Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Donate Today!

Do you enjoy these
technical forums?
Donate Today! Click Here

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

Standardization of DI Calculation for Ordering SteelHelpful Member!(3) 

MetalGuy10 (Materials)
16 Dec 10 12:37
DI calculations for harden ability are useful for determining the max material thickness which will have sufficient through wall hardening.  Is there a standardized DI calculation that can be place into the specifications that are used for ordering material, or does the purchaser have to specify the DI calculation method to be used in the ordering specification?  (41XX), (86XX)

Using DI values would have advantages for raw material procurement and production availability.  However, I have seen several methods including Grossman's method for A255-look up tables and equations, ASM Ste-Cal software, and references to Caterpillar's specification.  The various methods do seem to have some variability.  If you have ordered product using DI or have calculated DI for your customers, you comments would be appreciated.
 
Helpful Member!  swall (Materials)
16 Dec 10 13:13
SAE J406 has a recommended method for calculating hardenabilty. My previous employer used it and all of our suppliers were on board as well. I recommend it.
MetalGuy10 (Materials)
16 Dec 10 14:30
Thanks for the inf0 SWALL, I gave you a star. I looked up the spec on IHS standards and the cost is about $63 for a down load.  

The IHS website comments on the spec are noted below.

"Attendantly, the ability to predict hardenability from chemical composition has become increasingly important when comparing various steel grades or developing new steels for specific applications. One such procedure is described in Appendix A. Other hardenability prediction methods are available from the selected references in Section 2. However, it should be emphasized that the use of any hardenability prediction procedure does not preclude the importance of conducting Jominy end-quench tests to determine the actual hardenability of any specific grade of steel."

Did you use Appendix A, for estimation based on chemical comosition?
swall (Materials)
16 Dec 10 15:31
Yes, Appendix A. It was part of our incoming QC inspection on steel coming into the plant.
Helpful Member!  steelmtllrgst (Materials)
20 Dec 10 16:13
As a supplier, we have to work to DI calculations per the customer's specification.  Not very fun as different calculations are preferred by different customers.

Agree it would be nice if the "standards were more standardized", if that makes any sense at all...
MetalGuy10 (Materials)
29 Dec 10 11:41
Thanks, steelmtllrgst

I agree with you comments, "Agree it would be nice if the "standards were more standardized", if that makes any sense at all... ".  So I gave you a Star!

I understand your frustration; in a former life, I worked in the specifications department at a steel mill that made flat roll and erw pipe.  Many customers had their own specs which often was a regurgitation of API or ASTM that frequently referenced out dated specs.

With your and swall's comments, it appears that calculated DI should be imposed on purchase orders; however, a  inquiry regarding DI will likely have to be reviewed by both mills and distributers.
Helpful Member!  salmon2 (Materials)
30 Dec 10 0:11
We as steel customer always specify specific chemistry to buy and don't give steel mill the freedom. I see people are buying mechanical properties, not chemistry or hardenability. Our case is slightly different from most steel users because our application is at very high strain rate. So tighting up mechanical properties with standard tests is not enough.  
LiquidSteel (Materials)
25 May 11 10:46
We deal in a large part with Caterpillar specifications and they reference A255 on their drawings.  We also use Ste-Cal extensively but not by choice.

To clarify, I believe the discrepancies that is seen in the DI, at least between Caterpillar and A255 are probably just the programs that are used to calculate it.  Some programs round to the nearest .05 carbon when determining factors for each of the different elements which will cause some rounding errors.

As for Ste-Cal, It is off by a larger margin and the difference between this and A255 becomes increasingly larger as the DI increases.  I still don't understand why this difference exists.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close