301 vs 304 – Composition, Heat Treatment, Properties, and Applications
แบ่งปัน
Table Of Content
Table Of Content
Introduction
Engineers, procurement managers, and manufacturing planners often face the choice between two very common austenitic stainless steels: 301 and 304. The decision typically revolves around trade-offs between cost, corrosion resistance, formability, and achievable strength after fabrication (for example, whether high work hardening is desirable). In many production contexts—sheet metal forming, structural components, and consumer products—the selection is driven by how the material responds to cold working versus how it resists corrosive environments.
The fundamental distinction between these grades lies in their alloy balance and the resulting mechanical response to deformation: 301 is formulated to exhibit higher strain-hardening capacity (it can gain substantial strength through cold work), whereas 304 is optimized for stable austenitic behavior, maximizing corrosion resistance and ductility in the annealed condition. Because both are widely available and economical austenitic stainless steels, they are frequently compared when designing parts that require a combination of forming, welding, corrosion resistance, and cost control.
1. Standards and Designations
- ASTM/ASME:
- 301: AISI 301 (ASTM A240/A666 references for sheet/tube/plate)
- 304: AISI 304 (ASTM A240/A666)
- EN (European):
- 301 commonly corresponds to EN 1.4310 / 1.4311 sometimes; variants exist
- 304 corresponds to EN 1.4301 (304)
- JIS (Japanese): equivalents exist (e.g., SUS301 / SUS304)
- GB (China): equivalents exist (e.g., 301, 304 grades in GB/T standards)
Classification: both are austenitic stainless steels. They are not carbon, alloy, tool, or HSLA steels — they belong to the stainless (austenitic) family.
2. Chemical Composition and Alloying Strategy
The compositional differences are modest but deliberate: 304 is richer in nickel and slightly higher in chromium, which favors corrosion resistance and stabilizes the austenitic phase; 301 reduces nickel and keeps chromium adequate, which increases the tendency for deformation-induced martensite and higher strain-hardening.
| Element | 301 (typical composition/ranges) | 304 (typical composition/ranges) |
|---|---|---|
| C (max) | 0.15% (max) | 0.08% (max) |
| Mn (max) | 2.0% (max) | 2.0% (max) |
| Si (max) | 1.0% (max) | 0.75% (max) |
| P (max) | 0.045% (max) | 0.045% (max) |
| S (max) | 0.03% (max) | 0.03% (max) |
| Cr | 16.0–18.0% | 18.0–20.0% |
| Ni | 6.0–8.0% | 8.0–10.5% |
| Mo | 0% (generally) | 0% (generally) |
| V, Nb, Ti, B | typically none | typically none |
| N (max) | ~0.10% (trace/low) | ~0.10% (trace/low) |
How alloying affects properties: - Chromium (Cr) provides the passive oxide film that gives corrosion resistance; higher Cr improves corrosion performance in many environments. - Nickel (Ni) stabilizes the austenitic phase, improves toughness and ductility, and reduces the tendency to form martensite under deformation. - Carbon increases strength but can reduce corrosion resistance (sensitization risk) and slightly increases hardenability. - Manganese and silicon are deoxidizers and can influence tensile properties modestly; manganese also aids austenite stability at times. Because 301 contains less Ni and similar Cr, it is more prone to strain-induced martensitic transformation and stronger work-hardening compared with 304.
3. Microstructure and Heat Treatment Response
Both 301 and 304 are austenitic at room temperature in the annealed condition (face-centered cubic, FCC). Key microstructural behaviors and their processing responses:
- Annealed state:
- 301: fully austenitic (but with a composition that makes it more metastable). Grain structure typical of cold-rolled and solution-annealed stainless sheet.
-
304: stable austenite with excellent ductility and toughness.
-
Cold work and strain-induced transformation:
- 301: designed to exhibit significant strain-induced transformation to martensite (α′) during plastic deformation (forming, bending, stamping). This transformation raises strength and hardness locally and overall (work hardening), but reduces ductility and may affect corrosion behaviour where martensite is exposed.
-
304: much less tendency for deformation-induced martensite; retains austenitic structure and ductility after similar cold work, with lower work-hardening rate than 301.
-
Heat treatment:
- Neither grade is hardenable by quench-and-temper heat treatment (they are austenitic, not martensitic stainless steels). Solution annealing (e.g., heating to about 1000–1100 °C followed by rapid cooling) is used to dissolve carbides and restore ductility. Post-fabrication anneal restores formability and relieves work-hardening.
- Thermo-mechanical treatments (controlled rolling, cold work plus anneal) are used industrially to produce sheet or strip with tailored strength/ductility combinations; 301 variants can be cold-rolled to higher strengths than 304 before anneal.
4. Mechanical Properties
The table below compares typical mechanical behavior qualitatively (as-manufactured, annealed, and after cold work). Exact values depend on product form (sheet, strip, bar), processing, and specification; consult mill data for project-critical numbers.
| Property | 301 (typical behavior) | 304 (typical behavior) |
|---|---|---|
| Tensile strength | Moderate in annealed state; increases substantially with cold work due to strain hardening | Moderate in annealed state; increases with cold work but less than 301 |
| Yield strength | Lower as-annealed than cold-worked 301; strong gain after deformation | Good yield in annealed condition; lower work-hardening rate |
| Elongation (ductility) | Good when annealed; drops more rapidly with cold work | High ductility in annealed condition; retains more ductility after forming |
| Impact toughness | Excellent at ambient temperatures in annealed state; retains toughness | Excellent and more stable (less change with cold work) |
| Hardness | Increases significantly with cold work (can reach much higher hardness than 304 under same deformation) | Increases with cold work but to a lesser extent |
Why: 301’s lower Ni content makes austenite less stable under strain; mechanical deformation converts some austenite to martensite, augmenting strength and hardness (beneficial in parts needing higher strength without heat treatment). 304’s higher Ni stabilizes austenite, preserving ductility and toughness at the expense of strain-hardening magnitude.
5. Weldability
Weldability of both grades is generally good for austenitic stainless steels, but there are considerations:
- Carbon content: higher carbon raises the risk of sensitization (chromium carbide precipitation) during slow cooling, particularly for 304 with higher C variants (304H). Lower-carbon variants (304L, 301L) exist to reduce sensitization risk.
- Hardenability and transformation: 301’s higher tendency for deformation-induced martensite does not directly affect fusion weld zones (which are reheated/solidified austenite), but adjacent cold-worked regions may have mixed microstructures that affect residual stress and distortion.
- Filler compatibility and interpass temperature control are typical concerns for both grades.
- Use of stabilized or low-carbon variants (e.g., 304L) is typical where welding without post-weld anneal is needed.
Common weldability indices (qualitative interpretation; no numeric inputs provided here): - The IIW carbon equivalent: $$CE_{IIW} = C + \frac{Mn}{6} + \frac{Cr+Mo+V}{5} + \frac{Ni+Cu}{15}$$ - The German Pcm formula: $$P_{cm} = C + \frac{Si}{30} + \frac{Mn+Cu}{20} + \frac{Cr+Mo+V}{10} + \frac{Ni}{40} + \frac{Nb}{50} + \frac{Ti}{30} + \frac{B}{1000}$$
Interpretation: - Higher $CE_{IIW}$ or $P_{cm}$ suggests increased risk of hardening, cracking, or reduced weldability in steels where martensite formation is possible. For 301 vs 304, numerical differences in these indices are small because both have low carbon and similar alloy content; 301 may have slightly higher carbon or lower nickel in some billets, marginally affecting indices. Overall, both are considered readily weldable by standard stainless welding practices.
6. Corrosion and Surface Protection
- Stainless behavior: Both 301 and 304 form chromium-rich passive films. Because 304 typically contains a bit more chromium and nickel, it offers marginally better general corrosion resistance and is the more common choice where corrosion concerns take priority (food processing, kitchen equipment, architectural applications).
- Localized corrosion (pitting/crevice): Neither grade contains Mo; for chloride-rich environments, neither 301 nor 304 is as resistant as Mo-bearing grades (e.g., 316). Use of protective design and surface finish is critical in aggressive environments.
- PREN (for assessing pitting resistance in stainless steels with Mo and N): $$\text{PREN} = \text{Cr} + 3.3 \times \text{Mo} + 16 \times \text{N}$$ Interpretation:
- PREN is not a useful differentiator between 301 and 304 because both have essentially no Mo and low N; the PREN values are therefore low and similar.
- Surface protection for non-stainless steels (not applicable here) would include galvanizing or coatings; for 301/304, passivation, electropolishing, and mechanical polishing improve corrosion resistance.
7. Fabrication, Machinability, and Formability
- Forming and stamping:
- 301: Excellent formability in the annealed condition; because it work-hardens rapidly, it can be used to produce parts that gain strength during forming (spring back behavior must be accounted for).
- 304: Highly formable and more tolerant of deep drawing operations; less work-hardening simplifies forming predictions.
- Machinability:
- Both perform worse than carbon steels; austenitic stainless steels gum and work-harden at the cut. 301 tends to work-harden faster, complicating machining (requires sharp tools, rigid setups, chip breakers, and modest cutting speeds). 304 is slightly easier to machine in many conditions but still demands optimized tooling and coolant.
- Finishing:
- Surface finish, passivation, and polishing are similar for both grades. Note that cold-worked 301 may have martensitic areas that respond differently to etching/polishing.
8. Typical Applications
| 301 — Typical Uses | 304 — Typical Uses |
|---|---|
| Automotive trim and structural components where higher formed strength after cold work is useful; springs and clips; architectural trim with higher strength needs | Kitchen equipment, food processing, chemical equipment, architectural panels, fasteners, and general-purpose corrosion-resistant components |
| Spring and appliance components that exploit work hardening | Pressure vessels, piping and fittings (304L for welding-critical applications) |
| Aerospace interior fittings and structural parts where light gauge strength is needed after forming | Medical equipment, beverage handling, and sanitary applications |
Selection rationale: - Choose 301 when parts will be heavily cold-worked and designers want to exploit strain-hardening to reach higher in-service strength without heat treatment. - Choose 304 when corrosion resistance, ductility, and weldability in the annealed condition are higher priorities.
9. Cost and Availability
- Cost: 304 is usually slightly more expensive than 301 due to higher nickel content. Market pricing varies with Ni spot prices and regional supply; 301 is often chosen as a cost-effective alternative when full 304 corrosion resistance is not needed.
- Availability: 304 is the most common austenitic stainless alloy worldwide and is available in the widest range of product forms (sheet, plate, bar, tube, fasteners). 301 is widely available but less ubiquitous; it is common in strip, sheet, and some structural forms.
10. Summary and Recommendation
| Attribute | 301 | 304 |
|---|---|---|
| Weldability | Good (standard practice; watch carbon variants) | Very good (stable austenite; widely used for welded assemblies) |
| Strength–Toughness | Higher achievable strength after cold work; excellent toughness as annealed | Stable toughness and ductility; less increase in strength with cold work |
| Cost | Generally lower (less Ni) | Generally higher (more Ni) |
Recommendation: - Choose 301 if you need parts that will be cold-formed and then rely on strain hardening for increased in-service strength (clips, springs, formed structural parts), or when a lower-cost stainless with reasonable corrosion resistance is acceptable. - Choose 304 if your priority is consistent corrosion resistance, high ductility and toughness in the annealed condition, broad availability, and simpler forming/welding behavior for production environments where predictable, stable austenitic properties are needed.
Concluding note: For any critical specification, request mill test certificates and supplier data sheets for the exact product form, and consider low-carbon or stabilized variants (304L, 301L, 301LN) when welding, annealing schedule, or nitrogen content are critical to performance.