 3 at 130 F .
(4) Cold roll to 0.080 in. and straighten.
(5) Ann eal 6 minutes at 1,950 to 2,000 F and
air cool.
(6) Pickle.
(b) and (c) only under (3) above.
(7) Cold roll to 0.050 in. and straighten .
The final strip thus had a cold r edu ction of 37)6
percent. Al thou gh the sequ ence of fabri cation
was no t known, all commercial st eels wer e
furni shed in cold rolled strips 0.050 in. thick , the
same as the experimental steels.
Chemical analyses of all the steels were made on
samples cut from the finished strip ; th ese analyses
are given in table 1. All experimental steels were
made to the base analysis of 18 percent clu-omium ,
10 percent nickel , 1% percent manganese, and
0.40 percent silicon.
During the progress of this investigation a
question was raised as to the effect of nitrogen on
the Cb/C or TilC ratio. Analyses for nitrogen
were therefore mad e, both chemically and by
vacuum fu sion. It is known that nitrogen combines with both titanium and columbium. The
acid-soluble and acid-insoluble nitrogen can be
separa ted by treatment of th e steel with dilute
sulfuri c acid. For purposes of calculation (as
noted in table 1), it was assumed that all of the
acid insoluble nitrogen was combined with either
titanium or columbium, as th e case might be.
Considering the fa ct that the steels that contained
no titanium or columbium also contain ed no acid
Austenitic Stainless Steel

insoluble nitrogen, this as umption appeared Lo be

quite plausible. The revised percentage of
titanium and columbium and the revised r atios of
TilC and CblC were calculated after allowing for
the amounts of titanium a nd columbium combined
with the acid insoluble nitrogen and are included
in table 1.

IV. Procedure
Specimens 3 in. long by %in. wide and 0.050 in.
nominal thickness were taken longitudinally to
the direction of rolling. A small hole was punched
in one end of each specimen so that groups of
specimens could be strung on wire for sensitizing
treatments. All such tr eatments wer e carried
out in furnaces of th e ver tical muffle typ e, electrically h eated , and constructed especially for
this work. The inside dimensions of the muffles
were 4 in. diam eter by 18 in. long. T emp erature
variation wi thin th e working length of each
furnace wer e less than 10 F . Each furnace was
controlled hy an individual r ecording potentiometer controller.
Corrosion tes ts for development of intergranular embri ttlem ent w ere conducted in a boiling acidified copper sulfate solution con tain ed in
2-liter widemouth ed Erlenmey er flasks. These
flasks were equipped with ground glass joint for
fittin g th e r eflux condensers. Specimen were
laid in glass racks so th at there was no m etallic
contact between specimens. No more than seven
specimens wer e placed in an individual flask , and
material of straight 18- 10, 18- 10 Cb , and 18- 10
Ti was always segregated in differ ent flasks. A
minimum of 35 ml of acidified copper sulfate
solution per square inch of surface area was used.
The solution was changed every 48 hoUl's at
which tim & all specimen s wer e examined ; those
showing definite evidence of intergranular attack
were r emoved . Where evidence of attack, as
indicated by a change in color of the solution,
occurred in less than 2 days, the run was interrupted to remove the failed specimen or specim ens, and the solution was changed. 11aximum
time of exposure in the acidified copper sulfate
solution was 14 days .
Preliminary t ests indicated the n ecessity of
carefully controlling certain factors. The original choice of concentration for the boiling copper
sulfate- sulfuric acid solu tion was 13 g of

323

TABLE

1.

Analyses of the test ateels

8teels designated by the prefix "8" are laboratory m e lts; t hose designated by the prefix "0" arC com mercial melts.

8teel No.

Perccntage ofRatio
Percentage of nitrogen
Percentage
R at io (re(chemical an alys is)
(revised)
vised)"
-----,-------;---,------c--.. . , - - - . - , - - - - - - - - Percentage of ni- I - - - , - - - , - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - trogCI1
Acid inOb/O Ti/O (vacuum
Mn
8i
Or
Ni
Ob
Ti
o
Acid
soluble
fusIOn )
Total
Ob
Ti
Ob/ O TilO
soluble (by d ifference)
8.8 ___________________________ _

0-1.. _____________ 0. 025

0 - 10 _____________ . 026
8-37 ______________ .044
8- 4 _______________ .072
8-23 ______________ . lI 3

0.70
.59
1.10
I. 13
1.11

0. 50
.40
.33
. 45
.3 7

19,7
17,2
17.8
18,0
17. 6

12.6
10.5
10.2
10.2

8- 26 ______________
8- 6 _______________
8- 12 ____________ __

0-3 ._____ __ _______

.068
.070
.074
. 060

1. 21
1. 23
1. 23
1. 69

.37
,54
.38
.67

17.8
17,6
17.9
17.7

10.0
10.1
10.0
H.O

0,50
.61
.75
.71

8 - 27 ___________ .__

.087

1.19

. 40

17.8

10.1

8- 28 _______ ___ ____

8- 17 ______________
S-18 ____________ ._

. 115
. 117
.132

1. 22
I. 21
1.18

.40
. 40
.40

17,7
18.0
17,9

9,9
10, 1
10, I

8-34 ______ . ______ .

S-21. _____________

1.17
1. 49
L 32
1. 23
1. 52
L 25

.45
.4 1
,40
.53
.50
. 52

17,7
17,9
18,3
18.2
17,8
18.0

10. 2

0 - 2_________ ______
0 - 8 ______________

.067
.071
.064
.065
.070
.075

S- 25 ______________

. 082

1.23

. 40

17.7

8-35 __________ .____

8-36 ______________
8- 32 ____________ ._

. 107
. 109
.105

1.29
1. 35
1. 44

. 42
. 48
.40

17. 5
17,5
18.0

0 - 6_______________
8-39 _______ .______

0.041
. 026
. 049
.036
. 041

0.039
. 026
,053
.036
. 039

0.039
. 025
. 053
.035
. 039

8.7
10.1
1l.8

. 065
.056
. 051
. . 032

. 061
.054
.047
. 035

. 04l
. 034
. 024
.015

. 020
0,37
. 020
. 48
.[Link]
. 020
. 58

5.4
6.9
8. 1
9.7

. 76

8. 7

.059

.057

.030

. 027

. 58

6.7

,92
1. 14

8,0
9.7

1. 47

11. 1

. 04 5
.039
.044

. 045
.040
. 046

. 022
.0l6
. 014

.023
. 024
. 032

. 77
. 98
1. 26

6.7
8.3
9.5

.039
.031
. 013
. 023
. OlD
. 007

. 001
.002
. 002
. 001
. 001
, 001

. 038
,029
. Oil
,022
.009
.006

0,13
.22
,3 1
.28
. 47
. 57

1. 9
3,1
4,8
4.3
6.7
7.6

7.4

0,000
.001
. 000
. 001
. 000

10.0
10,1
9,6
10,6

O. 26
,32
.35
,36
. 50
. 59

3. 9
4.5
5,5
5,5
7. 1
7,9

.031
.027
.0 12
.023
. OlD
. 006

9. 9

.37

4. .5

.017

.022

. 001

. 021

. 30

3.7

.44
.54
.61

4,1
5.0
5,8

.012
. 022
.016

.016
.018
.017

. 001
. 001
. 001

. 015

.39
. 48
. 56

3.6
4.4
5.3

to.

9. i
10.0 ______ _
9.9 1-------

:~:~ :::::::1

"T he revised percentages of 1'i and Ob were calculated by assumi n g t hat aLi of the aeid insoluble nitrogen was combined as TiN o r ObN. According to the
atomic weig hts of tbese elements. I part of nitrogen will combine with 3.43 parts of titanium or 6.64 parts of colum b ium by we igh t . Multiplying these figures
by the amount. of acid insohlblcIlitrogen in the titanium- and colu mbium trcated steels, respectivel y, and s ubtracting the results fro m the amounts of titanium
and columbium present ill the steels gives the revised amounts of t itan ium or columbium available fol' combinat ion wit b car bOll. The revised Til e and Cbl C
ratios were then obtained by dividing the redsed percentages of t itani um .and col umbium by the carbon contents

CuS045H 20, 47 ml of concentrated H 2S0 4, and

distilled water to make 1 liter of solu tion. This
solut ion, which has b een used by some investigators, corresponded to 0.8 percent of CUS04 and
8.2 p ercent of H 2S0 4 , and the ratio of CUS04 to
H 2S0 4 proved too low to prevent surface corrosion in many of the steels. Since the r esultant
corrosion complicated the evaluation of intergranular embrittlement, this solution was discarded in favor of that containing 100 g of
CuS0 4 5H 20 , 100 ml of concentrated H 2S0 4 (sp gr
1.84), and 900 ml of distilled water. This solution
correspond ed to 5.4 percent of CUS04 and 15.4
percen t of H 2S0 4 by weight.
.
Th e scale that form ed on specimens during
sensitization was influenced by both t ime and

324

temperature. In order to eliminate the variable

which scale would introduce, it was decided to
remove all scale. Polishing was tried and proved
to be too time-consuming; pickling was therefore
adop ted with a schedule of operations as follows:
(1 ) Pickle in 8 percent H 2S0 4 +4 percent HCI at
160 0 F for 10 minutes; wash, scrub , and dry; (2)
pickle in 10 p ercent HN0 3 + 1 percent HF at
160 0 F for 5 minutes; wash , scrub , and dry; (3)
passivate in 20 p ercent HN0 3 at 125 0 F for 15
minutes; wash and dry.
To ascertain whether the m ethod of scale
r emoval influenced the 8usceptibility to intergranular attack, check tests were made on certain
specimens both as p ickled and as polished . The8e
tests showed that the m ethod of 8cale removal
Journal of Research

had no detectabl e effeet on Lh e p eClmens t hat

were extrem ely v ulnerable Lo inte rgranular embrittlement. With specim ens t h at wer e modef, ately vulnerabl e, it appeared that th e extent of
inter-granular attack was gr eater in specimens
that had b een pickled th an in specimens that h as
b een polish ed . Typi cal microstru ctures of such
specimens after corrosion are shown in figure 1.
Since it i frequ ently comm ercial practice to
finish stainle s steeis by pickling, it appeared
logical to test t h e s teels as fini sh ed in th at manner.
Th e suscep t ibility to inter-gr anular attack of
t h e various steels was d et ermined for 12 different
init ial conditions, as listed in tables 2 to 24. A
few steels wer e t ested in only five different initial
conditions, as m ay b e seen from th e par ticul ar
tablp- involved.
In t h e first series of tests (carri ed ou t on th e cold
rolled steels), sp ecimens from each steel were
tested in 16 sens itized conditions. Four sensitizing temperatures were used - 840, ] ,020, ] ,200,
and 1,380 F. Single spec imens were held at each
sensitizing temper atu re for 2 hours, 2, 8, and 2 1
days. After exposure to t h e boiling copper sulfate
solut ion, it was apparen t t h at cer tain of Lllese
sensitizing treatm ents wer e quite iIU10CUOUS and
could b e di scarded. It was decided, th erefore,
to decrease t h e number of sens itizing cond it ions
to seven in all- t hese were 21 days at 40 F;
2 hours, 2, 8, and 2] days at 1,020 F; and 2 hours
and 2 days at 1,200 F. A control specimen, n ot
sensitized, was included in each series .
E valuation of intergranular embrittlem ent was
made by observations of: (a) ch an ge in electrical
resistivity, (b) loss in m etallic ring when th e test
specimen was dropped on a steel plate, (c) extent
of cracks occurring after- bend tests of 180, and
(d) appearance of t h e corroded sections under th e
mi croscop e. The in terpretation of th ese variou s
tests was frequently influenced by the per sonal
factor , particularly in cases where only sligh t
eviden ce of failure existed. Frequently, also,
eviden ce of failure by one method was not corroborated b y anoth er .

Austenitic Stainl ess Steel

778365-48- -5

..

. "
~

-"1 - .
,.- .- ........

'".

0
1&1
%

(I)

::::;

Q.

B
F I GU R E

1.

Effect of method of scale removal on susce ptibility

to inter granular attack.

A, Extremely vulnerable material after 2 days in t be boiling acidified copper

suJfate solu tion . Unetehed. X IOO. B, L ess vulnerable ma terial after6days
in the boiliug acidified copper sulfate solu tion. U netched . X500.

325

TABLE

2.

Effects of variotts tTeatments tt pon the suscepti bility to inteTgmnulaT attack of steel C- l
(Oarbon= 0.025%-n o stabilizing clement)
Sensitizin g treatmen t

Treatment of steel su bseq uent to cold-rolling

Stabilizing

Annealin g

None

21 d ays
2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days 2 hou rs
2 days
at 840F at 1,020F at 1,020 at 1,020 o F at 1,020F at 1,200F at 1,200

- - - - - -- - - - 1 - - - - - -- - - -1 - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None . __________ . ___________________ N one _______ ______ -_________________

Do. ________ _____ ___ _____________ y, bour at 1,600F , A. C ___________
Y, hour at 1,800F , W. Q -- ---------- N one. ____________________________ _
Do _____ _____ ____________________ y, hour at 1,600 F, A. C ____ ______
Do ______________________________ 2 bours at l,600o F, A. C ___________
;-2 bour at 1,800 F, A_ C ___ _________ N onc _____ __________ ____ _______ __ __
Do ______________________________ 1 ho ur at l,600 F, A. C ____________
3 min . at 1,975 F , W. Q - - ---------- N one ____________________ __ ________
C ____________
Do_ - - -_.- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - I bou r at I ,600F , A .
3 min at 1,975 F , A_ C ______________ None. _. _. _________________________
Do__________________ ____ ___ _____ Yo hour at 1,600 F , A . 0 __________
D o______________________________ 2 hours at 1,600 F , A. 0 ___ ____ ___

TABLE

3.

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
AA
A
AA
A
A

A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

D0
DE
B
B
CCCD
BC
BD+
C-

E+
DDE
DE
DE

D
D
D
CD
DE
D
D-

DDE
E+
DE
CD
D
CD
CD
C
D
D+

A
A
AA
AAA
A
A
A
A
A-

A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
AA-

Effect of various treatments upon the susceptibility to intergmmdar attack of steel C- tO

(Carbon= 0.026%-no stabiliziug clement)
Sensitizing t reatmen t

Treatment of steel subsequent to cold-rolling

21 days
2 h ours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 hours
2 days
at 840F a t 1,020 oF at 1,020 ./<' at I ,020F at 1,020 oF at 1,200oF at 1.200
- - - - - - - - - -- - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Annealing

Stabilizing

None

None _______________ . _______________

Do ____________________ ___ _--- --J.1i hour at 1,800 F, W. Q ----------Do __ ____________________________
Do __ ______________________ --- --J.1i hour at 1,800 F , A. C __ __________
Do ____ __ ________________________

N one __ _______________ ______ _______

J.1i bour at 1,600 F ,A. C __________
None ________________ __ ____________
y, hou r at 1,600 F, A. C _______ ___
2 hours at 1,600 F, A. C __________
None __________ ____________________
C ____________
I hour at 1,600 o F , A.
K one ___________________________ ___
I hour at 1,600 F, A. C ___ ________
Ko ne ___________ __ _________________
0 ___ _______
Yo hour at 1,600 0 F, A.
2 hours at 1,600 F, A. C __________

A
A

3 min at 1,975 F , W. Q ------------Do _____________________ - __ --- --3 min at 1,975 :b' , A. C ________ __ ____
Do ____________ ___ _______________
Do __ _ -- - - - - ------ -- -- -- - --- - - - - -

TABLE

4.

A-

A
.'1.-

A
A
A

B+
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A

A
A

A
A

A
AA
A
A
A
A

BDE
E+
E+
E+
E+

E
E

A
A
A
A

E+
D+
D+
D

A-

A
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E

E
E
E
E
E

E
E
E
E
E
E

AAAB
A
AAD
AB
AAA
A

A
BCBBC
CD
0

ABC
BC
C+
C-

Effect of vari ou s tTe atments upon the susceptibility to inteTgmnu lar attack of steel 8 - 37
(Carbon ~ 0.044 %-n o

stabili zin g element)

Sensitizing treatm ent

Treat ment of steel subseq uent t o cOld-rolling

Annealin g

Stabilizing

NOll e

21 days 2 hours
2 da ys
8 days
21 da ys 2 h()u rs
2 days
at 840F a t 1,020F at I,020 F at 1,020 at 1.0200F at 1,200F at 1,200 oF

------------1-----------1------------------------No ne __________________ ____________

Do ______________________________ Yo bour at 1,600 0 F , A. C ______ ____
Y, hour a t 1,800 0 1?, W. Q ----------- None _____________________________ _
Do _________________________ _____ Y, hour at 1,600 l~, A. 0 __________
Do ______________________________ 2 hours at 1.600 F,A . 0 __________
TOlle ____________________ __ ___ _ ____ _

326

A
A
A
A

AB
D
A-

A
AB
A

A-

A-

A-

E+
E
E+
DE
CD

E
E
E
E
E

D+
E
E
E
E

AB
B+
D+
A
BC

A
A
DE

Journal of Research

TABLE

5.

E,O'ect of

vario ~,s

treatments upon the susceptibiLity to intergTanular attack of steel 8 - 4

(Carbon= 0.072%-1l0 stabi lizing elemellt)

~
i

Treatment of steel subseq uent to cold-rolling

Sens itizin g treatmen t

---------------------,---------------------------------------,----,-----,-----,-----,-----Stabilizing

An nealing

N on e

21 da ys
2 hOll rs
2 days
8 days
21 days 2 hOllrs
2 days
at 840 ll' at 1,020o F at 1,02QoF at 1,020 0 }? at 1,020 oF at 1,200 0 } "' at 1,200 F'

__-----------------1-------------------11----- ----- - ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

)?

N one. _____ . __ . _____________________ Nono _____________ ___ __ ______ ______

Do ___ _______________________ ____ y,
hour a t 1,600 0 F , A. C __________
Y, hour at I,SOOo F , W. Q. ----------- N one ______________ _____ ___ . _. ___ ._
D o ______________________________ y, hour at 1,600 F, A. C __________
D o______________________________ 2 hours at 1,600 F. A. C ____ ______
C ______ ___ ___ N one ______________________________
Y, hour a t 1,SOOo .F, A.
D o ______________________________ 1 hour a t 1,600 F , A. C ___________
3 min at 1,975 F , W. Q.------------- N on o__ ___ __ ___ __ _____ ___ __________
D o ______ ________________________ 1 hour at ] ,600 1", A . C ___________
3 min a t 1,975 F , A . C ____ __________ Non e ___________________ . ____ .. ____
Do ______________________________ Y, hour at 1,600 Y, A. C __________
D o __ ____________________________ 2 hours a t 1,600 Y , A. C __________

T A BLl o

6_

A
B
A
DE
D
A
C-

D+
E
A-

A
E
A
D
E+

D
A

C
C+

DE
E
A
E
E
A
E
A
E+
A
D
E+

E
D
F.

E
FE
E
E
]~

E
DE
E
D
E

E+

E
E
E
E
E
E
E
].;+
E
E
E

E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E+
E
E
E

E
CD
E
E
E
E
E
E

DE
E
E
E

A
A
E
E
E+
E
D
E
E
E
E
E

.1

E,O'ect of various t1'eatments upon the su sce ptibi li ty to inte1'granular attack of steel 8-23
(Carbon = 0. 11 3%-no stabilizing clemen t)

T reatm en t of steel su bsequenL to cold-rOiling

Stabilizi ng

Annealing

Sensitizing t reatm en t
Non e

21 da ys 2 bours
2 days
8 da ys . 21 d ays
2 hours
2 days
a L8401' at 1.020F at 1,0200F a t ],020F a t 1,020 o F a t 1,200F aL 1,200F

----- - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - ----N one. ____ __. ___________ . ___________ N one _____________________________
Do ______________________________ y, hom a L 1,600 F, A. C __________
Y, hour a t 1,SOOo F W. Q - ---------- None. _____________________________
Do ______________________________ Y, hour a t 1,600 F , A . C ____ ______
Do ______________________________ 2 hours a t I,Goo :F, A. C __________

TABLE

7.

A
0+
A
E+
j)

D
E
B+
E+
E

DE
E
D+
E

E
E+
E
E+
E

E
E

lH
E

E
E+
E
E
E+

E
D
E

A
E

E
E

E
BC

Ejlect of vw'ious t1'ealments u pon the su scepti bili ty to intel'granu /m' attack of steel 8 -26
(Carbon = 0.068%, co lumbium = 0. 50%; CbjC= i.4 )

'rreatm ent of steel subsequ en t to cold -ro ll in g

AnnealiJl g

Stabilizing

Sensi tizin g treat men t

Ton e

21 days
a t 840 F

2 hours
2 days 8 days
21 dAYs
2 hOllrs
2 days
1,020 oF a t 1,0201" a t 1,020F at 1 , 0200 ~' a t 1,200 F at 1,200F

qL

----- - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- --------- - - - ----------- - - - - - - - -

K ooe _______________________________ N one________ ___ ___________________

C __ _________
D o ______________________________
J.1! hour a t 1600 F , A .
J.1! h our a t 1,800 F, W. Q.- -- -- -- ---- N onc. __ . __________________________
D o______________________________ y, hour a t 1,600 F , A. C ________ __
D o_____________________________ . 2 hours a t ] ,600 1",A. C ____ ___ ___
J.1! haUl' at 1,800 F , A . C - - - - - - - - - - - 1\TOIle. ___ __________________________
Do ______________________________ 1 hour a t 1,600 F,A . C ___________
3 min at 1,975 F , W , Q. ---- -.- .---- N one ___ . _________________ __ _____ __
D o_____________________________ _ 1 haUl' a t 1,6000 Ii', A. C ____________
C ______________ None ____ __________________________
3 mill a t ],975 F , A .
D o______________________________ y, hour a t 1,600 1", A. C __________
Do ______________________________ 2 hou rs at 1,600 F , A . C ______ ___ _

Austenitic Stainless Steel

A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A

A
A
A
A

13+

A-

A
A
A

A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A

A
A
A

D
D
E+
D
D+
DE
E+
C])

E+
DE
D-

n+
DE
E
E+
E+
E
E+
E
DE
E+
E
E

A
D+
E

E+
E

E+
E+
E
D
E
E+
E+

A
A
A
A
A
AB

ABC
AA

AA-

A
A

A
A
A
A

AA
AAA-

327

/'

TABLE

8.

Effect, of various treatments 1,pon the susceptibility to intergranular attack of steel 8 - 6

(Carbon ~ 0.070%, columbium ~ 0.61 % ; Cb/C ~8 .7)

Sensitizing troatment

Treatment of steel subsequent to COld-rolling

Stabilizing

Annealing

None

21 days
2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 h ours
? clays
at 8{0F a t 1.0200F at 1,020 0 F at 1,020 0F at 1,02OF at 1.200F at 1,200F

----------1-----------1-----------------------None ___ ___________ ._____ ________ __ _ l'\ one _______________ ____ __________ _
A
B
AB
AB
AB
A
AB+
Do ______________________________
hour a t 1,800 F , W . Q ___________
Do ______________________________
Do ___ ___ ________________________
Yo hour at 1.800 F , A. C __________ __
Do ______________________________
3 min at 1,975 F, W . Q_____________
Do ______________________________
3 min at 1,975 F , A. C ______________
Do _____ ____________ __ ___ ________
Do __________ ____________________

Yo

TABLE

9.

Yo

hour at 1,600 F, A . C _________ _

None _______________________ -- - --- Yo hour at 1,600 F, A. C _________ _
2 hours at 1,600 F, A. C _________ _
None ________ : ____________________ _
1 hour at 1,600 F, A. C __________ _
None ______________ __ _____________ _
1 hour at 1,600 F , A . C ___ __ _____ _
N one ________ _____________________ _
Yo hOllr at 1,600 F, A. C _________ _
2 hours at 1,600 F, A . C _________ _

A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

C-

C+
D+

C-

D-

E+
E+

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

E+
E+

D-

D-

D-

B+

E
E

E
D

A
A
A
A
A
A

DE

E+

A-

E
E

A-

AA-

A-

CBC
C
C
D
DE

E+
DE

0;;

Effect of various treatments upon the susceptibility to intergranular attack of steel 8 - 12

(Carbon~0.074 %, columbium ~ O,75 %; Cb/C~lO.l)

Sensitizing treatment

'freatment of stoel subsequent to cold-rolling

Stabilizing

Annealing

None

21 days
2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 hours
2 d ays
at 840F at 1,020F at 1,0200F at 1,0200F at 1,02OF at 1,200 o F at 1,200 0F

---------1---------1-----------------------Nonc ____ __ _______________ .____ _____ None . - --- ~ ____ _____ ------ --- ----A
AB
AA
AA
B+
A
Do ___ __ ________________ . ___ . ____
hour at 1,800 F, W . Q ___________
Do ______________________________
Do __ ___________________________ .
Yo hour at 1,800 F, A . C ____________
Do ______________________________
3 min at ] ,975 F, \ \T. Q _____________
Do ___________________________ ___
3 min at 1,975 F, A. C _______ ______
Do ____________________ . _________
Do ______________________________

Y.

TABLE

10.

Y.

hour at 1,600 F, A . C _________ _

None _______________________ _____ _
Y. hour a t 1,600 F, A. C _________ _
2 hou rs at 1,600 F, A. C ___ ______ _
None _ - --------------------------1 hour at 1,600 F, A . C __________ _
None . - _____ . __. __________ . ______ _
1 hour at 1,600 F, A . C _________ __
None ____ _____ ___________________ _
Y. hour at 1,600 F, A. C _________ _
2 hours at 1,600 F, A. C _________ _

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A

A-

A-

A-

A
A
A
A
A

B+

B
B
B

D+

B-

A-

AB

C-

C-

C
C

B+
AAB

C+

AA

A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A-

Effect of various treatments upon the susceptibility to intergranulm- attack of steel C- 3

J,

(Carhon~O.060%, colum biurn~O.71%; Cb/C~11.8)

Treatment of steel subsequent to cOld- roliing
Annealing

Stabilizing

Sensitizing treatment
None

21 days
2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 hours
2 days
at 840F at 1,020 0 }' at 1,0200F at 1,0200F at J,0200F a t 1,"001' at 1,200F

- - - - -- - - -1- - - - - -- - -1- - - - -- - - - - None _______ ____________ ---- -- - -- - -.

Do __ ________________ .--------- -

Y.

hour at 1,800 F , W. Q ----------.

Do __________ _____ ___ ---- - - --- - -Do ______ _. _____________________ _
Yo hour at 1,800 F, A. C ___________ _
Do ________________ ------ ----- - -3 min at J,975 F, W. Q____________ _
Do _____________________________ _
3 min a t 1,975 F, A. C _____________
Do ___ ___________________________
Do __ . ___________________________

328

Nonc ________ _________ ___________ _

y. hour at 1,600 F, A. C ______ ___ _
None _____ __ ______ __ _____________ _
y. hour at 1,600 F, A. C __ _______ _
2 hours at 1,600 F, A. C _________ _
None _________________________ ___ _
I honr at 1,600 F, A. C __________ _
l\Tone __ ___ _______ ._ .. __ . ____ _____
1 hour at 1,600 F, A . C __________ _
None __ __________________________ _
Y. ho ur at J,6000 F, A. C _________ _
2 hours at 1,600 F , A . C _________ _

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

1I

------------A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A

A-

A-

A-

A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A

A-

A-

A-

A
A
A
A

A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A

AA

AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

Journal o f Research

T ABL], 11.

Effect of various treatments 1ipon the susceptibility to intel'gmmilar attack of steel 8 -27
(Carboo=0.087%, colum bium=0.i6%; Cb/C=8.7)

Treatment of steel subseq uent to cO ld- roiling

Sta bilizing

Annealing

Sensithing treatment
None

21 days 2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 hours
2 days
at 840 !!' at 1,0201' at 1,02OF at 1,020 0F at 1,020.1<' at 1,2OO 0 !!' at 1,200 0F

------------1------------1-------------------------

';!<

Nooe ________ . ______________________ None . _. ____ __. _____ __ ______ . _____

Do ______________________________
0 __________
~ hour at 1,600 F , A .
~ bour at 1,800 ]~, W. Q------.---- None . - - - - - - - - - - - ----- -- - -- - - - - --Do _________________________ _____ ~ hour at 1,600 F, A. 0 _______ ___
Do ______________________________ 2 hours at 1,600 F , A. 0 __________

T ABLE

12 .

A
A
A

A
A

B+
A
A
A
A

D
0D
D
OD

A
A
A

A
A

A-

0
DE
E+
E+

A13

E+
E+
D

A
A
A

A
A

A
A

Effect of various treatments u pon the suscep t.i bility to intel'gmmilar attack of steel 8 - 28
(03rbon = 0.115%, eO]lllnbium = 0.92%; Ob/0=8.0)
Sensitizing treatmen t

Treatment of steel subsequent to cold-rolling

[Link]

Annealing

Non e

21 days
2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days 2 hours
2 days
at 840F at 1,02OF at 1,02OF at 1,02OF at 1,0201' at 1,2001' at 1,200' 1'

------------1------------1------------------------

{
I

None __________________________ -- --- None ______________________________

Do ______________________________ ~ hour at 1,600 F, A. 0 __________
N one __________ _______________ _____
~ bour at 1,800' F, W. Q------ - - - Do ___________________ . - - - -- --- -- ~ bour at 1,600 F,A . 0 __________
Do __________________________ ____ 2 hours at 1,600 F,A. C ________ :_
Y2 bour at 1,800 F, A. 0 __________ __ N one ______________________________
Do ___________________ -- - - -- --- -- 1 bOll r at 1,600 l' A. 0 ________ ___
3 min at 1,975 F , W. Q ------------- N one ______________________________
Do _______________________ -_ -- - __ I hour at 1,600 F,A. 0 ___________
C ______________ N one _______ . ______________________
3 min at 1,975 F, A.
Do _________________ -- ---- ------- ~ bour at 1,600 F,A . 0 __________
Do _______________________ -- -- - __ 2 bours at ],600 0 F, A. C _________ .

TABLE

13_

A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

AA

0D+

])8

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

D
0DE
D
D+
OD
E+
DE+

D+
D+
E
E+
E+
DE
DE
E
E
DE
E+
E+

ABO
E

E+
DE
E+
DE

0E
E+
DE

AA
A
A
A

AB+
D-

AA-

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A-

A-

A-

Effect of various treatments 1ipon the susceptibility to inle1'granular attack of steel 8 - 17

(Oar bon=0. 117%, colum bium = 1.14%; Ob/0=9.7)
Sensitizing treatment

Treatment of steel subsequen t to cold-rolling

Sta bilizing

.Anneal ing

None

21 days 2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 clays 2 bOll rs
2 days
at 840F at 1,020'1' at 1,020' 1' at 1,020F at 1,0200 ~' at 1,2001' at 1,200' .!!'

----------1----------1------------------------None __________________ - ____ - ----- -Do ________________________ -- -- -~

bour at 1,800 F, W. Q----------Do ____________________________ -Do _________________ ___ __________

bour at 1,800 F,A. C. ___________
Do ____________________ . _________

~T

onc ______________________________

hOllr at 1,600 F, A. 0 __________

N ono ______________________________

hour at 1,600 F , A. 0 __________

2 hours at 1,61l0 F,A. 0 ________ . _
N one ___________________________ -.. 0 ___________
1 hour at 1,600 0 F A.
~

3 min at 1,975' F, W . Q------------- None ______________________________

Do ___ ___________________________
3 min at 1,975' F,A. 0 ____________ __
Do ____________________ . _________
Do ______________________________

1 bour at 1,600 F, A. 0 ___________

"oue _____ ______________________ ___
0 ______ ____
~ bour at 1,600 F,A.
2 hours at 1,600 F , A. 0 __________

Austenitic Stainless Steel

B+

A-

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A

A
A
A
A
A

A
A

A
A

A
Be
AD+

A-

A
A

D+
0-

AB
A
A
AD
A

AD
A

A
D
A
AD
DO
0+
B

DD
C

AA

A
A

A
A
A
A
A

A
A

A-

A
A-

B+

An
A
A

D+
D+
B
CD
0

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A-

329

TABLE

14.

E:O'ect of various l1'eatments tlpon the susceptibility to intergranttlar attack of steel S - 18

(Carbon = 0.132%, columbi um =1.47% ; Cb/C=ll.1 )
Sensitizing treatment

Treatment of steol subseqn ent to coldrolling

Tone

Stabilizing

Annealing

21 days 2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days 1 2 bours
2 days
at 840F at 1,02OF at 1,020 F at 1,02OF at 1,0200F at 1,2000F at 1,200F

------ ------------1--- --None _______________________________ N one. ____________________________

Do __ . ___________________________ y, hour at 1,600 F, A. C . ____ ._. __
Y, bour at 1,800 F, ' V . Q - -_ ._.-._-- None __ ________________________ __
Do ___________ . ________________ . Y, hour at 1,600 F , A. C. ______ . __
Do __ ___________________________
2 hours at 1,600 :F A. C .. _____ . __
Y, bour at 1,800 F , A. C . __________ . None _________________ ____________
Do __ . _________ . _________________ 1 hour at 1,600 F,A. C ___________
3 min at 1,975 F , 'V. Q _._---_._._-- None. ______ ________________ . _____
Do _. _______________ . ___________ 1 hour at 1,600 F, A. C . ___ . ______
3 min at 1,975 F, A. C . ____ ._._. __ . 1\To 1l e. _ -- _ --- ------- -- ---- ------.Do _________
C . _________
----------------.- Y2 hour at 1,600 F, A.
Do _____________________ . _______ 2 bours at 1,600 F,A. C .. ________
~

TABLE

15.

A
A
A
A

A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A-

A
A

A-

A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A

A
A
A

A-

A
A

AA

21 A

A-

A
A

A-

A
A

A-

A
A
AB
AB+
B
A-

A
B+
A
AAB+
A-

A
A

A
A
A
A
A

A
A

A
A

A
A

A
A

j
~

Effect of various t1'eatments upon the stlsceptibility to inte1'granular attack of steel S - 34

(Carbon = 0.067%, tita n ium=O.26%; T i/ C=3.9)
Sensitizin g treatm ent

'l'reatment of st eel s ubsequent to eoldrolling

Am1ealing

Stabilizing

N on e

21 days 2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 hours
2 days
at 840F at 1,020 0F at 1,020 F at J,0200F at J,02OF a t 1,200F at 1,2001"

-------------1--------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---N one ___________________ ____________ None _____________________________

Do _______________ ._. ___________

y, hour at 1,600 F,A. C . _____ . ___

Y, bOll I' a t 1,800 F , ",V. Q -.--------Do _______________ . __________ . __

Do __ _____ . _______ . ____ . ________
y, hour at 1,800 F , A . C ._
Do ______________________ . ______

None _____________________________

Y, hour at 1,600 F, A. C . ___ ._. ___

2 hours at 1,600 F,A. 0 ._._. ___ ._
None. ____________________ . _______
1 bour at 1,600 F , A. C _____ . ___._
3 min at ] ,975 F, ",V. Q .------------ None _________________ . _, _________
Do _________________________ . ____ I hour at 1,600 F , A . C ___ . _____ ._
3 min at 1,975 F A. C ____ . ___ . ___ . None - --------------------------Do __ ______________ . ____________ Y2 hour at 1,600 0 F , A. C. _____ . ___
Do _______ , ____________ . ___ . __ .. 2 bours at l,6000 F,A. C , ________ .

A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
AB
A

A
A-

C+
E+

B
D

E
D
A
C
A
D+
A
BC
B-

D
D+
A
BA

CD
A
B+
B-

DE
E
E
E
E
E
C+
E+
BE
DE

DE
E+
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E

E+
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E+
E
E

B+
ADE

n
C+
DE
C+
E+
CE+
C
C+

A
A
CB
ACD
A
E
D+
E
E
CD

\
TABLE

16.

E:O'ect of various treatments tipon the suscepti bility to intel'gmnular attack of steel S-21
(Carbon=O.071%, titanium=0.32%; Ti/C = 4.5)

Treatment of steel subsequent to coldrolling

A1Ulcaltng

Stabilizing

Sensitizing treatm ent

None

21 da ys
2 hours
2 days
8 days
2l days 2 hours
2 days
at 840F at 1,020 0F at 1,02O F at 1,020 0F at 1,0200F at 1,200 o F at 1.2OOF

_ _ - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N one _______________________________ None ______________________________

Do . _______________________ , _____ y, hour at 1,600 F, A . C _. ________
Y, bour at 1,800 F W. Q .. --------- J\Tone _______ -- ________ ___________ -Do . ___________ . _________________ y, bour a t 1,600 F, A. C _. ___ . ___ .
Do. ______ . ____ . ___________ ______ 2 hOUl'sa t 1,600 F, A . C _._. _____ .
Y, bour at 1,800 F, A . C . ___________ None. _____________________________
Do . ______ . _____ .. _____ . _________ 1 h our a t 1,600 F,A . C ._._._, ____
3 min at 1,975 F , W . Q------------- None ______________________________
Do .___________________________ ._
1 hour at 1,600 F, A . C ._._._. ____
3 min a t 1,975 F , A. C. _____________ None ______________________________
Do ____________________ . _________ y, hour at 1,600 F,A . C _. ___ , ____
Do ._. ___________________________
2 bours at 1,600 F,A . C _, ________

330

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A-

CAB
A
CD
AA
B+
A
BC
A
AB

A-

B
AB
A

B
AB
A
AA
B+
A

AB
B

D
E+
E
E
E+
E
CD
D+
E+
DE
E+

D-

DE
E+
E

E
E+
E
DE
E
E+
E
E

D
E+
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E+
E
E

B+

AD
A
AD
D+
BC
E
BDE
BC
BC

A
A
AA
AB+
A
DE
B
E+
CD
C

Journal of Research

T ABLE

17.

EjJect of vaTious t1'eatments upon the susceptibility to 1:nln'gTUmdar attack oj

.~te el

S- 39

(Carbon=0.065% . titani um =0.36% ; Ti/ C =5 .5)

Sensitizing treatment

Tl'catmellt of s lecl s u bscqucnt io cold-ro llin g

A nnealing

Stabilizing

None

21 days

2 hours

2 days

8 clays

21 days

2 hours

2 da y~

at 84QoF at J,020 F at 1,020oF fit l ,020 oF at 1,200 F at I. 020F at i,200o P

--- - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - None. _ ____ _________________________ N OIle. _________________ ______ _____ _

Do ______________________________
hour at 1,800 F, W. Q ___________
Do ______________________________
Do _____________________________ _
Yo hOllr at 1,800 F, A. C __________ __
Do ______________________________
3 llIin at 1,975 F, W . Q _____________
Do _________________ __ ___ ___ _____
3 min a t 1,975 F, A. C ______________
Do _______________________ ____ ___
Do ________________________ ______

Yo

Yo

bour at 1,600 F, A . C _________ _

None ___ ___ ___ ____ __ ______________ _
Yo hour a t 1,600 F, A. C ___ __ ___ __
2 b oursat 1,600 F, A. C _________ _
NOllC __________________________ ___ _
1 hour at 1,600 F , A. C _________ __
NOlle _____________________________ _
1 h our at 1,600 F, A. C __________ _
Non e _____________ ___ _____________ _
Yo hour at 1,600 F, A. C __________ _
2 h ou r s at 1.600" F, A. C _________ _

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

B+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A-

B+

AAD
DBC
BC

C-

BBC
CBC

A
A

A
A

CBC
BC

AA

CD

AAD
A

AA
A
A
A
A
A

E+

B
E

A-

BO

AB
AD

D+

A-

E
D

A
A
A

A-

2 hours

2 d ays

C+

C+

CD

AAA

A-

(
!

TAB I, E

18_ E,O'ect oj various treatments 1lpon the s1lscepti bility to inteTgranular allack of steel C- 6
(C arbon = O.OG4 %, titanium = 0.35% , 'l'i/ C =5.5)

Trca tment of s tccl s u b sequcnt to cold-rolling

Annealin g

StabiliziJl g

Scn sitizing tl'ca tment

N
l one

1 21 days

2 bours

2 clays

8 clays

21 days

at 8400F at 1,020 0 F at 1,020 F at 1,020 0l? at 1,020 F 3t 1,200 F at 1,200 F

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None . _ . __ . ____ ._______ __ _____ __ __ __ None _____________ . __ _____ ______ ___

Do _. ____________________________ Yo hour at 1,600 F, A. 0 __________

Yo
Yo

hour at 1, 00 F , W . Q ___________
Do _____________________________
D o _____________________________
haul' at 1,800 F, A. C ____________
D o ____________________________

Nonc ______________________________
hour at 1,600 F, A . C __________
2 bOllI's at 1,600 ]'- , A. C _________
NO ll c ____________________________
1 hour at 1,600 10', A . 0 ___________

Yo

3-min at. 1,975 F , 'V. Q ____________ None , ______________________ ._____

Do ____________________________ 1 hour at 1,600 F, A . C ___________
3-min a t 1.975 F, A. C _____________
Do _____________________________
Do _____________________________

T ABLE

19.

No n e ______________________________
Yo haUl' at 1.600 F, A . C__ ________
2 h o urs at 1,600 F, A. C __________

A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A

A
.A

A
A
A
A

AA
A
A
A

A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A

11
A

A-

A-

AU
A-

C-

AA

A-

A
A
A
A
A

AU

c.:
BC

C-

A-

DC-

A-

A
A

AB

D
-13

U+
0+

D+

it

A
A

A-

n-

A
A
A

AA
A

A
A
A

AA
B

CD

ll+
D

A-

0+

C+

li.-

EIJect of various t1'eatments upon the susceptibility to intergmnulw' attack of steel C-2
(Carbon = 0.070% , ti ta nium = 0. 50%; Ti/ C = 7.1)

Treatment of stcel s u bsequent to COld -roilin g

Sen s itizing treatm ent

21 days
2 hours
2 days
8 clays
21 days
2 hours
2 days
Ann ealing
Stabi liz ing
None I at
840 F at 1,020 ), a t I,020 o F at 1,020 1' at 1.020 o F at 1,200 1' at 1,2()()OF
---__---------1------------ ---- ---- ---- - - - ---- ---- ---- ---Nonc __ ___ ____ _____ __ __ __ _ ___ __ _____ Nouc _______ _______ ____ ______ ____ __
Do ____ __ ________________________ Yo h a ul' at 1,600 F , A. C __________

Yo

h our at 1,800 F, W. Q ____________

Do ___ _____ ______ ______ ________ __
Do __________________ ______ ______
Yo hour at 1,800 F, A . C ____________
Do ___________ ___________________
3 min at 1,975 F, W . Q _________ __ __
Do ______________________ ____ ____

C-

AB

D-

it

A
A

A
A

A
.A
A

A
A
A

No n e _____________________________ _
Yo h our at 1,600 F, A . C __________
2 ho urs at 1,600 F, A . C __________
None ______________________________
1 hour at 1,600 F, A . C ___________
No n c ______________________________
1 hourat 1,600 F, A. C ___________

A
A
A
A
A
A
A

3 min at 1,975 F, A. C ______________ Nonc ________ ____________________ _.

A
A-

A-

A
A
A

Do ______________________________ Yo hour at 1,600 F, A. 0 __________

Do ______________________________ 2 ho u r s at 1,600 F, A . C . _________

Austenitic Stainless Steel

A
A
A

A
A

A
A

A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A

B+

A
A
A

A-

A-

BC

B+

A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A

A-

B+

D+

AA-

A-

A
A

A-

A
A

331

TABLE

20.

Effect of various treatments 1tpOn the susceptibility to intergmnular attack of steel C- 8

(Carbon~0.075%, titanium~0.59% ;

'['i/ C ~7.9)

Treatment ofstoel subsequent to cold-rolling

Annealing

Stabilizing

Sensitizing treatment
None

21 days
2 bours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 hours
2 days
at 840F at 1,020F at 1,020 o F at 1,020F at 1,020 o F at l,200 0 F at .l,200F

~
I

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None _______________________________ None ______________________________

Do ___________ __ _________ ____ ____ ),j! hour at 1,000 F , A. C __________
),j! bour at 1,800 F, ",\V . Q----------- Nono ______ ______ __________________
Do ______________________________ ),j! bour at 1,000 F,A. C __________
Do _______________________ ._. ____ 2 hours at 1,600 F,A . C . _________
),j! hour at 1,800 F A . C ____________ None ______________________________
Do _________________ . ____ __ ______ I honr at 1,6000 F, A . C ____ _______
3min at 1,975 F, W. Q----------- - - None ____________________________ __
Do __________ .. __ . _. _____________ 1 bour at 1,600 F, A. C ________ _._
3 min at 1,975 F, A. C ______ ________ None ______________________________
Do __________ . _._. _______________ }-2 hour at 1,600 F, A. C _____ . ____
Do _____________________________ 2 hours at 1,000 F A. C __________

Tabl e 21.

AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

B+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A

AA
AA
A
A
A
A
A

AB
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A-

B+
A
A
A

A
A

AAA
B
A
A-

A
A
A

A
A
A

A
A
AA
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

"
~

Effect of various treatments upon the susceptibility to intergmnular attack of steel S- 25

(Carbo n ~0.082%, titan i um~0.37%; 'ri/C = 4.5)

'[' reatment of steel subsequent to coldrolling

Annealing

Stabilizing

Sensitizing treatment
None

21 days
2 bours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 hours
2 days
at 840F at 1,020F at 1,020F at 1,020F at 1,020F at 1,200o F at 1,200F

- - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - None __________ _____________________ None ______________________________

Do ______________________ . _______ ),j! hour at 1,600 l?, A . C . _________
),j! bour at 1,800 F , ' V. Q -- .. ------- i\Tone ____ _________________________ _
Do _____________________________ . ),j! hour at 1,000 F, A. C __________
Do ___ .... _______________________ 2 hours at 1,600 F , A. C __________

TABL1D

22.

A
A
A
A
A

CD
AB
A
BA

A
A
AA-

D+
E+
E
E+
DE

B+
D+
E
E
E+

AB
AA-

A
A

AA

A-

Effect of various treatments upon the suscepti bility to intergranular attack of steel S-35
(Car bon ~0.107%,

titanium=0.44%; Ti/ C = 4.1)

'rrcatment of stecl subsequent to cold-rolling

Annealing

CE+
E
E
DE

Stabilizing

Sensitizing treatmcnt
None

21 days
2 hours
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 hours
2 days
at 840F at 1,020F at 1,020 F at 1,020 0 F at 1,020F at 1,200 0 F at 1,200.!!'

- ------------1-------------1--- ---------------- - - - - - None ___________________________ . ___ None ____________ __________________

Do ____________ . _______ __________ ),j! hour at 1,000 F, A. C __________
),j! hour at 1,800 F, " '. Q ----------- None ____________ __ ______________ __
Do __ _______________________ . ____ ),j! hour at 1,000 F, A . C .. ________
Do ______ .. __________________ . __ . 2 hours at 1,600 F,A . C __________
),j! hour at 1,800 F,A. C ____________ None ___________________________ __ _
Do _________________________ . ____ 1 hour at 1,600 F, A. C ___________
3 minat 1,975 Ii' , W. Q------------- None _______ _______________________
Do ________________ .. __ . _________ 1 hour at l,OOOo F, A. C ___________
3minat 1,975 F , A. C . _________ . ___ 1\Tone . __________ ___________ ________
Do ______________________ _. ______ ),j! hour at 1,000 F, A. C ___ _______
Do ______ ... ___ . ____________ . ____ 2 hours at 1,000 F,A. C. _______ __

332

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

E+
AB
A
C
A
A
B+
A
B+
A
B
B+

D+
AA
B
A
A
AA
AB
A
A
B

DE
DE
E
E
DE
DD
CDDE
DE
D-

C+
E
E
E
E+
E
DE
E
E
E
E
E

B
D
E
E
E
DE
D
E
E
E
E
E

AD

A
AB
,BBC
E
BDB+
B

A
A
A
A

AA
A
DE
AB
E+
C+
C+

Journal of Research

,I
"\

T ABLE

23.

[Link] oj variolLs treatments upon the susce pti bili t y to intergramdar attack oj steel -36
(Carbon=O.109%, titanium = O.54%; '1'i/ C=5.0)

Treatment of steel subsequent to cold rollin g

Annealin g

Sen sitizing t reatment

Stabi lizin g

None

21 days
2 h ou rs
2 days
8 days
21 days
2 h ours
2 da ys
at 840F at 1,020 0 F at 1,020F a t 1,020 0 F at 1,020 F at 1,200j<' at. 1.200 0 F

- - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

:;

None _______________________________ None _______________________ _____ __

Do __________________________ ____
Yo hou r at 1,600 F, A. C __________
Yo hour at 1,800 F , W. Q- -- ------- None _________________ _______ ______
Do ______________________________ Yo bour at 1,600 F,A. C ___________
Do ___ ___________________________
2 hours at 1,600 F, A. C oo _______ _
Yo boul' at 1,8000 ]1', A. C __ __________ None _____________ __ _______________
Do _______ ____ ___________________
1 b our at 1,600 F, A. C ___________
3 min at 1,975 F, W . Q------------- None. ________ __ ___________________
Do _________ _____________________ 1 bour at ],600 0 F, A. C ___________
3 min at 1,975 F, A . r. ------.-.----- None ______________________________
Do ______________________________ Yo hour at 1,600 F, A. C __________
Do ______________________________ 2 hours at 1,600 F , A. C __________

T A BLE

24.

13 -

D-

13 +

13 +

A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A

C+

E+

A
A

A
A
13 -

A
A

A
A

BC

A13

13
13 +

C+
13
E+

A-

A-

C+

A
A

A-

DE
BC
BC

E
BC-

AA

A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A-

A-

A
A
A
A

A
A
A

A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A-

AA

C+

A-

C+

E.(Ject oj various treatments tLpon the susce ptibili ty oj intergramdw' (Lttack oj steel 3 -32
(Cal'bon = 0. I05%, titani um =0.6 1%; Ti / C=5.8 )

Treatm en t of steel su bseq u ent to cold-rolling

Sen siti zing treatment

Stabilizing

Annea lin g

None

21 da ys
2 ho urs
2 days
8 days
21 da ys
2 hou rs
2 clays
at 840F at I,020F at i,020F at 1,0201' at I,020 0 ]!' at 1,2001' at 1,200F

-__--------1-----------1---------------------- --N one _______________________________ None ______________________________

Do ____________ __________________
C __________
Y" hour at 1,600 F , A.
Yo boul' at 1,800 F , W. Q ----------- Nonc ______________________________
Do ________________ ______________
C __________
J1i hou r at 1,600 F, A .
Do ______________________________
2 bours at 1,600 F, A . C _________ _
_____________________________
___________
at 1,800 F , A .
Y" hour
Do ______________________________
I hour at 1,600 F, A. C __________
No uc ______________________________
3 min. at 1,975 }' , W. Q-----------D o______________________________ 1 bour at 1,600 F,
C ___________
A.
C _____________ None ______________________________
3min. at 1,975' F, A.
Do ______________________________
J1i bour at ] ,600 0 1', A. C _________ _
C __________
Do ______________________________ 2 h OlifS at ] ,600 0 F,
C~

~ro n e

A.

v _Results and Discussion

All specimens were examined for carbide distribution subsequ ent to sen sitizing. The type of
distribu tion of th e precipitated carbides was no t
an infallible indication of t he resistance to intergranular attack. Steels in which the carbides
were distributed randomly were usually r esistant
to intergranular attack. However , steels that
contained carbides at the grain boundaries, even
though th ese carbides were distribu ted as a continuou s network, either were or wer e not suscepLible to intel'granular attack, depending onLhe
time-tempera ture relation during sensitization.
Frequently the microstructures of susceptible and
unsusceptible specimen of the sam e st eel appeared quite similar. A rath er striking illustration
Austenitic Stainless Steel

A
A

"-

13 +
A
A
A

AB

13 +

A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A

A-

A
A

A
A'fI
D
A-

A
A
A
A

A
A

A
A

A
A

A
A

A
A

A
A
A
A

A-

A-

A
A
A

A
A

13+

B+

A-

D
AC+
B+

AB+

A
A

DE

BBC

A
A

J\.

of this statement is shown in figure 2 . This figure

shows the microstructur e of a straig'ht carbon
(0.09 %) austenitic steel, initially as cold rolled,
after sensitizing 2 hours at 1,200 F (fig. 2, A)
and after sensitizing 2 days at 1,200 0 F (fig. 2, B).
Both micrographs show a precipita tion of carbides
at th e grai.n boundaries and on various lip planes,
and it is evident that the microstru ctures resulting
from the two treatments are indistinguishable.
The behavior of these two specimens after exposm e to the boiling acidified copper sulfate solution, however, differed radically (fig. 2, c). The
left side of the micrograph, which corresponds to
specimen A, was exposed 2 days and suffered
sever e intergranular corrosion . The right side
of the micrograph, which corresponds to specimen
333

r------------------------------------ ----

2. Structure of strai ght carbon (0.09 %) a1lstenitic

stainless steel, initially as cold-rolled , before and after exposure to the boi ling acidified copper sulfate solution.

FIGU RE

A , Sensitized 2 hours at 1,200 0 F . H eavy carbid e precipita tion at grain

boundaries and on slip planes. Etched electrol yticalJy 10 min utes in 10percent sodiwn cyanide. X500. B, Sensit ized 2 days at 1,200 0 F . H eavy carh ide precipitation at grain boundaries and on slip planes. Etched electrolytically in lO-percen t sodi um cyanide. X500. C, Specimens A and B after
exposure to boiling acidified copper sulfate solution . Left side of micrograph ,
which corresponds to A, was exposed 2 days and snfl'ered severe intergranular
attack. Right side of micrograph , which corres ponds to B, was exposed 14
days and sbowed no evidence of in tergranlllar attack, yet both had t he same
type of carbide precipitation, The massive gray globules attached to specimen shown on left of C are parti cles of co pper deposited from t he acidified
copper sulfate solu tion, Unetched, X250,

B , was exposed 14 days and showed no evidence

whatever of lntergranular attack.
As a total of well over 2,500 individual specimens were tested, it is obviou sly impractical to
334

present a detailed account of the test data procured. All data were assembled in tabular form
for study. Thc performance of each specimen
was then rated on the basis of each of the four
methods of evaluation (electrical r esistivity,
metallic ring, bend test, and microstructure after
corrosion) _ An arbitrary system of appraisal was
used, as follows:
A. Completely immune to intergranular attack:
Electrical r esistivity, no increase; metallic ring,
no impairmen t; bend tes t, no evidence of cracks;
microstru cture, no evidence of intel'granular attack.
B . Practically immune to intergranular attack:
Electrical resistivity, not more than 12 percent
increase; metallic ring, slightly dead; bend test,
slight cracks; microstructure, slight intergranular
attack in extreme surface layers only.
C . Moderately vulnerable to intergranulal' attack: Electrical r esistivity, more than 12 p er cent
but not more than 25 p ercent increase; metallic
ring, slight ; bend test, cracked ; microstru cture,
moderately severe intergranular attack in surface
layers only.
D . Vulnerable to intergranular attack: elect rical r esistivity, more than 25 percent increase;
metallic ring, dead; bend test, broke; microstructure, intcrgranular attack,
E. Extremely vLllnerable; Same as D , but
OCCUlTing in a few days.
The foUl' ratings obtained for each individual
specimen wer e then averaged by assigning' numerical values to the ratings (A = 4, B =3, C = 2,
D = I , E = O) and converting to the appropriate
letter symbol. PIllS or minus signs were used to
indicate averages falling slightly above or below
letters, respeetively, and averages falling midway
between two letters were denoted by bo th letters.
These averages were then used to prepare tables
2 to 24, inclusive, which summarize qualitatively
the performance of each steel after various annealing, stabilizing, and sensitizing treatments.
The averaged letter symbols may be considered
as an order of m erit, bearing in mind that the
differences b etween A and B are rather slight, and
those between D and E are very large. Since
specimens were exposed to the boiling acidified
copper-sulfate solution for a maximum t ime of 14
, days, specimens that were rated Band C, and in
many cases even D , might have been rated as
satisfactory had they been subjected to the corJournal of Research

roding solution for the more or less standardized

time of only 2 days.
A noteworthy feature ho"m by these tables is
that the sensiLi zing temper-atme of 1,200 F,
which is commonly specified, is too high to effect
maximum susceptibility to intergranular attaek.
Exposme to a sensitizing temperature of 1,020 F
is mu eh more effective, provided the time of ex
posure is quite long. A period of 8 or 21 days at
1,020 F appeared to be the most severe sensitizing treatment of those used. It was not unusual
for steels that showed complete immunity to intergranular attack after sensitizing either 2 hours or
2 days at 1,200 F to be definitely vulnerable to
intergranular attack after sensitizing for either 8
01' 21 days at 1,020 F. It is possible thaI, a
shorter period of time at a temperatme higher
than 1,020 F , but lower than 1,200 F , would be
equally effe ctive in causing m axi.:mum sen itiza
tion. This possibility, however, was not explored
dllring this invest igation.
Considering the steels that contained no stabilizing elements (tables 2 to 6, inclusive), it is apparent that all of these were quite v ulnerahl e to
intergranular attack after certain sensitizing
treatments. D ecrease in carbon content decreased
the degr ee of vulnerabili ty, but even the two very
low-carbon steels tested were quite lI scep tible to
TAB IJ "

Hatio
Steel No .

Percent
age of C

8- 17 _______________

0. 068
. 11 5
. 070
. 087
. ll7

8-12 ...... _........

8-18 ..... ___ ...... _
C-3 ... _.. __ .... ....

.060

8-31. .......... _...

8-35.... _..........
8- 21. .... . _....... _
8- 25 ...............
8- 36 ...... _........
8-39 .... _...... .. . _
0-6 .......... __ ....
8-32...... _.. _ ---0 - 2................
0 - 8 .... __ ._ ..... _. _

. 067
. 107
. 071
.082
. J09
. 065
.064
.105
. 070
. 075

.074
. 132

Quali tative rating of resistance of test steels to intergranular allack

Coldroll ed
(37)1!%)

No sta

C b/C 'ri /C

8-20 ...... _........

8-28 ...... _........
8-6 ....... _...... _.
8- 27 ..... __........

2.5.

7.4
8.0
8.7
8.7
9. 7
10.1
11..1
11 . 8

bilizing

treat
m ent

D
C-

:B
B
B+
B+
AA3.9
4. 1

4.5
4.5
5.0
5.5
5.5
5.8
7. 1
7. 9

attack. The ratio of clll'omium to nickel in teel

C- 1 (table 2) was such that, in the pre ence of
low carbon, appreciable amounts of delta ferrite
were present in the miCTostr ucture. Steel C- 10
(table 3) con tained lower chromium and higher
nickel so that no delta ferrite existed. This latter
steel proved generally to be the more susceptible to
intergranular attack except that, in the initially
cold-rolled condition, it was practically immune.
The performance of the individual columbiumand titanium-treated steels may be st udied by
Teference to the appropriate table, but a mOTe
readily comprehensible presentation is given in
table 25. In this Lable only the worst averaged
rating of each steel, as presented in tables 7 to
24, inclusive, is used. The steels are arranged in
table 25 in order of CblC or Ti/C ratio without
regard to the carbon content. It will be' observed
tha t, for all 12 initial conditions studied , th e
performance of the steels improves as the CblC
or TilC ratios increase. Apparently the carbon
con tent within the range studied (0.06 to 0. 13%)
had little, if any, effect upon susceptibility to intergranular attack, the predominating factor being
the CblC or TilC ratio. The rating of tne various steels, as given in table 25, are plotted, as an
order of meri t, against the CblC and TilC ratios
in figures 3 and 4.

Annealed M h r at 1,800 0 F , .A nnealed Yz hI' ai Annealed 3 min a t Annealed 3 min at 1,975 Ii',
W . Q.
1,800 F , A. C.
1,975 F , W. Q.
A. C.

8ta bil No sta- 8 ta bi! 8tabi! No sta- 8tabil No sta Stabi! No s ta- 8 lab il Stabi!
izecl 2 bilizi ng ized 1 b il izi ng ized 1 b ilizing ized >1!
ized 2
ized >1! bil izing i w d 7f
hI' at
h I' at
b r at
hI' at
hI' at
hI' at
hI' at
t reat- 1,600
treat- 1,600
treat 1,600
F
,
1,600 F . treat1.600
F,
1,600
F
,
F,
F
,
1,600
F,
m ent
mont
me nt
mcnt
A. C.
A. C.
A. C.
A. C.
A. C.
A. C.
A. C.
DE
D+
CCA
A
A
A

E+
E+
DE
D+

E+
E+

D-

13+
AC
CB+

A
A
A
A
A

E
E
E+
E+
B+

E+
E+
E+
E+
B

E
E+
E+
E+
A

AAA

A-

A-

A-

A
A

A
A

nc
13 B+
A-

E
E
E

E
DE
D-

A-

E
E
E
E
E+
CCCA

E
E
E
E
A

BC
AA
A

BC

A-

E
E
E+

AA
A

E
E+
D-

E+
DE
D-

--- ---- -- --- ---- -- An

E
E
E

-~'H'

13
13 0
BO
B
AA-

E
E
E+

---- ----- ---- -----

lH
E

E
E+
E

------ --- - ------- -

13

B
13
A-

13

CC
A-

A-

E
E
E

E
E
E

E
E

E
E
E

E
E
E

--------- ------- -- --------C+

CD
CB
13+
A-

DE
E
E

E
E
DD
D
A-

CD
Cn+

E+

C-

-- - - - - --- ---- - - --- ------ --- - -- --. _-CB

E
BC

C
CAAA

E
E+

DE
D+
B

D
D
B-

CD
C+
BC

AA

AA-

T his table was prepar ed from tables 7 to 24, ill clusive, using only the worst a veraged rating of each steel in each initial condition. For lOstallce, steel 8- 26.
as coldrolled and st abilized ~ bour at 1,600 F, was ra ted DE as tested after sensitizing 8 days at 1,020 F (sec table 7). Although for all other conditions of
sensitiza tion the ratings we re higher than DE . this worst rati ng was used in t bis summ ary table.

Austenitic Stainless Steel

335

Cold Rolled

~--+----t---~
/

;2.1 "

No stab, /ZI ng rea men

/ 1'" I

,I

i/o"

StabJii zed Yt hr at 1600F, A C.

/'

Annealed Vz hr: at IBOOF, W. Q.

(1--= -.:=e

Stabilized Z hr.
at 1600"F, A . C ~

If,t---L No sta'bilizinq
I I,' trealment

C r---~--~----++~~------------~

II i

'-

.I

/V

treatment~/~

... ~ ... ,

I . ~\

-r--\-L-----'----l

II,'

StabJl,zed I hr
at 1600F, A.C.

/ "

X~,~---+----'---~r----l

x'/'

!...

...
0

!...

Stabilized I hr.
at 1600F, A .C.-........

/'

"

, ]I /
2~

.'-

at 1975"F,

"

;'

/
/ / No ,tab ili zing

'-... Ire at ment

AC

"'"

p//,:X

No stabilizing treatmen~L ~:

~
J1.~' Stabilized Yz hr

p '~at 1600F,A.C
D ~---+----r----+:T.~,r-,~r----r----'---~

~'

loil:
' _~

E L.-_-J....~@ ....1...._....._ _.1..-_-'-_-'

II
II:
7
B
9
10
Rat io, cb/c

See page 334 for explanation of significance of letters representing order

of merit.

Stabilized Z
at 1600F, A .C. ~'~

C r---~--~----+---~ff---~--~---i

I nfluence of ratio of Cb/C and of initial heat

treatment upon resistance to intergranular attack.

h0 7 ,/Ft!I
J
hr. '"
/

Stab ili ;ed Yz

at 1600 F, A . C.

----+-- ~.('

3.

E ~--'-- __.:....X-X:-:;;..<'---------1
Ann eale d 3 min at 19 75F, A .C.

Br---L------------r-,~--_+--~

I
,,

"

Stab il ized Z hr
at 1600F, A C

E~--J->~~~:~~~--~--~~

A ~ nnealed 3 min

x'

D ~--~---+--~Ir--X ~X;--~----j

//'

____ , ,-

,-----~

..

No stobJi lzinq
treotment

. . . . - -......-""1

Annealed 3 mi n at 1975 F, W. Q

Stab ilized I hr ~,'

at 1600F. A . C.
"

D ~--~--~----~+-~----,----.--~

336

'-/

" ,- -'--.. . . .-Jx-.J.

II

FIGURE

C ~--+---+---~~-r,-~~--~--~

No stabilizing
treatment

E1 - - - ' - -

B ~---r----,---~-r~~~X~--r---~

',........,...1;

L-

---t'/

_/.J--....:-~

" I/~ ,

"

__~~

;/~ ~~----'-----1

'U

,I.e

W. Q

~
I ,,/

.. , ....

E ~-..........X ........
Annealed 3 min at 1975f,

__

Stabili zed J hr
at 1600"F, A.C
:'=

L:"

C 1------+----+----t-r>I't'
---..

~ D

I
I

....

B r---'---'---~+--r~-r--_+--~

No stabilizi ng
treatment

~~
E ~~_ .~i-~X
Annealed Vz hr ot IBOOF, A. C.

Annealed Yz hr. at IBOO" f, A C -x----x-~--_;

...

,
:

~X
7
-----+-

.-.~

/ /'

Stabilized z: hr "'---- : @
at 1600F. A C.
;

Stabilized Yz hr
at 1600F, A C.

E~--~C~~~~~--~--~----~--1

'0

/i>

D ~~---+---+
/~-r--'---'---i

No stob iilzl n.g

Ann ea led Yz hr at 1800.~~_~_~~:11- ___ !lll _

Stabi lized Yz hr
at 1600F, A.C - r -!

B r---'---,---~~-r---L---L--~

X
I:
~' T
E ~--~--~~.~~~--~--~----~--~

Ar------------r-- ~~J-~D_~ ,_~

No ,tabil izi ng
treatment

E ~--~~~~~~~~~--~~

, l/

--~

il
>st.

~'

<--

Stabili zed y, h f :
at 1600F

D~---+~~,+----4-----+----+----i----~

'X

C ~--+---~~~~~----L---~~

j>f.

-t------I.. ---1-

Cold Rolled

At----=-.:c.c.::..,r=~---f..

A r--'---'---'f
-(:;r=~- ~

X.,?

I
X

X ...- / No stabilizing
treatment

E '---------. II~X- ><-""""'-----------......

4
3
567
Rat io,

Tifc

4. Influence of ratio of Ti/ C and of initial heat

treatment upon resistance to intergranular attack,

FIGURE

See page 334 for explanation of sign ificance of

merit.

lett~rs

representing order of

Journal of Research

Regardless of the initial condition of the steels,

increase in CblC or TilC to the higher ratios had
a markedly beneficial effect upon the resistance to
intergranular embrittlement. The ratio r equired
for substantial immunity varied with the initial
condition of the steel. Of the initial conditions
studied, those conferring maximum immunity to
intergranular attack wer e as cold rolled or as
quenched from 1,800 F in water. Increase in
annealing temperature from 1,800 to 1,975 F
impaired the resistance to intergranular attack.
The deleterious effect of high er annealing temperatures upon susceptibili ty to intergranular attack
has been shown by other investigators [8]. Air
cooling instead of water quenching after annealing
was also detrimental. The stabilizing treatment
appeared to be quite necessary for the titaniumtreated steels but was generally of only slight
benefit to the columbium-treated steels. In fact,
a superimposed stabilizing treatment appeared
actually to be d etrimental to the columbiumtreated teels as air cooled from 1,800 F. The
data indicated no significant differences between
stabilizing periods of }f and 2 hours at 1,600 F .

VI. Summ ary a n d Conclusions

Data arc presented on the r esistance to intergranular embrittlement of 23 austenitic corrosioD , resisting steels (18% Cr-10 % Ni base composition)
in 12 different initial conditions. Suscep tibility to
intergranular a tta ck was determined after seven
different sensitizing treatments, followed by a
maximum of 14 days exposure in a boiling
acidified copper sulfate solution. The following
conclusion appear warranted:
1. Of the various sensitizing treatments utilized ,
maximum susceptibility to intergranular attack
was developed by either 8 or 21 days at 1,020 F.
The commonly used sensitizing treatment of 2
hours at 1,200 F was ineffective in developing
susceptibili ty in any but the most vulnerable
steels.
2. The straight cm'bon austenitic corrosionr esisting steels were very susceptible to intergranular embrittlement. The susceptibility decreased
as t he carbon content decreased but, with the
exception of one low-carbon steel in the coldrolled condition only, even the very low carbon
steels (0.025 % C) were vulnerable r egardless of
heat treatment.
Austenitic Stainless Steel

3. In Lhe columbium- and titanium-bearrug

steels, carbon content within the range of 0.06
to 0.13 per cent had no influence upon the r e istance to intergranular attack, except insofar as it
influenced the CblC or Ti/C ratios.
teels
having similar ratios ot stabilizing clemen t to
carbon had approximately the same degree of
susceptibility to intergranular attack r egardless
of the carbon content.
4. Both the columbium- and titanium-treated
steels exhibited greater resistance to intergranular
attack as cold rolled or annealed at 1,800 F and
water quenched than as annealed at 1,800 F and
air cooled , or as annealed at 1,975 F and either
water quenched or air cooled.
5. Stabilizing heat treatments at 1,600 F had a
n egligible effect upon the r esistance to intergranular embrittlem cnt of the columbium-treated
teels. The p erformance of Lhe titanium-Lreated
steels carrying the higher ratios of TiIC, however,
was markedly improved by such treatments.
Variation in time of the stabilizing treatments
from ~f to 2 hours had no eff ect.
6. When properly treated, substantially complete immunity to intergranular attack: may be
obtained wiLh a minimum ratio of Cb/C= 10 and
TijC = 5. For more "fool-proof" immunity, it is
believed that the e ratios should be 12 and
r espectively.
It should be emphasized that the data and conclusions given in this paper r efer only to the
susceptibility of the test steels to intergranular
attack as developed under test conditions considerably more severe than those normally used.

The author are indebted to Lt. D ennis J .

Carney and James Darby, Naval R esearch Laboratory, for assistance in melting the experimental
steels ; to G. N . Goller, Rustless Iron and Steel
Division, American Rolling Mill Co., Baltimore,
Md., for forging many of the steels; to M. E.
Carruthers and H. r. White, American Rolling
Mill R esearch Laboratory, Middletown, Ohio, for
assistance in rolling the experinlental steels; to
J. L . Hague and J . T . Sterling, National Bureau
of Standards, for the chemical and vacuum fusion
analyses, respectively, and to Albert L ewis,
National Bureau of Standards, for assistance in
the early phases of the work.

337

1/
This investigation was made possible by the
generous support of the Bureau of Aeronautic ,
Navy Department, and the friendly cooperation
of N. E. Promisel and B. A. Kornhauser of that
Bureau.

[4] H . D. Newell , Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Trea ting 19.

673 (1932) .
[5] P . Payson, Trans. Am. Inst . Mining Met. Engineers
100. 306 (1932).
[6] E . C. Bain, R. H . Abom, and J . J . B. Rutherford,
Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treating 21. 481 (1933) .
[7] Frederick M. Becket and Russell Franks, Trans. Am.
Inst . Mining Met . Engineers 113, 143 (1934).
[8] L . B . Pfeil and D . G . Jones, J . Iron Steel Ins t . 127.
337 (1933).

VII. References
11]

B. [Link], H . Schottky, and J. Hinnilber, Z. anorg.

Chem. 188, 309 (1930) .
[2] Robert H . Aborn and Edgar C. Bain, Trans. Am. Soc.
Steel Treat ing 18, 837 (1930) .
[3] E . Houdremont and P . Schafmei ster, Arch. Eisenhilttenswsen I, 187 (1933) .

WASHINGTON,

D ecember 16, 1947.

338

l~_____~~_

Journal of Research