Curated with aloha by
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
The authoritative public forum
for Metal Finishing 1989-2025
-----
Passivation Standards E300, QQP-35, ASTM A967
Quickstart:
A couple of decades of cancellations, reinstatements, updates, and changes in passivation specs have transpired since some of these early postings. Although we must adhere to whatever specs have been issued for the components in question, the answer these days (thanks to Ray Kremer of Stellar Solutions for the updates) is:
• AMS 2700 for aerospace
• ASTM F86 for implants
• ASTM A967 for everything else
Q. I'm trying to understand the development of standards in the area of passivating stainless steel.
I'm being told that QQ-P-35C (canceled) [link is to free spec at Defense Logistics Agency, dla.mil] has been cancelled and is being replaced by ASTM A967 -96. Also, MIL-DTL-14072 [⇦ this spec on DLA] E300 directly calls up ASTM A380. I have then been told that A380 and A967-96 might merge, so perhaps another standard will be created?
Can anyone kindly verify / counterclaim my understandings?
Thanks a lot,
Bob
Bob Elliot- Orland Park, Illinois, USA
1999
A. Bob, We have doing a lot of Passivating, Over the last couple of years, Some of the changes that have happened is that:
1. QQ-P-35 was cancelled then for some reason (probably confusion) AMS picked up the same spec Lists it as AMS QQP-35
2. ASTM A967 spec is still in effect as been in the last couple of years and it is soon to be revised just to confuse things even more -- chris
Chris Snyderplater - Charlotte, North Carolina
A. Bob, be careful with the type of work you're doing for QQ-P-35 The spec has been superceded by ASTM A967 or AMS QQP-35. If you are performing military and aerospace work you have to use the AMS specification which is identical to the original QQ-P-35. Only the controlling publisher has changed to SAE. The ASTM 967 was written to take the place of QQ-P-35, but has lost some of its power with the release of the SAE AMS spec. I haven't heard any gossip on the formation of a new spec (ASTM)
Tim Martinplating shop - Springfield, Massachusetts
A. Bob ASTM A967 Is the replacement for QQ-P-35C. If your process conforms to QQ-P-35C it might be that your process conforms to the new standard. The new ASTM A967 Is not focused in the process solution but in the process results and requirements which are similar to the previous standards. Yours,
Yehuda Blau
YB Plating Engineering and Quality - Haifa Israel
Q. Where can I get QQ-P-35C (canceled) [link is to free spec at Defense Logistics Agency, dla.mil] (Type 11.) and MIL-A-8625 / MIL-PRF-8625 [⇦ this spec on DLA] (Type I, Class II )? I want to know the meaning/content of these two specs.
I'm located in China, but I need to make some components with this U.S. Spec.
Appreciate your response.
James
James WangShanghai, P.R.China
2001
Ed. note: We've hotlinked your mention of them to the source, James.
Q. Does the new ASTM A967 spec use the same "types" and "classes" as the QQ-P-35?
T. Garber- USA
2000
I'm confused with this thread, for to do a passivation treatment on stainless steel, should you use specification # MIL-F-14072-E300 or use AMS QQP-35?
Hugo Gonzalez
- Houston, Texas
2003
Ed. note: Customer and vendor must jointly agree what is the ruling spec for the contract, but ASTM A967 is the most generally applicable spec.
this text gets replaced with bannerText
Q, A, or Comment on THIS thread -or- Start a NEW Thread