All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:54 am 
Offline
----------------
----------------

Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:02 am
Posts: 40
Dear All

I want to know whats the minimum carbon content allowed in SA-516 60 as per ASME II-A.
Whats my understanding is that the code allows lower carbon content than the "max" mentioned in the chemical composition table with a subsequent rise in "Mn". And there is a "max" limit of Mn as well.
So that would be the minimum C content acceptable as per code?????
Which in case of SA-516 60 is 0.18% ??? Am I interpreting correctly ???

Thanks in anticipation!!


Faisal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:22 am 
Offline
----------------
----------------

Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:05 pm
Posts: 260
Code mention about maximum carbon content only and not the minimum carbon content. An increase of 0.06% for Mn is allowed above the maximum specified limit for every 0.01% reduction in carbon content below the maximum specified limit.

In your example, considering 1/2" thickness (Max C= 0.21%), with a reduction of 0.03% (Max C= 0.18%) in carbon content, I can increase Max allowed Mn by 0.18% above the maximum specified limit (0.06% increase for every 0.01% decrease of carbon).

I am however little a bit lost on note C as indicated in chemical requirement for SA 516 60

Code:
Grade 60 plates 1⁄2 in. [12.5 mm] and under in thickness may have 0.85–1.20% manganese on heat analysis, and 0.79–1.30% manganese on product analysis.


I am unable to understand the relevance of this note, why cant we write maximum allowed Mn content for 1/2" or less thickness as 0.6 - 1.2% on heat analysis and 0.55 - 1.3% on product analysis in the table 1 itself if it is allowed in Note C.
Another question coming to mind is increase of Mn is allowed on which limit, limit indicated in table 1 or limit indicated in note 'C'?
Clause for allowing higher Mn with reduction of Carbon content was not there in the spec till 2004 ed and introduced in 2007 edition. To me looks like something missed out while introducing the clause. Not aware if any interpretation or addemdum is available for the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

phpBB SEO