×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • 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!
  • Students Click Here

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

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

UHA-51, UG-84 - Impact testing for stainless steel

UHA-51, UG-84 - Impact testing for stainless steel

UHA-51, UG-84 - Impact testing for stainless steel

(OP)
Hello,

We're working on a stainless vessel with an MDMT of -150°C, and I'm trying to understand the acceptance criteria for impact testing of stainless materials. (helping out my colleague that normally handles welding).

Going through the various paragraphs of UHA-51, I've determined that our base metals do not require impact testing, but that welding procedure qualifications will require impact testing per UHA-51(e).

Now I'm trying to determine specimen requirements and acceptance criteria.

Acceptance:
UHA-51(a) provides minimum values for lateral expansion on the impact specimen. Reading through UG-84, the absorbed energy requirements appear to only apply to carbon steel materials. Is lateral expansion the only acceptance criteria for stainless steel impact testing?

Specimen size:
With respect to specimen geometry, UG-84(4)(a) provides scaling methods for absorbed energy based on the ratio of the actual specimen width along the notch to the width of a full-size (10mm x 10mm) specimen.

When working with thin stainless fabrication (3/16" -> 1/4") we can't help but use specimens less than 10mm x 10mm. I am not familiar with lateral expansion from impact tests, but does this value scale at all with the size of the specimen? Or do we just make a specimen based on our nominal plate size and use the acceptance criteria of UHA-51(a) without scaling?


Thank you to anyone that has read all the way through this. Any help is appreciated.

Cheers,
Marty

RE: UHA-51, UG-84 - Impact testing for stainless steel

The only impact testing you need to perform is on the weld metal used in fabrication, as stated in UHA-51 (e)2 (b).
Now look at
UHA-51(f) Required Impact Testing for Austenitic
Stainless Steel Welding Consumables With MDMTs Colder
Than −155°F (−104°C). For production welds at MDMTs
colder than −155°F (−104°C), all of the following conditions
shall be satisfied:

You can follow the rest.

RE: UHA-51, UG-84 - Impact testing for stainless steel

marty007, per my reading:

Acceptance: Lateral expansion only

Specimen size: per UG-84(c)(4)(b) it appears lateral expansion acceptance is indepedent of specimen size. Have to admit I had not considered this aspect of UHA-51 before.

Interesting to see what other opinions you get.

Regards,

Mike

RE: UHA-51, UG-84 - Impact testing for stainless steel

(OP)
Digging around, I chose to take a quick look at how ASME VIII-2 handles this (just for reference).

Div2 actually provides an interesting chart of lateral expansion requirements (Fig 3.6 in 2011a Ed.). It's a curious looking chart with a flat requirement of 20mils from 0"-1" thk, then a slope up to 32mils at 2" thk, then flat at 32mils until chart ends at 4" thk.

At least in Div2 it appears flat in the region I'm considering.

Does anyone know the basis of this chart, theory, etc?

RE: UHA-51, UG-84 - Impact testing for stainless steel

Figure 3.6 is for the carbon and low alloy steels with minimum specified tensile strength greater than or equal to 655 MPa (95 ksi), please see 3.11.2.1(b)(2).
Now please see UG-84(c)(4)(b)thar refers to UHT-6(a)(3) and UHT-6(a)(4) for those carbon steel and low alloy steels with MSTS greater than or equal to 655 MPa(95 ksi, the reffered clauses further refers to Figure UHT-6.1 that is like that Figure 3.6 in Division 2.
For lateral expansion, it should be noted that Division 2 acceptance criteria is strict if compraed with Divison 1, see Fig. 3.6 versus Fig. UHT-6.1.
For stanless steels, Division 2 almost reads out the same way as Division does.

Nasir
Welding Engineer
DESCON ENGINEERING LIMITED
PAKISTAN

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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!


Resources