ASTM A182 & ASTM B564 on forged bar and rolled bar

[Stdsp]

Whereas ASTM A 182 allows a rolled bar be certified as A 182 compliant material, such explicit permission is not mentioned in B 564 material.
However in ASTM B564 supplementary clauses, there are discussions on rolled bar, the questions are,
A) does ASTM B 564 allow rolled bar be certified under B564?
B) Does ASM B564 have any published interpretations?
C) Where may one find the certification requirement for B 564?
D) For a material to be certified as B 564, what are the minimum requirements that are required to be in such a certificate, we have such clauses, ASTM A 182 and other ferrous ASTM, but such explicit reference in B 564 is woefully missing, hence this question.

 

[SJones]

C) and D)

If a supplementary certification standard is believed to be necessary then EN 10204 represents a reasonable choice. 14.1 of B564 is, essentially, mimicking designations 2.2 and 3.1 of EN 10204. However, going the EN route allows inclusion of EN 10168 Steel Products - Inspection documents - List of information and description that can be used as a checklist to call up what the purchaser requires to be incorporated.

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.

 

[EdStainless]

There are no interpretations for ASTM specs, the specifications speak for them selves.
If there is an error, omission, or conflict it will be balloted and voted on through the normal process.

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

 

[Stdsp]

1) If there is a material certificate that states the material is ASTM B564 and if the material is made from rolled bar, heat treated and is witnessed for tensile and chemical, corrosion test G28 (0ne per heat) and is NDE examined (Ultrasonic) may the material be accepted when the specification calls for forged Incoloy 825 component.

2) The manufacturer sent a copy of forged B564 macro section showing the grain flow and shown the copy of rolled bar macro, both seem to be having identical grain flow pattern. Based on Chemical analysis, Physical testing, Macro etch, heat treatment and compliant to all the mandatory clause of ASTM B564, be the requirement for a material to be certified to B 564 or is the material required to be forged for a material to be certified as B564?

3) We are want a Forged self reinforced 2" Nozzle for a pressure vessel and we need LWN Nozzle for pressure vessel, the delivery quoted by forging manufacturers are unacceptable, we need them urgently, Since this vessel is an ASME stamped vessel (not coming under fatigue service), in the absence of Interpretations in ASME Sec IIB or Sec II D and ASME Sec VIII addressing the above, may the decision given by AI (on the certificate of rolled bar as SB 564) be considered as governing, in so far as obtaining the ASME stamp, for the vessel?

 

[metengr]

1) If there is a material certificate that states the material is ASTM B564 and if the material is made from rolled bar, heat treated and is witnessed for tensile and chemical, corrosion test G28 (0ne per heat) and is NDE examined (Ultrasonic) may the material be accepted when the specification calls for forged Incoloy 825 component.

No, bar can be forged or rolled in final product form. This specification in the introduction clearly states forgings, so the final product form must be a forged bar.

 

[Cleandive]

I beg to differ with such assertion, kindly see the foot note "b" of table 2 and also the S5.2.3, where in there are indications that bars may be made to B 564.

If bar were not to be part of B 564, why then the table 2 which dwells into the mechanical property, provide the value for tensile and yield for such product form?

if Metengr is correct then in the next revision of B 564 these references should go. If Bars are permitted to under B 564, then clarification statement like A 182 is required in B 564, in either case, B 564 needs urgent revision.

I hope Stdsp will take up with ASTM as suggested by Edsteel in another related post made by Stdsp

we in the valve industry come across such specification (calling for forged components) even for small dia valves and trim material.

After having done many 1000s of tests under varying conditions (including cryo tests and all sorts of tests described in Shell MESC and Total specification, ISO 15156, BP, Oxy, and many EPC companies) and having met many inspectors and experts, i am yet to receive a clear reason for specifying Forged trim or forged valve (especially small diameter, 3" and below) to be made from froging.

We have made even 10k valve under API 6A using bar material and have qualified as per API 6A for choke, no reason for not permitting bar.

One corrosion person was able to provide part answer with respect to superiority of Carbon steel Forged component with respect to Carbon steel rolled bar, with NACE justification (ISO 15156/NACE MR 0175), but when asked him how they deal with A 234 and or A 105 and or A 350 or A 420 made from rolled bar of 1" and certified to A 420 or A 105 is treated (identified and chemistry limits relaxed), he did not have an answer.


My personal view is this:: Chemical compositional limits, NDT and tensile properties are to be met, if these meet the specification requirement, there is no need to worry about the grain flow business, at least in valve. I do not know whether your component is a valve or some kind of rotating machine shaft. if it were shaft for rotating machine all my arguments may not be valid.

 

[metengr]

Here is what Note B states in table 2 of SB 564

(B) Over 4 to 10-in. (102 to 254-mm) diameter for parts machined from forged bar.

I believe it states forged bar and not just bar. Granted this is an ASME/ASTM specification and not just an ASTM specification. Second, this specification is 2006.

 

[Cleandive]

Yes metengr, you are right about the note b, it talks about Forged Bar. What about S5.2.3
My submission is this, a standard either in supplementary or in mandatory portion discusses about rod and bar, then there is a scope for inferring that bar or rod be used.

 

[SJones]

Disregarding 1.1 that states "This specification covers forgings?"

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.

 

[Stdsp]

The pointer of S Jones only demonstrates the lack of consistency in the approach adopted by various ASTM

A colleague (material engineer for several years and has worked in Nuclear industry) of mine from Houstom office pointed out about the foot note A to table 2. If one reads foot note A (which is a superscript in table 2) in conjunction with the clause 5.1, 8.1.2, 9.2, 14 and S 6, and if S 6 is not invoked in the purchase of B 564 forging, and PO is placed only based on B 564 and no other specifications for forged components, from the foot note a of table 2, the manufacturer cetificate does not need to indicate the Mechnical property. The Manufactuer of B 564 supplying the items meeting the forging quality need not perform Mechanical test inspections per lot. This with S5.2.3 indicates that B 564 does not limit itself only to forging, since there is no exclusion clause in B 564 unlike ASTM A 234.

Whereas 1.1 of B 564 indicates that B 564 is for forging, it does not state that items made from other product forms are excluded.

Take the case of A 234 clause 1.3 provides exclusion since some clauses of A 234 seem to address issues related to other product forms covered under different ASTM

The issues addressed by S jones, Metengr and considering the point raised by cleandive and my Houston colleague only reinforces the fact that ASTM B 564 needs revision, as advised by edstainless (in another post), i shall write to the committee and see how it takes off from there.