Can a piece of round/bar stock be macined to produce a small heavy walled pressure retaining device.Does ASME prohibit this practice?
It will be hydro tested.
My situation is this
the purcahase order called out SA-269 seamless tube wall thickness .375. 316/316L
i recieved sa-479 bar stock the dimensions ,physicals , Chems and material are correct, but im not confident that this is Acceptable.
will The end product will be susceptible to rupture due to the directionality of the grain structure and inclusions/stringers ect.
Ill hold the piece untill i make this desicion, ill sent it to the engineers unless you all could direct me to the code section so i can read it and not just take the engineers word for it.
THX
MDK

Hi mikeqc1 ,

this depends on the diameter. According to UG-14(b) it is permitted up to and including NPS 4 (DN 100) provided the other requirements of UG-14(b) are met.

_________________
Kind regards,
Juergen Fleischfresser

Mike,
Can you find any information on the MTR whether your bar was cold drawn, rolled or forged?
Konrad

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

The spec on the Cert is ASME SA-479

The product description is Hot Finished Process Annealed and pickled seamless tube Size 3.75 x.250 wall thick 316/316L.
MDK

Mike, I mean bar stock, not the tube. UG-14 allows machining, say a nozzle neck out of bar, provided it's not too big (as Juergen pointed out), but it must be either rolled or forged (cold drawn is out of the question). It's ususal mistake I have seen many times. Ends with use of a bandsaw or the likes and in most cases delivery date not met.

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

i will look into this more , i will have another question

Konrad,
I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about this cert.
I have a Purchase order for a Tube with a specified wall thickness. The purchase Order Calls out sa-269.

The material cert that was recieved stated the product was made to ASME SA-479.
What was made to ASME SA-479 The stock Right?
now, the engineer is fine with that as long as the material is ok, and it is the right material.

But as you said there is more to it than just that....... correct.

the only paper work i recieved was a "MTR" in a 3'block across the top it has the ASME SA-479 spec. (this is bar stock right)

in the block below The product description is Hot Finished Process Annealed and pickled seamless tube Size 3.75 x.250 wall thick 316/316L.
the rest of the cert has the Chemicals Physicals and typical cert infomation.
Since the product cert thas SA-479 i havent looked at sa-269 in depth yet.
Would this need a hydro test?
Shouldnt i have something that certifies this to being considered for any pressure?
The tube dosent even look machined,the only reference to working is Hot Finished Process Annealed and pickled seamless tube.
any advise would be awsome.

Mike,
SA-269 does not seem to be allowed by SecVIII-1. So you will need to generate two NCR's: that you have ordered a non-allowed material, and that you have got not what you asked for. But this is not solving the problem, of course.
Do I get it right, that somone actually produced this piece of tube by turning/boring it from SA-479 bar, leaving the original MTR? Well, what I would do is take the phone and call the bar manufaturer QA (steel works, not the machinist with the lathe) with a simple question: how was it produced and can it be confirmed on a piece of paper? And ensure that all other mandatory requirements of SA-479 are demonstrated on the MTR, or at least original marking, which should at least be recorded by the guys who turned your bar into the tube.
Remember: you are required to maintain traceability of all materials to their original (physical) markings.

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

DID U GET THE CERT?

Nope, nothing in my email, nothing in my PM box. I am receiving hundreds of spam emails on my gmail account- your message could have been put there for some reason. Tell me what was the sender ID or address, so I can find it with search (impossible by hand).
cheers
Konrad

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

Mike,
Your cert shows one important thing: it's not made by original material manufacturer. If I would be your AI, I would need to see demonstation that it doesn't violate UG-10(a)(1) and UG-14(b). My advice is: put this piece on hold and clarify:
1. The original manufacturing process- I assume that Outokumpu produced solid bar (not hollow). Was it forged or rolled?
2. The original product marking put by the Swedish manufacturer
3. The original cert from the manufacturer
4. What was the extent of work undertaken by your american supplier- just trading or machining the bore? Or maybe recertification from some other standard? Where is evidence that UG-10(a)(1) was followed? Mind you: they have put a lot of information on the cert- how actually have they got it? By processing the material? By testing? Or by transfering it from the original papers? What was the reason not to attach the original?

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

Please have a look to Code Case 2156-1
Mauro