May 21, 2021   |   by admin

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: Fausida Shakora
Country: Trinidad & Tobago
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 23 February 2011
Pages: 105
PDF File Size: 1.49 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.78 Mb
ISBN: 455-8-42982-415-2
Downloads: 7787
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shaktinris

But if it’s a medical instrument or implant, then you’re also going to have to show the appropriate tribute to an F standard.

Ray Kremer Stellar Solutions, Inc. Jan, Both standards are based heavily on the old QQ-P Some customers ask for the parts to pass salt spray testing longer than A’s required passivqtion hours, etc.

He passed away May 14, Both contain a carryover of QQ-PC with the addition of the more recently developed citric acid based process. You can guess the increase in the amount of testing involved. We will check for issues with solution entrapment and other pawsivation concerns.

Thanks a lot, David. John Wilt [returning] – Cambridge, Massachusetts. Thanks for your time.

ASTM A – Passivate – Passivation – AMS – QQ-PC – ASTM A | Santa Clara Plating

Our database shop order system assures the same passivation process which has been selected will be specified each and every time the job comes to our shop. Always specify exactly what you want– e. Is this a correct assessment?


Can you please tell me the differences between the passivation processes AMS [link by ed. I passigation struggling to understand which spec to use for passivation.

Especially in the fastener industry I have seen it passivatioj difficult to source a specific product according to a specific type within these standards. If you do not specify, they can use whatever they want, even ways that are not in any of the specifications! 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.

FebAnaheim, CA. Is one better than another for medical devices? What should I tell my customer? All information presented is for 27000 reference and does not represent a professional opinion nor the policy of an author’s employer.

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

You should never ask for “standard passivation” on imports. Citric passivation does have the advantage that if you set it up properly, you can use one bath to handle all your different grades. AMS considers different parts, or the same part made at different times, to be different lots with the exception for parts with the legacy QQ-P called out, when you can use the older definition.

We appended your question to a thread which should clearly answer it for you: AMS exempts C passivafion testing. This is important because you can probably solve the problem by changing the spec to citric acid passivation, electropolishing, or something else if you are the author of the requirements and you are not in aerospace.


The passivation process consists of immersing the stainless steel in a solution of citric acid, or other acid plus 7200 salts, which dissolves as embedded or deposited iron and restores the original corrosion-resistant surface a thin, transparent oxide film.

If you’re having it done for you, the testing is someone else’s problem, so you might consider AMS One of the differences is in the 270 of ‘a lot’ for testing purposes. Type II passivation works well with A is a standard covering treatments to passivate stainless steel regardless of what it will be used for and then test methods to show passivafion it was passivated.

AMS 2700 Method 1 Type II Passivation for Medical Device

But I have a Problem with the steel 1. It’s not possible to diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages. May 15 — 16, Boston, MA. Ray Kremer Stellar Solutions, Inc. Have the plater do so, and then certify to multiple standards.

In reading through the specification I believe the drawing is incorrect. Thank you for your hard work which the finishing world continues to benefit from.