304 vs 204Cu – Composition, Heat Treatment, Properties, and Applications
แบ่งปัน
Table Of Content
Table Of Content
Introduction
Engineers, procurement managers, and manufacturing planners often face a trade-off when selecting between a well-established austenitic stainless like 304 and lower‑nickel alternatives such as 204Cu. The typical decision contexts include balancing corrosion resistance against material cost, choosing optimum weldability and formability for fabrication, and selecting the right strength level for load-bearing or thin‑gauge structures.
The primary distinction between these two grades is alloying strategy: 304 relies on higher nickel content to stabilize the austenite and deliver broad corrosion resistance and formability, while 204Cu reduces nickel content and uses alternative alloying — notably higher manganese and added copper — to maintain austenite and to increase strength. That difference drives divergent behavior in corrosion performance, mechanical properties, weldability, and cost.
1. Standards and Designations
- 304: Common designations include UNS S30400 / S30403 (304L), EN 1.4301 (304), ASTM A240 / A276 / A312 (varies by product form), JIS SUS304.
- Category: Austenitic stainless steel (general-purpose).
- 204Cu: Common designations include UNS S20430 (sometimes listed as AISI 204Cu in vendor literature); equivalent EN/JIS designations may not be standardized across all suppliers.
- Category: Austenitic stainless steel, low‑nickel, copper‑containing variant (designed as a cost‑reduced alternative to 300‑series).
Note: Exact standard numbers and available product forms (sheet, coil, bar, tube) depend on region and supplier; verify the applicable standard for critical procurement.
2. Chemical Composition and Alloying Strategy
Typical composition ranges are shown below. Exact limits depend on the standard or vendor; the table gives representative nominal ranges used in commercial practice.
| Element | 304 (typical range, wt%) | 204Cu (typical range, wt%) |
|---|---|---|
| C | ≤ 0.08 | ≤ 0.08 |
| Mn | ≤ 2.0 | ~5.5 – 7.5 |
| Si | ≤ 1.0 | ≤ 1.0 |
| P | ≤ 0.045 | ≤ 0.045 |
| S | ≤ 0.03 | ≤ 0.03 |
| Cr | 18.0 – 20.0 | 18.5 – 20.0 |
| Ni | 8.0 – 10.5 | ~3.5 – 5.0 |
| Mo | ≤ 0.25 (trace) | ≤ 0.25 (usually none) |
| V | — | — |
| Nb | — | — |
| Ti | — | — |
| B | — | — |
| Cu | ≤ 0.50 (trace) | ~1.0 – 2.0 |
| N | ≤ 0.10 | up to ~0.20 (varies by product) |
How alloying affects performance: - Nickel is the classical austenite stabilizer and gives 304 its excellent ductility, toughness, and corrosion resistance in many environments. - In 204Cu the nickel reduction is compensated by higher manganese and controlled nitrogen; copper is added to assist austenite stability and to raise strength through solid‑solution/cold work effects and to mitigate certain cracking modes. - Chromium content in both grades provides basic passivity and pitting resistance; absence of Mo limits suitability in highly chloride‑bearing or crevice environments compared with Mo‑bearing grades. - Higher Mn and N alter work hardening and mechanical strength; copper modifies mechanical behavior and can improve resistance to some chloride stress corrosion cracking modes but does not replace the broad corrosion performance of higher‑nickel alloys in aggressive conditions.
3. Microstructure and Heat Treatment Response
- 304: Typical microstructure is fully austenitic (γ phase) after standard solution anneal (approx. 1000–1100 °C, rapid cooling). It is not hardenable by thermal quench/temper methods (no martensitic transformation on cooling), but significant strengthening is achieved by cold work which increases dislocation density and raises yield/tensile strengths.
- 204Cu: Also engineered to be austenitic in the annealed condition. The high Mn and Cu plus possible N additions help stabilize austenite without high Ni. Microstructure under standard processing is austenitic but with a higher tendency to work‑harden. Copper remains in solid solution and can slightly modify stacking fault energy and dislocation interactions.
- Heat treatment routes:
- Solution annealing and quenching: Restores ductility and corrosion resistance for both grades; necessary after cold working or welding to relieve work hardening and dissolve sensitization products (sensitization is primarily an issue with carbon and thermal exposure).
- Thermo‑mechanical processing: Cold rolling or controlled annealing cycles will increase strength via strain hardening; 204Cu typically achieves higher strength increments from cold work than 304 due to its alloy balance.
- Neither grade is hardened by conventional quench‑and‑temper steel routes because both are austenitic stainless steels; precipitation hardening is not applicable.
4. Mechanical Properties
Values vary by product form (cold‑rolled vs annealed, sheet vs bar) and manufacturer. The following are indicative typical annealed ranges for commercial stainless sheet/coil; verify supplier datasheets for precise procurement requirements.
| Property (annealed, indicative) | 304 | 204Cu |
|---|---|---|
| Tensile strength (MPa) | ~500 – 700 | ~550 – 750 |
| Yield strength (0.2% offset, MPa) | ~200 – 300 | ~250 – 350 |
| Elongation (% in 50 mm) | ~40 – 60 | ~30 – 50 |
| Impact toughness (Charpy V, room temp) | High, typically good toughness | Generally good; may be somewhat lower when compared at same thickness due to higher strength |
| Hardness (HRB / HB) | ~70 – 100 HRB (≈150 – 220 HB) | Slightly higher on average due to alloying / work hardening |
Interpretation: - 204Cu is typically somewhat stronger in both yield and tensile strength in the annealed state and especially after cold work, owing to Mn/N/Cu chemistry and higher work hardening rate. - 304 typically shows higher ductility and slightly better toughness for equivalent thickness and processing history, making it preferred where deep drawing or severe forming is required. - Both grades retain good toughness at ambient temperatures; low temperature toughness and specific impact values depend on nitrogen content and processing.
5. Weldability
Weldability depends on composition (carbon, Mn, Ni, Cu, N), thermal cycles, and joint design.
Important indices: - Carbon equivalent (IIW): $$CE_{IIW} = C + \frac{Mn}{6} + \frac{Cr+Mo+V}{5} + \frac{Ni+Cu}{15}$$ - Chromium equivalent (Pcm) for cold cracking susceptibility: $$P_{cm} = C + \frac{Si}{30} + \frac{Mn+Cu}{20} + \frac{Cr+Mo+V}{10} + \frac{Ni}{40} + \frac{Nb}{50} + \frac{Ti}{30} + \frac{B}{1000}$$
Qualitative interpretation: - 304: Lower Mn and higher Ni usually give excellent weldability, low hot‑cracking tendency, and good resistance to intergranular corrosion if low carbon grades (304L) or proper post‑weld annealing practices are used. - 204Cu: Higher Mn and Cu increase the terms in the CE/Pcm expressions and can raise hardenability and cracking risk in specific conditions; however, 204Cu is typically produced and qualified to be weldable with standard procedures (TIG, MIG, resistance welding) when appropriate filler metals and joint designs are used. Preheat and interpass temperatures are usually not required for thin sections, but welding consumables and post‑weld treatment should be selected carefully. - Practical note: Because 204Cu has lower Ni, matching filler selection and controlling dilution are important to retain corrosion performance and austenitic microstructure in the weld. Where service is chloride‑rich, using 316 or higher‑alloy weld metal may be warranted.
6. Corrosion and Surface Protection
- 304: Good general corrosion resistance in atmospheric, mild chemical, and food environments. Susceptible to chloride pitting and crevice corrosion in aggressive chloride media; not recommended for seawater or highly acidic chloride environments without protective measures.
- 204Cu: Designed to provide corrosion resistance comparable to 304 in many mild to moderate environments. Because Ni is reduced, pitting and crevice resistance may be similar but depends on exact Cr/N levels and the presence of Mo (usually absent). Copper can impart modest improvements to resistance against certain sulfuric acid concentrations and may influence resistance to stress corrosion cracking in some conditions, but does not broadly replace the benefits of higher‑Ni grades in severe chloride or high‑temperature applications.
Use of indices: - Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number (PREN) is useful when Mo and N vary: $$\text{PREN} = \text{Cr} + 3.3 \times \text{Mo} + 16 \times \text{N}$$ - For both 304 and 204Cu (Mo ≈ 0), PREN is driven by Cr and N; both typically have moderate PREN values and are not considered high‑pitting‑resistance alloys.
Surface protection for non‑stainless finishes: - If non‑stainless or low‑alloy options are considered, galvanizing, painting, or polymer coatings are standard. Both 304 and 204Cu are stainless types; if additional protection is required (e.g., in marine atmospheres), coatings or use of more corrosion‑resistant grades is recommended.
7. Fabrication, Machinability, and Formability
- Forming: 304 is generally superior for deep drawing and severe forming due to higher ductility and lower work‑hardening rate in many temper conditions. 204Cu, while formable, exhibits higher work hardening, so more forming force and intermediate anneals may be needed for tight radii or complex shapes.
- Machinability: Austenitic stainless steels work‑harden rapidly; 204Cu’s higher strength and work hardening tendency may decrease machinability compared to 304. Proper tooling, rigid setups, and chip control are essential for both; 204Cu may require more aggressive cutting parameters or carbide tooling for efficient machining.
- Surface finishing: Both take standard finishes (polish, brushed). Copper presence in 204Cu can affect color/appearance slightly and may influence etching/pickling cycles; follow supplier guidance for chemical treatments.
- Forming/fabrication recommendation: For high‑volume stamping or deep draw parts prefer 304 unless cost/strength trade‑offs or corrosion environment justify 204Cu. For heavy gauge structural forming where strength is a priority, 204Cu’s higher yield can be advantageous.
8. Typical Applications
| 304 (typical uses) | 204Cu (typical uses) |
|---|---|
| Food processing equipment, kitchen appliances, sinks, medical devices, architectural trim | Appliance panels, HVAC components, decorative trim, consumer goods where lower cost and reasonable corrosion resistance suffice |
| Heat exchangers, chemical process equipment in mild environments | Heat exchangers and tubing in non‑aggressive environments, furniture and fixtures |
| Fasteners, tanks, and piping in non‑chloride service | Applications where reduced nickel content is desirable for cost or supply reasons, light structural components |
Selection rationale: - Choose 304 where proven corrosion resistance, formability, and broad application history are required—especially where contact with food, cleaning agents, or moderate chloride exposure occurs. - Choose 204Cu where lower nickel content reduces cost and where the environment is not aggressively chloride‑bearing, and where moderately higher strength and good surface appearance are required.
9. Cost and Availability
- 304 is one of the most widely produced and stocked stainless grades worldwide; availability in sheet, coil, plate, bar, and tube is excellent. Cost is strongly tied to nickel market prices; when Ni is high, 304 is correspondingly more expensive.
- 204Cu is a lower‑nickel alternative and is typically priced lower than 304 when nickel premiums are significant. Availability is growing but may be more limited in some forms or sizes; lead times and minimum order quantities can vary by supplier and region.
- For high‑volume procurement, assess long‑term nickel market trends and local supplier inventories; small‑batch or special forms may favor 304 due to broader vendor support.
10. Summary and Recommendation
Summary table (qualitative):
| Metric | 304 | 204Cu |
|---|---|---|
| Weldability | Excellent (well‑characterized) | Good with proper consumables and controls |
| Strength–Toughness balance | Moderate strength, high ductility & toughness | Higher strength, good toughness; less ductile in same state |
| Cost | Higher (sensitive to Ni price) | Lower (reduced Ni; copper compensates) |
Conclude with selection guidance: - Choose 304 if you need proven, broad corrosion resistance (especially in food, medical, or chloride‑exposed environments), maximum formability for deep drawing, and the widest market availability of product forms and weld consumables. - Choose 204Cu if procurement is cost‑sensitive or nickel availability is an issue, and the service environment is mild to moderate (non‑aggressive chloride conditions). 204Cu offers higher as‑fabricated strength and can be a good substitute for sheet, panel, and light structural parts where formability demands are moderate and the corrosion environment is not severe.
Final note: Both grades have legitimate roles in modern manufacturing. For safety‑critical, chloride‑exposed, or highly corrosive services, consider higher‑alloy or molybdenum‑bearing stainless grades (e.g., 316 or superaustenitics). Always confirm exact chemical and mechanical limits with supplier datasheets and perform application‑specific qualification (weld trials, corrosion testing, forming trials) before final material selection.