bmoorthy
Mechanical
- May 29, 2003
- 457
Please Refer ASME Sec II A, when one observes the year of ASTM that has been adopted into ASME Sec II A is older than that of the current ASTM.
For Example ASME Sec II A (2004) SA 333 the statement is made that SA 333 is identical to A 333 -99 edition.
Where as ASTM A 333-2003 is already available.
In ASTM A 333-99 version there was a glarring error (Which is still there in SA 333-2004), this got corrected in A 333-2003 version.
The error was that UT (As per E 213) was permitted in A 333 -99 (and SA 333-2004) but there was one more statement classifying UT as Non Destructiove ELECTRIC TEST.
In the 2003 version of ASTM 333 this error is corrected and now UT is not longer permitted method of examonation.
Suppose the supplier of the pipe certifies the material (With UT) for SA 333, we have to accept the same (although with the error). This is the situation that prompted this question.
For Example ASME Sec II A (2004) SA 333 the statement is made that SA 333 is identical to A 333 -99 edition.
Where as ASTM A 333-2003 is already available.
In ASTM A 333-99 version there was a glarring error (Which is still there in SA 333-2004), this got corrected in A 333-2003 version.
The error was that UT (As per E 213) was permitted in A 333 -99 (and SA 333-2004) but there was one more statement classifying UT as Non Destructiove ELECTRIC TEST.
In the 2003 version of ASTM 333 this error is corrected and now UT is not longer permitted method of examonation.
Suppose the supplier of the pipe certifies the material (With UT) for SA 333, we have to accept the same (although with the error). This is the situation that prompted this question.