dtn6770
Mechanical
- Jul 10, 2006
- 200
ASME Section II, Part D, page 82…the materials listed in lines 38 and 39 are both identified as SA-240 304L plate with the same P-No., Group No., min. tensile and yield strengths, and external pressure chart no. Their applicability and max. temp. limits (page 83) are the same except for the line 39 material isn’t permitted in Section III applications. For the most part they have different notes.
Now, getting to their maximum allowable stresses…their values diverge after 100F. That is, one material (line 38) maintains a 16.7 ksi max. allowable stress up to 300F whereas the line 39 material is only good for 12.8.
I believe these materials are different and feel that this position is supported by the fact that our PV Code calculation software’s material database contains “SA-240 Gr. 304L, High” and “SA-240 Gr. 304L.”
I discussed this with our formed head supplier who takes the position that SA-240 304L is the only material spec and that there is only one product by that designation. After getting them to open Sec. II their claim became that the different lines (38 vs 39) just identified the allowable stress range that SA-240 304L has to meet. That is, for the 300F example the material can have an allowable stress between 16.7 and 12.8 ksi. (That kind of makes it had to design with.)
I don’t agree with their assessment and think that I’m within my rights to specify either material and for lack of anything better would do so by using the clarifiers “high strength” or “low strength.”
How far off in left field am I?
Now, getting to their maximum allowable stresses…their values diverge after 100F. That is, one material (line 38) maintains a 16.7 ksi max. allowable stress up to 300F whereas the line 39 material is only good for 12.8.
I believe these materials are different and feel that this position is supported by the fact that our PV Code calculation software’s material database contains “SA-240 Gr. 304L, High” and “SA-240 Gr. 304L.”
I discussed this with our formed head supplier who takes the position that SA-240 304L is the only material spec and that there is only one product by that designation. After getting them to open Sec. II their claim became that the different lines (38 vs 39) just identified the allowable stress range that SA-240 304L has to meet. That is, for the 300F example the material can have an allowable stress between 16.7 and 12.8 ksi. (That kind of makes it had to design with.)
I don’t agree with their assessment and think that I’m within my rights to specify either material and for lack of anything better would do so by using the clarifiers “high strength” or “low strength.”
How far off in left field am I?