Impact test: Energy Vs Lateral Expansion
Impact test: Energy Vs Lateral Expansion
(OP)
Dear All,
I have lately submitted (for a new Project) a previously qualified WPS+PQR (according to ASME IX).
At PQR stage I carried out a certain no. of impact tests, reporting the results as energy absorbed [J].
Now, my accurate customer is rejecting the PQRs because project specification requires impact values expressed as "lateral expansion".
Values found at PQR stage are about 100J, and my customer is requesting 0.38 mm materal expansion minimum.
I know energy and lateral expansion are not the same thing, but I also know that they are somehow empirically related (100J would for sure result in lateral expansion values higher than 0.38 mm lateral expansion).
Apart carrying out new impact tests, do you envisage any possibility for us to solve the problem?
Thank you
Marco
I have lately submitted (for a new Project) a previously qualified WPS+PQR (according to ASME IX).
At PQR stage I carried out a certain no. of impact tests, reporting the results as energy absorbed [J].
Now, my accurate customer is rejecting the PQRs because project specification requires impact values expressed as "lateral expansion".
Values found at PQR stage are about 100J, and my customer is requesting 0.38 mm materal expansion minimum.
I know energy and lateral expansion are not the same thing, but I also know that they are somehow empirically related (100J would for sure result in lateral expansion values higher than 0.38 mm lateral expansion).
Apart carrying out new impact tests, do you envisage any possibility for us to solve the problem?
Thank you
Marco





RE: Impact test: Energy Vs Lateral Expansion
h ttp://nz.l inkedin.co m/pub/jona than-smith /39/25/589
RE: Impact test: Energy Vs Lateral Expansion
h ttp://nz.l inkedin.co m/pub/jona than-smith /39/25/589
RE: Impact test: Energy Vs Lateral Expansion
I am testing a cast alloy 6Mo (ASTM A351 CK3MCuN). I fully agree with you, the problem is that the submitted WPS/PQR was originarily issued 3 years ago, and I am no more in possess of impact test specimens to be measured.
So, I see just 2 solutions:
1) trying to convince customer that 100 J should be more than enough in order to guarantee a 0.38 mm lateral expansion minimum
2) carry out an annex to existing PQR, and re-test the impacts measuring lateral expansion.
Any other idea?
Thank you
Marco
RE: Impact test: Energy Vs Lateral Expansion
h ttp://nz.l inkedin.co m/pub/jona than-smith /39/25/589
RE: Impact test: Energy Vs Lateral Expansion
Values are 101-106-99 J on HAZ and 90-89-92 on WM, therefore it's more than reasonable to assume lateral expansion values much higher than 0.38 mm (1.00 mm according my experience as well).
I will talk to the lab, or try to convince customer.
Will let you know how it develops
Thank you for your opinion on the subject
Marco