Last verified 19 August 2026.
The comparison
| Property | 316L | 316Ti | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proof strength Rp0.2, minimum (EN) | 240 MPa | 240 MPa | E3 E3 |
| Tensile strength Rm, minimum | 530 MPa | 540 MPa | E3 E3 |
| Elongation, minimum | 40 % | 40 % | E3 E3 |
| PREN | 24 — | 24 — | E3 E3 |
| Modulus of elasticity | 200 GPa | 200 GPa | E3 E3 |
| Density | 8.0 g/cm³ | 8.0 g/cm³ | E3 E3 |
| Thermal conductivity | 15 W/(m·K) | 15 W/(m·K) | E3 E3 |
| Proof strength Rp0.2, minimum | 170 MPa | not established here | E3 / — |
All shared rows compare like for like.
The trap on this comparison
Proof strength Rp0.2 is specified twice: 170 MPa (ASTM A240/A240M, plate, annealed, 20 °C) and 240 MPa (EN 10088-2, cold rolled coil and sheet, 20 °C) — 41% apart. Both correct. Which one governs is a question about your drawing and your product form, not about the material.
Where each side’s numbers come from
See 316L and 316Ti — each page lists every source, every demotion and every gap. Nothing on this page is derived from anything not on those two, and our coverage limits are stated separately.
Where a PREN appears above, read it as a ranking number rather than a qualification: what PREN can and cannot tell you.
When to choose which
316L. It is the default molybdenum-bearing austenitic, and the reasons are practical rather than exceptional. Single phase, so no phase balance to manage in welding. Forgiving heat input. Formable. Stocked by everyone in every product form. Every fabricator has qualified procedures for it. When a design is not strength-driven and the environment is not aggressive, 316L is chosen because choosing anything else has to be justified.
316Ti. Service where the part sits in the sensitisation range long enough that low carbon alone will not save it — exhaust and flue components, jacketed vessels, anything cycling through the mid hundreds of degrees. It is also the grade written into a lot of older European drawings, and requalifying those to 316L is often more work than buying 316Ti.
Against 316L: Two things. Strength: at the 170 MPa ASTM A240 plate minimum it is weak for a structural section, and a strength-driven part in 316L is thick. Chlorides: the molybdenum helps against pitting relative to 304, but 316L is marginal in warm chloride service, and the failure mode that usually appears is crevice corrosion at gaskets and joints, which PREN does not predict.
Against 316Ti: Surface finish and cleanliness. Titanium carbides and nitrides are hard inclusions; they show up as streaks on polished surfaces and they are unwelcome in high-purity and food-contact work, where 316L is the default for exactly that reason. It is also less widely stocked than 316L in most product forms, which turns a small specification decision into a lead-time conversation.
What this comparison does not cover
- Composition limits are not established, and they are what a purchase order actually specifies.
- Elevated and cryogenic temperature behaviour.
- Fatigue, fracture toughness and stress corrosion cracking.
- Welding procedure guidance, filler selection and post-weld treatment.
- Product forms other than plate, where minima differ.
- Whether 316L suits your application. No page can answer that.
- The titanium content and the stabilisation ratio are not established here, and they are what make the grade what it is.
- No elevated temperature values, which is the service the grade exists for.
- The ASTM plate minima are not established here.
- Fatigue, fracture toughness and chloride stress corrosion cracking.
- Weld filler selection for stabilised grades, which differs from 316L.
Generated from data/materials/316l.yaml and 316ti.yaml.