what is the definition of "Ferrous Metal" 3

[sw007]

what is the definition of "Ferrous Metal". I am trying to understanding if Austenitic stainless is Ferrours Metal or not.

I searched on the internet which defines "Ferrous Metal" as metal contain a certain percentage of Iron. Therefore Austenitic stainless steel is Ferrous Metal.

Please advise.

 

[Ron]

Ferrous simply implies "containing iron". If if doesn't contain iron, it is non-ferrous. I suppose the iron content could be so low as to consider it to be non-ferrous, but generally the only breakdown is those that contain iron and those that do not.

 

[JoeTank]

I believe that any material that is more than 50% iron, is termed "ferrous".

Joe Tank

 

[saberblue]

I agree with Joe

A.R. "Andy" Nelson
Engineering Consultant
anelson@arnengineering.com

 

[GRoberts]

Another definition would be a metal where the largest constituent is iron. An example would be 35% Fe, 30% Ni, 25% Cr, 10% Mo.

 

[metengr]

Using the ASM Metals Handbook Desk Edition, Glossary of Metallurgical and Metalworking Terms;
ferrous. Metallic materials in which the principal component is iron.

Austenitic stainless steel is a ferrous alloy.

 

[BillPSU]

Iron aluminide is considered an intermetallic so I am not sure if the definition for a ferrous metal applies all the time.

 

[strider6]

have a look also at this presentation:

http://www.cmse.ed.ac.uk/MSE3/Topics/MSE3-ferrous1.pdf

there is a slide (11) with the classification of metal in ferrous and non-ferrous.
as you can see as someone else explained the principal component is iron. As an example the Nickel Alloy are alloy with at least approx 30% of Ni

S.

Corrosion Prevention & Corrosion Control

 

[tomwalz]

Personally I think this is a darned fine question much like asking what is a ‘heavy metal”. The technical answer is important but the term is often used imprecisely. If someone used the term to me and it were important that I know exactly what they meant I would ask.

Ferrous is improperly used as a synonym for ‘magnetically responsive’ where ‘magnetically responsive’ is improperly used to mean that it will stick to a magnet. (If you are not familiar with it look up the tables for ‘magnetically responsive’ in the CRC handbook.)

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

tom


Thomas J. Walz
Carbide Processors, Inc.

http://www.carbideprocessors.com

Good engineering starts with a Grainger Catalog.

 

[0707]

Austenitic stainless steels are "ferrous" in the sense they contain iron

“Ferrous, in chemical science, indicates a bivalent iron compound (+2 oxidation state) (as opposed to ferric, which indicates a trivalent iron compound (+3 oxidation state)).[1]
Outside of chemical science, ferrous is an adjective used to indicate the presence of iron.[1] The word is derived from the Latin word ferrum (iron).[2] Ferrous metals include steel and pig iron (which contain a few percent of carbon) and alloys of iron with other metals (such as stainless steel.)"


For stainless steels go to

http://www.materialsengineer.com/E-Stainless-Steel.htm

luis marques

 

[EdStainless]

In todays engineering world we would consider any metallic alloy to be ferrous if the major component is iron. This would include all stainless grades.
At one time the rules used for assigning UNS numbers required at least 50% Fe for a S number. Austenitic stainless grades such as AL-6XN and 904L have N numbers, even though they are mostly iron. (and they are being moved from ASTM B specification to A in recognition of this)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[rconner]

This is a kind of fascinating thread, as this seemingly simple question may not yet be totally answered with unanimity after 10 posts! Aha, the “internet” would appear to be a wonderful source for us engineers! If we look hard enough we are likely to find someone (even if it may not be Webster etc.) who spells words just about like we do. Indeed, we are also going to find a great many somewhat differently worded definitions for now seemingly obvious terms like “ferrous” (that we at least once thought we knew well). I guess also based on perhaps different interpretations or perceptions of such an apparently some nebulous term, others have even thought they have nailed down various strengths and vulnerabilities of e.g. such a class of metals (I guess it may be interesting from at least an academic standpoint to know why the original poster is asking the question?)

I nevertheless gave a “star” to metengr, as he has at least quote a contemporary and I suspect some somewhat carefully considered definition from a quite notable authority, the American Society of Metals, or ASM. I believe this is incidentally verbatim the exact same definition I noticed profered by another perhaps quite venerable institution, the American Foundry Society or AFS. I have noticed however that you may have to look very hard to find any sort of consistent definition in many documents of another quite well-known institution, ASTM, even though they have many numerous fine terminology- type standards, and the word is even used in the text and even titles of some ASTM standards! Perhaps this is nothing else signifies the difficulty of this explanation? I beleive ASTM does publish one or more definitions of “non-ferrous metals”, which it appears they say means basically metals that do not contain iron except as an impurity (ah Ron, a great many metals and other materials most would consider “non-ferrous” do contain or may contain at least a little bit of “iron”) .

Now, if we could just define exactly what is meant e.g. by ASM and AFS et al in same by “principal” or "primarily" etc. we might have it made (but it would appear the long definitions of these words from the nearly half foot thick unabridged Webster’s I have didn’t nail down many of the exact portions or fractions etc. I have seen written so far on this thread -- for this reason, his inquisition, and the excellent “Through the Looking Glass” quote by Lewis Carroll from tomwalz, I have given him a star as well for perhaps a quite apropos quotation)!

 

[rconner]

[Oops, I meant "American Foundrymen's Society for "AFS"!)

 

[CoryPad]

AFS changed the F from Foundrymen's to Foundry a few years ago.

 

[ak1965]

Ferrous Metal : that contains iron as the major constituent.

Ferrous Metas are further subdvided into more categories:-

(1)Ferromagnetic Materials : That have megentic property
and for which magnetic permeability is undetermined.
These materials are attracted by permanent Magnets.

(2)Non Ferromagnetic Material: The one that are nonmegntic in nature and can not be attracted by the magnet. Their Magnetic permeability is 1. Austenitic steels & austenitic alloys fall in this category. Like SS304, 308, 310, 316, 321, 347 etc.

(3) However, all Stainless can not be put under non ferromagnetic steels. There are martensitic stainless steels that contain Cr % are ferrromagnetic magnetic.
Like SS410, SS420 etc.

 

[EdStainless]

The rules for UNS names and numbers are well defined in SAE J0186 which is identical to ASTM E 527.

One of my favorite examples of alloy naming is R20033 (alloy 33) at 33%Cr, 31%Ni, 2%Mo, bal Fe (about 32%) this is the only wrought Cr based alloy that there is. Cr is the dominant alloy component.

People tend to commingle discussions of ferrous material and magnetism just because the words are similar and we think of the relationships in everyday life. As one who has worked in the magnetics industry let me assure you that there is almost no relationship.
I can make highly ferro-magnetic pieces of 300 stainless for you. And I can show you alloys with no iron that are highly ferro-magnetic

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[tomwalz]

Well, yes.

All terms are slippery. Even the most carefully described terms are slippery.

I think that giving a formal definition, as Metengr does so well, is excellent. I think that the less formal, experience based answers also add value.

I used to do in-plant consulting on failure analysis. Often the engineers and the people on the plant floor were describing the same thing but the language was entirely different. On the good jobs I just interpreted so that both were right. On bad jobs they argued much more about the language than the situation and nothing got fixed.

When I was in grade school we were taught that those silly ancients didn’t know what was in space so they called it ‘ether’ or ‘aether’ or phlogiston. Now, when we don’t know what is in space, we call it ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’. It is still the same thing (or the same nothing).

Also I thought that ASM as American Society for Metals was good and ASM as American Society for Materials was even better. I am not that thrilled with just plain ASM.

Tom


Thomas J. Walz
Carbide Processors, Inc.

http://www.carbideprocessors.com

Good engineering starts with a Grainger Catalog.

 

[Apakrat]

My favorite source of definition - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrous

Ferrous, in chemical science, indicates a bivalent iron compound (+2 oxidation state) (as opposed to ferric, which indicates a trivalent iron compound (+3 oxidation state)).[1]

Outside of chemical science, ferrous is an adjective used to indicate the presence of iron.[1] The word is derived from the Latin word ferrum (iron).[2] Ferrous metals include steel and pig iron (which contain a few percent of carbon) and alloys of iron with other metals (such as stainless steel.)

The term non-ferrous is used to indicate metals other than iron and alloys that do not contain an appreciable amount of iron.

At 74th year working on IR-One PhD from UHK - - -

 

[rconner]

Tom, another example (opportunity?) for your slipperiness is in “law”. I am not a lawyer but had a course or two in formal education concerning same. While it was about a thousand years ago, one thing I think I remembered one instructor emphasizing was that law is not necessarily (or at all?) what is right or wrong, it is what the specific words in same say (or someone, parties to a contract or a judge and jury etc., interpret them to say?) I think I had some trouble with that in my youth and I guess (while I have had some interest in the field) that may have been at least a minor obstacle to me pursuing such a career. Nevertheless, while I like to be on as firm technical grounds as I can, I have nevertheless always enjoyed some at least lighthearted “play on/with words”.
Try as we might for exactness, absolute truths, firm principles, and clear and undeniable terms and specifications, in ways I guess it is possible even some scientific or technical work is sometimes eerily similar, as it must also deal at least somewhat with words and maybe even symbols and variables with arguably duplicitous or variable interpretations of folks (and maybe as you say in proceedings that become adversarial, no less argued by stubborn folk).
As I agree deep down at least most people still want to do “right”, I also agree it is probably best in both fields to find common ground as best one can. [I hope you were at least thrilled with your “star”.] ;>)

 

[mfgenggear]

How about
Ferrous contains iron usually steel but not limited to!
Non ferrous does not contain iron, such as aluminum, gold , copper, silver & so on

simple. no slipery words, sorry could not help it.