ConstantEffort
Mechanical
- Dec 29, 2012
- 72
Is the justification for exempting carbon steel materials per Figure UCS-66 because the exempt materials are expected to achieve the results that would be required by Figure UG-84.1?
I accidentally purchased some 3/8" thick SA-516-70 as rolled plate with impact tests to -20°F. This plate is exempt from impact tests under the rules of Section VIII Div 1. The test results failed the UG-84 requirements though!
The supplier's response is that they expect all thicknesses of as rolled SA-516-70 to fail impact tests regardless of thickness. They recommend normalizing everything. My assumption is that ASME expects the material to pass these tests easily and it is not worth testing.
So I ordered up 3 more tests of 3/8" as rolled 516-70. The three tests are from three different heats sourced from two different US mills owned by different, well-known companies.
All CMTRs claim as rolled condition and everything was within SA-516-70 chemistry limits.
Referencing some concerns on piping and brittle fracture at -20F even though exempted by B31.3 (link), the Mn:C ratio was a concern. One possible solution was to require a Mn:C ratio of 5 or greater. The plate that failed had a Mn:C of 5.4. The two that passed had ratios of 6.1 and 6.2.
So, the original question again...
Is the justification for exempting carbon steel materials per Figure UCS-66 because the exempt materials are expected to achieve the results that would be required by Figure UG-84.1?
I accidentally purchased some 3/8" thick SA-516-70 as rolled plate with impact tests to -20°F. This plate is exempt from impact tests under the rules of Section VIII Div 1. The test results failed the UG-84 requirements though!
The supplier's response is that they expect all thicknesses of as rolled SA-516-70 to fail impact tests regardless of thickness. They recommend normalizing everything. My assumption is that ASME expects the material to pass these tests easily and it is not worth testing.
So I ordered up 3 more tests of 3/8" as rolled 516-70. The three tests are from three different heats sourced from two different US mills owned by different, well-known companies.
Mill A failed its only test, at 13, 14, and 15 ft-lbs with an average of 15 ft-lbs required.
Mill B passed both tests, with 15, 18, and 19 ft-lbs on one and 33, 35, 38 ft-lbs on the other.
Mill B passed both tests, with 15, 18, and 19 ft-lbs on one and 33, 35, 38 ft-lbs on the other.
All CMTRs claim as rolled condition and everything was within SA-516-70 chemistry limits.
Referencing some concerns on piping and brittle fracture at -20F even though exempted by B31.3 (link), the Mn:C ratio was a concern. One possible solution was to require a Mn:C ratio of 5 or greater. The plate that failed had a Mn:C of 5.4. The two that passed had ratios of 6.1 and 6.2.
So, the original question again...
Is the justification for exempting carbon steel materials per Figure UCS-66 because the exempt materials are expected to achieve the results that would be required by Figure UG-84.1?