North

American
Version
Imperial Units

Type 254 SMO® Comparative

to Other 6Mo Stainless Grades

This brochure briefly describes the many similarities and few stainless steels have a residual copper content of
differences between Outokumpu 254 SMO®1 alloy and other about 0.20%.
6Mo stainless steel “alloys”, such as the ATI Allegheny Ludlum
AL-6XN®2 alloy. It is based on Outokumpu’s 30+ years of *“Leanest” meaning lowest Ni content of all the 6Mo grades
experience with developing, producing, and marketing of 6% listed in reference #3.
molybdenum-containing stainless steels. While extensive, this
brochure does not provide all detailed information that has been In practice, there will be only a small difference
published in applicable literature or observed by Outokumpu
between the AL-6XN and 254 SMO alloys with
over the years with respect to 6Mo stainless steels. For additional
details regarding such information as references, testing respect to copper. The N08926 alloy requires a
standards, and results, please contact Outokumpu. copper content of 0.50-1.50%.5 The effect of the
different concentrations of copper on corrosion
254 SMO and Most Other 6Mo Grades resistance would be difficult to detect in laboratory
are Essentially Equivalent corrosion tests and are not considered to be
The physical properties of 6Mo grades, including statistically significant in any application, other
both the 254 SMO®1 and AL-6XN®2 alloys than reducing acid environments, such as the
are essentially equivalent as described herein. intermediate concentration range of pure sulfuric
acid, depending on the exact exposure and
Because of the similarities among the 6Mo grades,
evaluation criteria.4
they may be used interchangeably, may be used
together and the selection of a specific grade Composition, wt. pct Table 1
should be based on availability, price, and service. Outokumpu
254 SMO® ATI Allegheny Ludlum
254 SMO: The Leanest* 6Mo Stainless Element (wrought products) Typical AL-6XN®
on the Market
Carbon 0.020 max 0.02
The 6Mo stainless steels, whether 254 SMO Chromium 19.5 - 20.5 20.5
(S31254), AL-6XN (N08367), or 1925 hMo Nickel 17.5 - 18.5 24.0
and 25-6Mo (both covered by N08926), are Molybdenum 6.0 - 6.5 6.2
substantially similar with respect to significant Nitrogen .018 - 0.22 0.22
performance characteristics.3 The chemical Copper 0.50 - 1.00 0.2
composition of the 254 SMO stainless steel Sulfur 0.010 max 0.001
typically has a slightly higher copper content than Phosphorus 0.030 max 0.020
the AL-6XN alloy (Table 1). The original Avesta Silicon 0.80 max 0.40
Jernverk AB (predecessor to Outokumpu) patent4 Manganese 1.00 max 0.40
on 254 SMO was based, to some extent, on Iron Balance Balance
data that demonstrated that 0.5-1.0% copper ** See producers’ websites for published alloy surcharges.
in a 6Mo stainless steel produced an optimal The most notable difference in composition
combination of resistance to reducing acids and between the 254 SMO and AL-6XN alloys is
resistance to chlorides.4 The AL-6XN alloy the nickel content (Table 1). The 254 SMO
contains copper only as a residual element, as alloy contains about 6% less nickel than the
do most austenitic stainless steels. Based on AL-6XN, which results in a negligible difference
Outokumpu’s experience, most austenitic in performance6, yet often achieves a significant
 savings in cost due to the volatility in nickel The time to failure in boiling Isocorrosion Curves 0.1 mm/year for given steels
prices**. magnesium chloride solution of in pure sulfuric acid Figure 2
stainless steel wire as a function of Ni
content Figure 1
The 254 SMO alloy was the first nitrogen-alloyed
6Mo grade stainless steel.6,7 Avesta Jernverks
AB was granted a patent for such composition
that required various other elements.4 When
other producers decided to produce a nitrogen-
containing 6Mo steel, the use of a Ni content higher
than that in the 254 SMO alloy avoided conflict
with the patent without substantial detrimental
effects.8

As shown in Figure 1, the most likely performance

characteristic that is potentially affected by the
lower 254 SMO alloy nickel content is the resistance
to chloride stress-corrosion cracking.9 However,
laboratory testing has failed to demonstrate
any detectable influence on the chloride stress
corrosion cracking resistance due to the 6%
nickel content difference. Both the 254 SMO
and AL-6XN alloys will pass the wick test10 and
the boiling 25% NaCl test for SCC resistance, Note: While this data seems to indicate a small advantage for the AL-6XN alloy over the 254 SMO alloy in this specific
yet neither will pass the boiling 42% magnesium environment, the data has not been produced under exactly the same conditions. Thus, small differences in test procedures
and sampling may account for the minor differences in test results.
chloride test (Table 2).
Outokumpu has observed that when one 6Mo
In the sophisticated drop-evaporation test, it is alloy is not satisfactory for use in a particular bearing launch environments found both alloys differences in PREn values for the nominal
possible to make either the 254 SMO alloy or the application due to susceptibility to SCC, then performed substantially better than 304 stainless compositions that are available in the various
AL-6XN alloy look superior, depending on precise selection of the other 6Mo alloys for that steel and the 254 SMO alloy performed slightly 6Mo alloys. In view of the above, Outokumpu
conditions. However, any differences in such application would be an exceedingly risky better than the AL-6XN alloy. Support for the recommends a conservative approach to use the
drop-evaporation tests are not believed to be proposition. The relative level of SCC resistance similar performance comes from the very similar standardized minimums for Cr, Mo, and N for the
statistically significant.11,12,13 of the 6Mo alloys, which corresponds to resistance Pitting Resistance Equivalent number (PREn) 6Mo alloys in the PREn calculation, and concludes
in boiling NaCl solutions, but susceptiblein boiling for these alloys. The PREn employs statistical that there are no statistically significant differences.
MgCl2, is the same level of relative resistance for regression to relate pitting resistance to the In oil & gas production environments, the 254
Chloride Stress Corrosion
the 20Cb-3®14 alloy, 904L, the duplex grades chemical composition of a stainless steel.19 SMO, AL-X6N, and other 6Mo alloys have been
Cracking Resistance Table 2
2205 and 2507, and any ferritic stainless steel with extensively researched and compared and are all
nickel content in the range of 1% or higher, such The PREn calculations from various investigators typically specified interchangeably.21
Boiling Wick Boiling as the SEA-CURE®15 alloy.10 have demonstrated that the pitting resistance
42% MgCL2 Test 25% NaCl depends primarily on the level of Cr, Mo, and N Welding
Grade
content. It has also been shown that nickel has High amounts of nickel in lower alloyed
Based on the Copson curve (see Figure 1), a
Outokumpu Fail Pass Pass very little statistically detectable effect on pitting austenitic materials have been shown to increase
minimum of 34% nickel content is required to
254 SMO® corrosion resistance over the full range of austenitic the tendency for hot cracking due to the mode
pass the magnesium chloride test.
ATI Allegheny stainless steels.20 The sensitivity of the PREn data of solidification of the weld metal.22 Low nickel
Fail Pass Pass
Ludlum AL-6XN® is such that within grade variations of Cr, Mo, and levels favor either complete solidification as
Pitting and Crevice Corrosion N near the nominal values for these stainless steels, primary ferrite (termed Type F), or solidification
Outokumpu Fail Pass Pass
2205 Code Plus Two® Based on published results on pitting and crevice the apparent PREn variation is of minor import of primary ferrite followed by some austenite
Alloy 20 corrosion resistance16,17 “lab” data give little compared to effects from surface finish, normal formation (termed Type FA).22 Higher levels
Fail Pass Pass
concrete evidence to choose between these alloys. variations in practical annealing conditions, and of nickel favor solidification either as primary
Alloy 904L Fail Pass or Pass austenite followed by the formation of some ferrite
A study by NASA18 to evaluate the resistance of variations in the corrosiveness of the environment.
Fail or Fail (termed Type AF) solidification, or complete
the 254 SMO and AL-6XN alloys to chloride- These effects will overshadow any apparent
2 - Type 254 SMO® Comparison Type 254 SMO® Comparison - 3
 Isocorrosion Diagrams, austenitic solidification (termed Type A).22 Ferrite
Corrosion rate 0.1 mm/yr, formation during solidification has been shown to
in hydrochloric acid Figure 3
improve hot workability and cracking resistance.22
The lower nickel content in the 254 SMO alloy, as
compared to other 6Mo alloys, was designed to
simultaneously precipitate ferrite and austenite
from the melt, resulting in better hot workability.
Other 6Mo grades that contain a higher nickel
content than the 254 SMO alloy generally solidify
entirely as primary austenite and as a result do not
have the same improved hot workability.4 This
solidification mode also has the potential to increase
the resistance to hot cracking during welding.4
However, this potential advantage will only be
realized with autogenous welds, which typically
with 6Mo steels are only used in conjunction with
a post weld solution anneal.16 Welding the 254
SMO alloy with a nickel alloy filler would not
result in any advantage over other 6Mo steels due
to lower nickel.
Tensile Strength
There is different strength data published for the
various 6Mo grades (Table 3).5 However, the
apparent differences in strength data result from an
apples-to-oranges comparison. In other words, the
strength data specifically relates to product form
and the original data developed for the grades. The
strength data for the 254 SMO alloy was originally
developed for thick plate because that was the
initial product of interest. The strength data for
the AL-6XN alloy was originally developed for
Minimum Tensile Test light gauge sheet and strip, because tubing was the
Requirements for some 6Mo stainless steels initial product form.7 As a result, the basis for the
according to ASTM A240-09a Table 3 strength data for the AL-6XN alloy is different
than the basis for the strength data of the 254
254 AL 16 UNS SMO alloy, and therefore not directly comparable.
SMO 6XN N08926
Yield Strength, Sheet and 45 45 43
For many years, Outokumpu followed the
min (kpi) Strip Plate 45 45 43
traditional and more conservative approach that
Tensile Strength, Sheet and 100 100 94 quotes a single minimum value for yield and
min (kpi) Strip Plate 95 95 94 tensile strengths at all thicknesses. However,
in order to address market concerns about
Elongation in Sheet and 35 30 35 performance, Outokumpu introduced a higher
2”, % Strip Plate 35 30 35 strength quote for sheet gauges of the 254 SMO alloy.
4 - Type 254 SMO® Comparison
Physical Properties grades that are now considered as stainless steels
and covered in the A-specs.23 As a result, the
At Room Temperature Table 4
ATI AL-6XN alloy has been introduced into most of
Outokumpu Allegheny the same specifications that the 254 SMO alloy
Property 254 SMO® AL-6XN® has been in for over twenty years. Outokumpu
Modulus of elasticity 29 29 believes that there is no significance to the original
psi x 106 specifications or to the changes, except that it is
Coefficient of thermal 8.9 7.9
now convenient to specify both grades using the
expansion same standard specifications, thereby facilitating
(68˚F to 212˚F) x 10-6/˚F the best service to the user. The knowledgeable
Thermal Conductivity 7.5 7.5 user will specify both grades as acceptable
Btu/h ft˚F alternatives.
Heat Capacity Btu/lb˚F 0.120 0.11
The physical properties of 6Mo grades, including
Density lb/in3 0.287 0.291
both the 254 SMO and AL-6XN alloys, are
Magnetic Permeability 1.003 1.0028 essentially equivalent (Table 4). Because of the
similarities among the 6Mo grades, they may be
used interchangeably3, may be used together and
The N08926 alloy has a composition that most the selection of a specific grade should be based on
closely resembles the AL-6XN alloy (N08367) and availability, price, and service.
continues to use the conservative single strength
Technical Support
value for all thicknesses which is the same strength
Outokumpu assists users and fabricators in the
quote originally quoted for the 254 SMO alloy
selection, qualification, installation, operation,
(S31254).5
and maintenance of the 254 SMO stainless steel.
Designations Technical personnel, supported by the research
The AL-6XN alloy was originally listed in the laboratory of Outokumpu, can draw on years of
ASTM and ASME B-specs, rather than A-specs field experience with the 254 SMO alloy to help
that listed nickel-base alloys, because ASTM you make the technically and economically correct
formerly defined “stainless steel” in a way that materials decision. Outokumpu is prepared to discuss
excluded the 6Mo grades other than the 254 SMO individual applications and to provide data and
alloy.23 The old rule stated that in a stainless experience as a basis for selection and application
steel, iron had to be at least 50% by weight of of the 254 SMO alloy.
the alloying additions.24 In the last ten years,
the ASTM has harmonized its steel definitions Outokumpu works closely with its distributors to
with the rest of the world.23 As a result, the AL- ensure timely availability of the 254 SMO alloy
6XN alloy is now listed as a stainless steel in the in the forms, sizes, and quantities required by the
ASTM A-specs. The new rule states that iron is user. For assistance with technical questions and
the element with the largest weight percentage.24 to obtain top quality 254 SMO products, call
Basically, the ASTM “grandfathered” the Outokumpu at 1-800-833-8703.
specifications for nickel-base alloys (such as
the AL-6XN alloy, the 904L alloy, and many
other 6Mo stainless steels with original UNS
N-numbering), stating its intent to maintain
these specifications for a period of about ten
years for the convenience of previous users and
to withdraw these specifications—or at least the
Type 254 SMO® Comparison - 5
 References
1
254 SMO is a trademark of Outokumpu OYJ, registered in the United States and other countries.
2
AL-6XN is a trademark of ATI Properties, Inc., registered in the United States.
3
Ralph M. Davison and James D. Redmond, Practical Guide to Using 6Mo Austenitic Stainless Steel, Material
Performance, vol. 27, Number 12, December 1988, pp 39 – 43.
4
United States Patent Number 4,078,920, Austenitic Stainless Steel with High Molybdenum Content, Liljas et al,
March 14, 1978.
5
ASTM A240/240M, Standard Specification for Chromium, and Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and
Strip for Pressure Vessels and for General Applications, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
6
Mats Liljas, Development of Superaustenitic Stainless Steels, ACOM 1-1995, Avesta Sheffield AB, Avesta, Sweden.
7
CASTI Handbook of Stainless Steels & Nickel Alloys, Stephen Lamb Technical Editor, CASTI Publishing Inc.
Edmonton, Alberta, 1999.
8
United States Patent Number 4,545,826, Method For Producing A Weldable Austenitic Stainless Steel in Heavy Sections,
Thomas H. McCunn, John P. Ziemianski, and Ivan Franson, October 1985.
9
H. R. Copson, Effect of Composition on Stress Corrosion Cracking of Some Alloys Containing Nickel, Physical Metallurgy
of Stress Corrosion Fracture, T.N. Rhodin, Editor, Interscience, 1959, pp 247 – 272.
10
Corrosion of Stainless Steels, Second Edition, A. John Sedriks, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, pp 293.
11
Poul-Erik Arnvig and Wioletta Wasielewska, Stress Corrosion Behaviour of Highly Alloyed Stainless Steels Under Severe
Evaporative Conditions, ACOM 3-1993, Avesta Sheffield, Avesta, Sweden.
12
Helle Anderson, Poul-Erik Arnvig, Wioletta Wasielewska, Lena Wegrelius, and Christian Wolfe, SCC of Stainless Steel
Under Evaporative Conditions, ACOM 3-1998, Avesta Sheffield, Avesta, Sweden.
13
Unpublished work by Poul-Erik Arnvig.
14
20Cb-3 is a trademark of CRS Holdings, Inc., registered in the United States.
15
SEA-CURE is a trademark of Plymouth Tube Company, registered in the United States.
16
ATI AL-6XN® Alloy (UNS N08367) Sourcebook, Ed. 4, ©2010 ATI Allegheny Ludlum.
17
Corrosion Handbook, Outokumpu Oyj, Tenth Edition, 2009.
18
L.M. Calle, M.R. Kolody. R.D. Vinje, M.C. Whitten, and W. Li, Electrochemical Impedance Study of Alloys in a Simulated
Space Shuttle Launch Environment, NASA Government Publication 153, (http://corrosion.ksc.nasa.gov/pubs/153.pdf )
19
ASM Handbook, Volume 13A, Corrosion: Fundamentals, Testing, and Protection, Stephen D. Cramer and Bernard S.
Covino, jr., Volume Editors, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio 2003, pp 266 – 274.
20
Elisabet Alfonsson and Rolf Qvarfort, Investigation of the Applicability of Some PRE Expressions for Austenitic Stainless
Steels, ACOM 1-1992, Avesta AB, Avesta Sweden, 1991.
21
International Standard NACE MRO175/ISO 15156-1:2001
22
Welding Metallurgy and Weldability of Stainless Steels, John C. Lippold and Mamian J. Kotecki, Wily Interscience
2005, pp 173 – 189.
23
Discussions with Ralph Davison former Chairman of the ASTM A1.17 Subcommittee.
24
ASTM A941-06, Standard Terminology Relating to Steel, Stainless Steel, Related Alloy, and Ferroalloys, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.

6 - Type 254 SMO® Comparison Type 254 SMO® Comparison - 7

 1245EN, Bannockburn, USA. October 2014. Edition 3 (US)
Working towards forever.
We work with our customers and partners
to create long lasting solutions for the tools
of modern life and the world’s most critical problems:
clean energy, clean water and efficient infrastructure.
Because we believe in a world that lasts forever.

Information given in this brochure may be subject to alterations without notice. Care has been taken to ensure that the contents
of this publication are accurate but Outokumpu and its affiliated companies do not accept responsibility for errors or for
information which is found to be misleading. Suggestions for or descriptions of the end use or application of products or methods
of working are for information only and Outokumpu and its affiliated companies accept no liability in respect thereof. Before using
products supplied or manufactured by the company the customer should satisfy himself of their suitability.
254 SMO® is a registered trademark of Outokumpu Stainless.
2205 Code Plus Two® is a registered trademark of Outokumpu Stainless, Inc.

Outokumpu High Performance Stainless

2275 E. Half Day Road, Suite 300, Bannockburn, IL 60015 USA
Tel. 1-847-317-1400 Fax 1-847-317-1404
outokumpu.com