Corrosion data contained in these tables were taken from the referenced literature.  We started with the recent and comprehensive ASM Handbook Corrosion compilation (Ref. 1), supplemented with any additional data from a recent Timet publication (Ref. 5).  We then compared these data with earlier compilations, principally the 1959 Battelle TML Report 57 (Ref. 3) and old Crucible Titanium supplier literature (Ref. 2), both of which included source references.

The recent publications contained what appear to be the same data as the earlier references.  In eliminating duplications, we have attempted to indicate the original or earliest reference wherever possible. We have retained numerical corrosion data rather than “nil” when it was available, and eliminated the “>5, >50”, etc. notations, which appear to have been carried over from the 1953 RemCru Titanium Review (Ref. 3-18).

To simplify automatic sorting of data, we have used the convention that for data shown as “room temperature” we arbitrarily assigned 68.5^oF (20.3^oC). There were no data with that exact temperature reported in the compilations, so the user will easily be able to distinguish where we have made the change. 

Most of the original data were reported in Fahrenheit and mpy (mils per year) units.  Consequently, we have sorted on these units and derived the corresponding Centigrade and mm/yr units.

We noted in our research that some of the data were first reported in literature as early as 1930 and have been carried through to recent compilations including the ASM Handbook.  Both the corrosion resistance of commercial titanium mill products and techniques for corrosion testing may have changed sufficiently to warrant a review of some of the results if material selection decisions are being based on small differences in corrosion rate.  Many of these early tests were likely simple beaker tests in which a specimen was placed in a beaker and allowed to corrode, without necessarily taking in to account the effects of Ti⁴⁺ ion from the corroding titanium in solution, the effects of aeration, etc. 

Some data reported in many of the compilations (mainly for sulfuric, acetic, and citric acids) were from tests on powder compacts, again where properties could be expected to be somewhat different (worse) than corresponding mill products.  We have included these (with a remark) because corresponding data for wrought material were not available, or we suspect that the distinction was lost in some later compilations (including the ASM compilation).

There a few cases where errors appeared to creep in to later tabulations.  We have attempted to eliminate these, but like the other compilers, may have failed to get them all.  We invite users of the data to let us know of any errors they find.  We would also welcome any additional data that could be added to the list to make it more complete and up to date.  If you have such material, please send it to “Titanium Fabrication Corporation, Attn. Corrosion Data” at one of our addresses.  Be sure to include references, or preferably complete articles or reports if possible.

Actual corrosion service results may be affected by trace amounts of inhibiting chemicals, hot wall effects, aeration conditions, crevices, deposits, concentration effects of inlet and mixing methods, and just plain unknown conditions that may not be revealed in lab test data or even in seemingly similar service performance.  Titanium Fabrication assumes no liability for the accuracy of these data, or for the consequences of their use, but we would be pleased to discuss your application and offer any advice or suggestions we can.

September 30, 1998