Tmoose
Mechanical
- Apr 12, 2003
- 5,626
thread330-197980
In the thread above there seemed to be an advantage in requesting ASTM based materials because a level of certification is spelled out in many ASTM stds.
On the other hand, calling for testing of normalized AISI steel 1045 has recently created a small flurry of no quotes or quotes taking exception to everything except BHN. Then We relented to buying a mill run of 12 inch diameter shafting when that was offered as the only way to get certs, and yesterday it was reported that we can only get "informational" test results on that material procured that way too.
Normalized AISI 1045 steel was selected a few years ago as the popularly stocked material that met our physical requirements. Our Engineering Standard has values that the material is purchased against, and those values are reported to be published values, derated a good bit for size effects, plus some more for a "cushion."
It turns out some recent versions of our designs need a yield strength threshold most of all. One out of many shafts was indeed rejected last year for insufficient yield strength.
*** Are we dealing with the wrong US mills or suppliers?
*** Are "informational" test results in widespread legitimate use today?
In the mean time I am going to try to get an ASTM equivalent to replace the AISI to end this cert debate.
In the thread above there seemed to be an advantage in requesting ASTM based materials because a level of certification is spelled out in many ASTM stds.
On the other hand, calling for testing of normalized AISI steel 1045 has recently created a small flurry of no quotes or quotes taking exception to everything except BHN. Then We relented to buying a mill run of 12 inch diameter shafting when that was offered as the only way to get certs, and yesterday it was reported that we can only get "informational" test results on that material procured that way too.
Normalized AISI 1045 steel was selected a few years ago as the popularly stocked material that met our physical requirements. Our Engineering Standard has values that the material is purchased against, and those values are reported to be published values, derated a good bit for size effects, plus some more for a "cushion."
It turns out some recent versions of our designs need a yield strength threshold most of all. One out of many shafts was indeed rejected last year for insufficient yield strength.
*** Are we dealing with the wrong US mills or suppliers?
*** Are "informational" test results in widespread legitimate use today?
In the mean time I am going to try to get an ASTM equivalent to replace the AISI to end this cert debate.
