Manganese in SA516 vs. A516

[rustysteel]

I noticed that in my ASTM specification there is a footnote for the manganese in the chemical requirements table.

The foot note states:

"For each reduction of 0.01 percentage point below the specified maximum for carbon, an increase of 0.06 percentage point above the specified maximum for manganese is permitted, up to a maximum of 1.50% by heat analysis and 1.60% by product analysis."

The ASME spec. that I have (it's dated) does not have this footnote. I understand that ASME usually updates their specs to match ASTM and my question is:

Does anyone who has the current ASME see any footnotes etc. like this, concerning manganese?

 

[Konrad]

SecIIA, Ed2004 Add2005 SA-516/SA-516M (Identical with ASTM Specification A 516/A 516M-90)- no such footnote.

I'm still waiting for Addenda 2006, so I can't say what's new.

Konrad

 

[deanc]

ASME material specs. DO NOT always match ASTM. Pick up any ASME Code Book and read the "Forward". It will also tell how to deal with MTRs/material only marked "A-***" if they match.

The Code Committees have good reasons for doing this and have included a ASTM Reference in the new edition.

 

[VeryPicky]

Each SA spec in ASME II has a note on the cover/first page specifying which ASTM edition it is identical with. I did not check the foot note but expect that the ASTM listed on the front page SA spect should be identical. I would not be surprised if that little foot note was an actual reason for use older ASTM spec for ASME BPV Code.
Please don't confuse A and SA materials. Use what the code specifies.

Putting Human Factor Back in Engineering

 

[rustysteel]

Yes. The 2004 ASME spec. that I'm talking about references the 1990 ASTM spec.

 

[JLSeagull]

ASMT B16.5 and B36.10 refer to ASTM specifications. What criteria besides pressure vessels should use ASME material specifications instead of ASTM material specifications?

 

[VeryPicky]

ASME material should be used when the design code or owner/user specs dictate so.

Putting Human Factor Back in Engineering

 

[rustysteel]

I work for an iron and steelmaking company and we produce steel to CSA, SAE, ASME and ASTM.

For the most part the ASTM and ASME specs are the same. We produce our steel to the ASTM specs and dual certify to ASME when the customer requests.

In the case of A516 GR 70 the ASTM allows for higher Manganese if the Carbon is lower. The '04 version of ASME does not allow this Manganese/Carbon trade off. I was hoping that ASME would have made this change in a new version since we have some A516 GR 70 which conforms to ASTM but not ASME.

 

[Konrad]

I just got my hands on Addenda 2006. SA515 not updated. Still identical with A516-90.
Konrad

 

[VeryPicky]

So, coming back to our checki of the footnote on SA516.
My advise is simple: if the spec says SA 516 - that is the spec to use. If the material is dual certified than it is a bonus.
Again, caution against misusing the ASTM in lieu of ASME and confusing the two. They are NOT identical in every respect.

Putting Human Factor Back in Engineering

 

[EdStainless]

One reason that the ASME specs don't always adopt ASTM changes is that they must take into account weldability, strength at elevated temperature, as well as creap and stress rupture properties.
If the impact of a chemistry change is unknown, then it won't be accepted.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rust never sleeps
Neither should your protection

http://www.trent-tube.com/contact/Tech_Assist.cfm

 

[GenB]

I think that ASME can be correct in not including the change over/trade in chem comp.
it means that the A mat. trade is as is w/o the changes in the foot note.
so one should be careful in checking the certification
which shall match the SA material
when A material is supplied.
genb

 

[metengr]

The ASME spec. that I have (it's dated) does not have this footnote. I understand that ASME usually updates their specs to match ASTM and my question is:

Does anyone who has the current ASME see any footnotes etc. like this, concerning manganese?

No, and unless Section II endorses the current Edition of ASTM A 516, you are not permitted to use the material that is out of compliance for Mn.

If you feel strongly about this, try an ASME Code Case.

 

[augustoavila]

Rustysteel,
Do you know the equivalent ASTM steel for a CSA G40.21 38WT category 3.
Can you tell me where can I find a steel plate distributor for Mexico. One that can supply the CSA steel.

Thanks

 

[rustysteel]

Augusto,
I was just checking out this site for CSA specs and they don't have any. I assume it's because this is an American site.

Since there is no accomodation for CSA on this site I'll give you an answer here.

In the CSA spec G40.21 Section 4.1 it states:

"...Materials conforming to ASTM A992/A992 M conform also to this Standard."

I don't actually have the A992 spec so I can't verify if this is true.

If you want something similar than you could try A36 which has similar physical requirements but not chemical.

As for supply in Mexico, I wouldn't know.