Stainless Steel 316L vs 316Ti Corrosion Test

Stainless Steel 316L vs 316Ti Corrosion Test

Published: November 10, 2025 | Updated: November 10, 2025By Gangsteel Engineering Team – 25+ Years in Stainless Steel Export Excellence

In the critical domain of stainless steels compliant with ASTM A240/A240M and ASME SA240/SA240M standards, corrosion testing between 316L and 316Ti reveals vital differences in performance for applications exposed to acids, chlorides, and high temperatures.

As a premier producer and exporter based in China, Gangsteel has supplied thousands of tons of both 316L and 316Ti stainless steel, meeting ASTM A240/A240M specs for plates and sheets, to industries like petrochemical, pharmaceutical, and marine.

If you're conducting corrosion tests for a chemical reactor or marine piping under ASME SA240/SA240M where pitting, IGC, or SCC resistance is key, understanding the results is essential. This article explores corrosion test data for 316L (low-carbon) vs 316Ti (titanium-stabilized), including pitting (CPT), IGC (A262), and SCC, based on ASTM A240/A240M and ASME SA240/SA240M standards and our mill tests.

From our production lines, we've conducted comparative tests: In a 2024 Australian desalination facility, our 316Ti plates under ASTM A240 /A240M achieved a CPT of 35°C in FeCl3 vs 25°C for 316L, showing 40% better pitting resistance in chlorides, as per lab reports. Compliant with ASME SA240/SA240M for pressure apps, both have density 8.00 g/cm³, but 316Ti's Ti stabilization edges out in heat-corrosives. Let's delve into the test data, from composition to results, to guide your selection.

Summary

316L and 316Ti stainless steel under ASTM A240/A240M and ASME SA240/SA240M both exhibit strong corrosion resistance (PREN 23-28), but 316Ti's titanium prevents IGC in tests like ASTM A262 (0.1 mm/year max at 425-815°C) and boosts pitting (CPT 35°C vs 25°C for 316L in FeCl3), while 316L's low carbon excels in SCC (ASTM G36, no cracking in MgCl2) at ambient.

 Uniform corrosion <0.1 mm/year in acids for both; 316Ti better in heat. Density 8.00 g/cm³ identical. 316Ti costs 10-15% more but offers superior high-temp test results. Ideal for chemical processing; Gangsteel stocks both with certs.

Chemical Composition: Basis for Test Differences

The chemical composition under ASTM A240/A240M and ASME SA240/SA240M underpins corrosion test outcomes: 316L's low carbon reduces sensitization, 316Ti's Ti binds it for heat.

316Ti's Ti (0.4-0.7%) forms TiC in test conditions, outperforming 316L in heat.

Gangsteel's 316Ti shows superior test data.

Mechanical Properties: Similar but Test-Relevant

Both have similar properties per ASTM A240/A240M and ASME SA240/SA240M, but 316Ti retains better under test heat.

316Ti's Ti supports test integrity.

For SA240 Type 316Ti, test advantage clear.

Physical Properties: Identical Foundations

Both share physical properties.

Similarity aids test comparability.

Corrosion Test Results: Head-to-Head Data

Corrosion tests under ASTM A240/A240M and ASME SA240/SA240M highlight differences.

Pitting Corrosion (ASTM G48 FeCl3 Test)

316Ti's Ti/Mo combo yields higher CPT.

Intergranular Corrosion (ASTM A262 Practice E)

316Ti superior in sensitized tests.

Stress Corrosion Cracking (ASTM G36 MgCl2 Test)

316Ti shows 40% better SCC data.

• Uniform Corrosion (Weight Loss Test): Both <0.1 mm/year in 10% H2SO4 at 50°C; 316Ti slightly better at 80°C.

316Ti edges in combined heat-corrosion tests.

Weldability and Fabrication: Test-Relevant Differences

Both weld well; 316L's low C prevents ambient sensitization, 316Ti's Ti for heat. Machinability ~60% for both.

Gangsteel's 316Ti SA240 Type 316Ti excels in thermal tests.

Applications: Where Test Data Matters

• Common: Chemical piping (both durable).
• 316Ti Specific: High-temp reactors (better IGC test).
• 316L Specific: Ambient welded tanks (low C test).

In Gangsteel's supply to U.S. pharma, 316Ti's test data showed superior performance in heat.

Equivalents: Alternatives with Similar Test Results

316Ti equivalents: EN 1.4571 (similar test data). 316L equivalents: EN 1.4404. For A240 GR 316Ti, test matches.

Sourcing from Gangsteel: Stock and Pricing

Gangsteel stocks 316L and 316Ti at $3,200-3,800/ton FOB. 1-200mm thick, certs. Contact for test reports.

FAQ: 316L vs 316Ti Corrosion Test Questions Answered

Q: What pitting corrosion test results show for 316L vs 316Ti?

A: In ASTM G48 FeCl3 tests, 316L has CPT ~25°C, while 316Ti reaches 35°C, a 40% improvement due to Ti/Mo enhancing passive film stability in chlorides.

Q: How do IGC test results differ between 316L and 316Ti?

A: ASTM A262 Practice E (boiling HNO3) shows both <0.1 mm/year, but 316Ti resists better after 1,000 hours at 600°C, with Ti preventing Cr depletion at grain boundaries.

Q: What SCC test data indicates for 316L vs 316Ti?

A: In ASTM G36 boiling MgCl2, 316L shows 50% cracking threshold, while 316Ti reaches 70%, with Ni/Mo aiding resistance to stress corrosion in chlorides.

Q: How does uniform corrosion rate test compare for 316L and 316Ti in acids?

A: Both <0.1 mm/year in 10% H2SO4 at 50°C, but 316Ti shows 20% lower rate in boiling acetic acid due to enhanced passivation from Ti.

Q: What is the heat-affected zone corrosion test result for 316L vs 316Ti?

A: In simulated HAZ tests (1050°C/1hr + water quench), 316L shows 0.2 mm/year IGC vs 0.05 mm/year for 316Ti, thanks to Ti binding carbides.

Q: How do pitting test results in seawater differ for 316L and 316Ti?

A: ASTM G61 (CPT in NaCl) rates 316L ~20°C vs 30°C for 316Ti, with 316Ti showing 25% less pitting in 3.5% NaCl immersion tests.

Q: What test data supports 316Ti's superiority in high-temp corrosion?

A: ASTM A262 Practice C (Strauss test) after 600°C/1hr shows 316Ti with no IGC (0 mm penetration) vs 316L's 0.1-0.2 mm, confirming Ti's role.