看看老外对ASTM和ASME材料的讨论贴

Es前缘

Would please advise me what is the main difference between ASTM material and ASME material. Can ASTM material be used on pressure vessel? Please show me where on Code I can find such regulation. Thank you so much.

Jeff


Jeff,

Read the Foreword of ASME Section Code Section VIII-1 2010 Edition. ASME material specifications approved for use in each construction Code are listed in the Guidelines for Acceptable ASTM Editions and in the Guidelines for Acceptable Non-ASTM Editions, in Section II, Parts A and B.

leem817


[size=1.3em]Thank you Leem,

I learned, I really appreciate you assisstance.

All the best

Jeff


A further question, if the Material Test Report is only comply to ASTM, i.e. A516 Gr.70, can that material use to construct a ASME PV?






klchoo,

The subject material is A516-70 is listed in the Guidelines for Acceptable ASTM Editions In Section II Part A of ASME Code.

leem


[size=1.3em]Leem817, thank you for the swift reply.
My concern is will Authorized Inspector rejects the MTR if the equipment has to construct strictly in acc. to ASME BPVC?
Post subject: Re: ASTM material

Leem817, thank you for the swift reply.
My concern is will Authorized Inspector rejects the MTR if the equipment has to construct strictly in acc. to ASME BPVC?


klchoo,

In my opinion you will be in compliance with the Code, however if your AI rejected the material in question then I will ask him what is the basis for rejection.


leem817


[size=1.3em][size=0.85em]Quote:
[size=1em]I will ask him what is the basis for rejection.
Typically, the lack of the year of edition of the ASTM spec in the MTR. In which case you quickly call the quality dept at the steelmaker, they give you the most recent year of the spec that they have. Of course, it's newer than the range in the book. Now you have to buy the newest from the allowed range and the one which the material is certified for compliance with (luckilly it doesn't take a lot of time, just a fistful of bucks). Now you have to review them for differencies, and if your AI is extremely stubborn, recertify A516 to A516. This would not be based on ED-1, but on UG-10. Different approach, different piece of ** to be produced (where the heck is the form in your exhibits section of the quality manual?)- can take a lot of time. Hope it's not during a Joint Review and you're not dealing with an Inquisition-like guy...
[size=1.3em]
_________________
Konrad Anikiel



[size=1.3em][size=1.3em]Suppose the year of ASTM is latest and the latest edition is yet to be adopted by ASME , the plate can not be used. Is this contention true ?

And this is how we get quality product acceptable to Code.

Or may be we can wait till ASME adopts the latest edition and then it becomes acceptable.



[size=1.3em][size=1.3em][size=0.85em]Quote:
[size=1em]Suppose the year of ASTM is latest and the latest edition is yet to be adopted by ASME , the plate can not be used. Is this contention true ?
True. It cannot be used on basis of ED-1. But it can still be used on basis of UG-10, after proper recertification. To be able to recertify, you physically need both specs to review them for differencies. This things should be done before the material is bought, otherwise you may find yourself in... you know, in trouble
[size=0.85em]Quote:
[size=1em]Or may be we can wait till ASME adopts the latest edition and then it becomes acceptable.
Sure you can wait. But will you client wait?


[size=1.3em][size=1.3em]Dear all,

Do we need to punch any marking for the astm material for asme material..

eg. we buying a105 for the flange. but the vessel using is for asme u stamp. do we need to put sa105 marking onto the flange instead the ready made marking a105??

Thanks in advance..


[size=1.3em]Dear all,

Do we need to punch any marking for the astm material for asme material..

eg. we buying a105 for the flange. but the vessel using is for asme u stamp. do we need to put sa105 marking onto the flange instead the ready made marking a105??

Thanks in advance..


You are touching a peculiar argument. Flanges per ASME B 16.5 are permitted to be used in Sect. VIII. But B 16.5 specifies ASTM material, so ASTM for B16.5 flanges is perfectly suitable. Read B 16.5:
5 MATERIALS
5.1 General
Materials required for flanges and flanged fittings are
listed in Table 1A with the restriction that plate materials
shall be used only for blind flanges and reducing flanges
without hubs. Recommended bolting materials are
listed in Table 1B (see para. 5.3). Corresponding materials
listed in Section II of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code may be used provided that the requirements
of the ASME specification are identical to or more stringent
than the ASTM specification for the Grade, Class,
or type of material.

Mind the joke about ASME (Always - Sometimes - Maybe - Except)

Mauro
[size=1.3em]

[size=1.3em]

[size=1.3em][size=1.3em]Hi, this is regarding the use of ASTM material in division 1 vessel.

We are designing a vessel for PED compliance with ASME design code. The end application is pharma-base and hence tubes are mostly used for piping. Thus my problem lies with nozzle tubes. The product requirement is for sanitary tubing as per ASTM A270 which is not listed in Table ED-1 of Section II. The allowable stress value can be calculated as per PED norms (substituting 0.2% proof strength for 1.0%) but the question remains that can we use this material for Section VIII Division 1 vessel and if so is it OK to use the PED stress value in calc. I got some suggestion to look into UG-10 but i couldn’t figure out head or tail of it.

Can anyone please elaborate?


Last edited by Shrinath Desai on Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

[size=1.3em][size=0.85em]Shrinath Desai wrote:
[size=1em]Hi, this is regarding the use of ASTM material in division 1 vessel.

We are designing a vessel for PED compliance with ASME design code. The end application is pharma-base and hence tubes are mostly used for piping. Thus my problem lies with nozzle tubes. The product requirement is for sanitary tubing as per ASTM A270 which is not listed in Table ED-1 of Section II. The allowable stress value can be calculated as per PED norms (substituting 0.2% proof strength for 1.0%) but the question remains that can we use this material for Section VIII Division 1 vessel and if so is it OK to use the PED stress value in calc. I got some suggestion to look into UG-10 but i couldn’t figure out head or tail of it.

Can anyone please elaborate?


Material for which allowable stress is not in Sect. II/D cannot be used.
Mauro
[size=1.3em][size=0.85em]Quote:
[size=1em]Material for which allowable stress is not in Sect. II/D cannot be used


Yes, it can. It's all about what "used" means, what "cannot" and so on. But believe me, I have used materials and you wouldn't find them in SecIID.



[size=1.3em]

[size=1.3em]Thanks akonrad. Meanwhile, I got suggestions from AIA to recertify ASTM A270 as SA 213 or SA 249. As you have mensioned,[size=0.85em]Quote: [size=1em]...it can still be used on basis of UG-10, after proper recertification. To be able to recertify, you physically need both specs to review them for differencies. This things should be done before the material is bought... I have already compared the respective grades that will be used. Their chemical, physical and other properties remain almost same. Any minor differences here can be indicated in material purchase specification. But I am still working on other differences that should be reported. The point that I still like to know is if all the requirement of UG-10 (2) (a), (b), (c) & (d) are satisfied then what are the marking requirement of UG-10 (2) (e).Code: [size=0.85em](e) The material has marking, acceptable to the Inspector, for identification to the documentation. Also, UG-10 (2) (f) says that ,Code: [size=0.85em](f) When the conformance of the material with the permitted specification has been established, the material has been marked as required by the permitted specification. Does this mean that the aquired material should be marked by vessel manufacturer as per SA 213/249?Quote: [size=1em]Material for which allowable stress is not in Sect. II/D cannot be used Yes, it can. It's all about what "used" means, what "cannot" and so on. But believe me, I have used materials and you wouldn't find them in SecIID. For pressure retaining parts, we mean. External attachments shall be of "weldable quality" If you mean for pressure retaining, I would be curious to know which S (allowable stress) you entered in your calculations.

Mauro, it depends. There are several different situations when one uses material which is not listed in Table 1A. The most obvious is a Code Case with its own table for S values, but that's not all. You can imagine a situation when you apply for a new material added into the SecII, SecVIII-1 (relevant table Uxx-23), SecIX and so on. After the case goes through balloting and it gets approved, you get a letter. You can use it from now on, even before publishing a new Code edition/addenda with this material officially listed. Another situation is using UG-15. Enough for today
Konrad

__________黄

全英文，看不懂

youlong1008

又懂得没，翻译成中文啊

wu_pb

不懂可以去谷歌翻譯，還是可以參考的！

Es前缘

这个就是讨论astm材料能否用在asme压力容器上的问题？我的个人观点也是赞同的，就是能用的，这也是目前国内容器厂家经常碰到的问题，因为材料厂经常出的就是astm的材质报告

wyh110055

学习学习！哈哈哈

牛丫丫

where are you find this emails? It's really good examples for answering the questions of almost manufacturers.

ace

很好看不懂

yuming

Es前缘 发表于 2012-3-4 19:26
这个就是讨论astm材料能否用在asme压力容器上的问题？我的个人观点也是赞同的，就是能用的，这也是目前国内 ...

哪些材料厂能出ASME材质单？

一颗螺丝

主要是关于ASME VIII的材料和ASTM的材料的代换问题，主要还是要看技术规格书要求和MTR的规定