GD_P
Structural
- Apr 6, 2018
- 128
Hello forum,
I understand this topic is discussed many times on the forum, but looking at the conclusion of below post in forum (refer the last comment)
And corresponding contradictory ASME interpretation :
I am confused.
But IMO, if the MTR shows the 3 tensile test results (for a while let us keep aside, whether there exists 3 or not), shouldn't it be acceptable?
Is my interpretation of ASME interpretation wrong?
One more que, i have to proof test a vessel part (clamp consisting of std bolt SA193 B8 & clamp element made up of SA240 type 304). If I only apply just sufficient pressure rather than the pressure at which any of the component will be burst, which components (bolt or clamp) Suavg values should be used in the MAWP formula?
At last, I can calculate the MAWP for both bolt & nut and use the conservative value. But here i need to perform tesile test on both component.
But before this if we get clear idea, we can avoid tensile test on one of the test.
Do share your opinion.
Regards,
GD_P
I understand this topic is discussed many times on the forum, but looking at the conclusion of below post in forum (refer the last comment)
And corresponding contradictory ASME interpretation :
I am confused.
But IMO, if the MTR shows the 3 tensile test results (for a while let us keep aside, whether there exists 3 or not), shouldn't it be acceptable?
Is my interpretation of ASME interpretation wrong?
One more que, i have to proof test a vessel part (clamp consisting of std bolt SA193 B8 & clamp element made up of SA240 type 304). If I only apply just sufficient pressure rather than the pressure at which any of the component will be burst, which components (bolt or clamp) Suavg values should be used in the MAWP formula?
At last, I can calculate the MAWP for both bolt & nut and use the conservative value. But here i need to perform tesile test on both component.
But before this if we get clear idea, we can avoid tensile test on one of the test.
Do share your opinion.
Regards,
GD_P