316ti vs 316L
- Thread starter MeLikeUmFire
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
WET1 said it perfect, on another note some will boast that .006 is better then .005.. to each his own.... I prefer .005 because it is more flexible as a finished product and easier to handle; .005 is actually more costly to buy because the coil has to be rolled down to a smaller gauge or technically speaking to a larger gauge.
Wet1 said:
- Nov 18, 2005
- 701
Actually 316Ti only performs better against chlorides (think oil burning appliances or coal stoves) then 316L at temperatures above 900ºF (think chimney fires). Since you don't usually get chimney fires from these appliances, you are paying extra for no added benefit. It is merely a marketing ploy.
If you are only burning wood (don't have to worry about the chlorides), 304 is fine and cheaper. I agree with Magnaflex in that .005 is sufficient as well and is usually more flexible then .006 (depending on type of corrugations). Make sure the liner is UL1777 certified which means it has passed all the strength and heat tests and install it per instructions and you should have no problems.
If you are only burning wood (don't have to worry about the chlorides), 304 is fine and cheaper. I agree with Magnaflex in that .005 is sufficient as well and is usually more flexible then .006 (depending on type of corrugations). Make sure the liner is UL1777 certified which means it has passed all the strength and heat tests and install it per instructions and you should have no problems.
Too funny - just discussing this in another thread. My replies:
The main benefit is if you do have a chimney fire, the Ti will help prevent the precipitation of what are called ‘chromium carbides’. Basically you get the steel hot enough the alloying elements can start to move around and make new compounds. Once this happens, the stainless steel is depleted in chromium because it’s now locked up with the carbon - which reduces it’s corrosion resistance and the carbides are brittle which may make the liner more prone to cracking. BUT - if you never have a flue fire never really need the titanium for stabilization at those temperatures - and you’ve got a thinner/cheaper liner doing the job for all that time.
In my semi-professional metallurgical opinion, the Ti addition is a bit of metallurgical hocus pocus anyway. True it does prevent bad things from happening when the steel gets to high temperature. But why is that needed? Because the steel is so thin to begin with! If you take a propane torch and point it at a knife blade, that thing will be red hot in just a few seconds. Point the same torch at the top of your wood stove and I doubt you’d ever get it to glow at all. More thermal mass helps dissipate the heat and keep the temperature much lower. It’s almost as if the manufacturers created an artificial problem by making the liner metal 1/5th the thickness, then came up with a ‘premium’ alloy to handle the high heat in the thin metal. So now everyone thinks the high heat ‘premium’ alloy must be the best thing when in fact, it’s a cheaper, thinner product. Equal thickness to equal thickness, yes, the Ti is a superior alloy for high heat, but if the only reason it’s there is because the product is 1/5 the thickness - any advantage is nullified.
The main benefit is if you do have a chimney fire, the Ti will help prevent the precipitation of what are called ‘chromium carbides’. Basically you get the steel hot enough the alloying elements can start to move around and make new compounds. Once this happens, the stainless steel is depleted in chromium because it’s now locked up with the carbon - which reduces it’s corrosion resistance and the carbides are brittle which may make the liner more prone to cracking. BUT - if you never have a flue fire never really need the titanium for stabilization at those temperatures - and you’ve got a thinner/cheaper liner doing the job for all that time.
In my semi-professional metallurgical opinion, the Ti addition is a bit of metallurgical hocus pocus anyway. True it does prevent bad things from happening when the steel gets to high temperature. But why is that needed? Because the steel is so thin to begin with! If you take a propane torch and point it at a knife blade, that thing will be red hot in just a few seconds. Point the same torch at the top of your wood stove and I doubt you’d ever get it to glow at all. More thermal mass helps dissipate the heat and keep the temperature much lower. It’s almost as if the manufacturers created an artificial problem by making the liner metal 1/5th the thickness, then came up with a ‘premium’ alloy to handle the high heat in the thin metal. So now everyone thinks the high heat ‘premium’ alloy must be the best thing when in fact, it’s a cheaper, thinner product. Equal thickness to equal thickness, yes, the Ti is a superior alloy for high heat, but if the only reason it’s there is because the product is 1/5 the thickness - any advantage is nullified.
I am wondering if everyone is getting a little of track here, are you looking for an answer if the .006 316L will suit your application? If so I would just fight for the difference back from the seller and use it. The issue comes along that if you have started to install it, you cant really return it. Was this an Ebay purchase?
- Status