Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Post Froming Req. as per UHA-44( for material that not listed in table)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mechyp

Mechanical
Jan 12, 2013
30
Hi

my Elliptical Dished head material of contraction is SA 240 GR 316Ti same Grade is not mention in Table UHA-44.

Requirement of post forming Heat treatment for material grade which is not listed Table UHA-44

where I need to refer for this ? any one have official interpretation of ASME ?

regards
mechyp
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Your material would also follow the post forming requirements in Table UHA-44 for 316.
 
metengr thax for reply

I know that SS316 post forming strain limit may be considers for its relevant grade such as SS316Ti but how can I convey to my client.

any where in ASME Section VIII DIV-I or II clearly expressed as u mention in your reply or any interpretation for that.

thanks
mechyp

 
I looked up the original code case for this material. Unfortunately, the code case has been annulled, and incorporated in Section VIII, Div 1. However, the code case treated 316 Ti similar to 316 stainless steel.
 
metengr

In which clause of Section VIII, Div 1. that code case was incorporated?

mechyp
 
316 Ti was added as pressure retaining material for Section VIII, Div 1 use. This means it was added to Section II Part D for allowable stress lines and to Table UHA-23 of Section VIII, Div 1.
 
but it is not listed in Table UHA-44.
 
Understood. However, keep in mind that the code provides minimum requirements and is not a catch all. Residual post forming strains in austenitic stainless steels can result in lowered corrosion performance and adverse affects on creep rupture life. Some people think if it is not addressed in the code it is acceptable. You can do what you want, if it were me, I would follow a more conservative approach and use the forming limitations with 316 stainless steel on 316 Ti.
 
ok I under stood

thanks for reply metengr


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor