discrepancy between fig ucs-66 and fig ucs66.1
discrepancy between fig ucs-66 and fig ucs66.1
(OP)
hi engineers
i have found a dicrepancy in ucs-66 and i would be so grateful if u clear this gray area for me.
due to the fig ucs-66 if the thickness increase the mdmt temp decrease and it makes sense cos if the thk. of the plate increase the toughness decrease.
but due to fig ucs-66.1 if your thk. increase the ratio falls and you could reduce more temp from your mdmt.
the question is why increasing the thk. is harmful for fig ucs-66(which make sense) but is useful for fig ucs-66.1?
thanks
i have found a dicrepancy in ucs-66 and i would be so grateful if u clear this gray area for me.
due to the fig ucs-66 if the thickness increase the mdmt temp decrease and it makes sense cos if the thk. of the plate increase the toughness decrease.
but due to fig ucs-66.1 if your thk. increase the ratio falls and you could reduce more temp from your mdmt.
the question is why increasing the thk. is harmful for fig ucs-66(which make sense) but is useful for fig ucs-66.1?
thanks





RE: discrepancy between fig ucs-66 and fig ucs66.1
This is incorrect for Figure UCS-66. As the thickness increases, the MDMT exemption for impact testing also increases because of reduced notch toughness from increasing plane strain conditions with thicker pressure parts.
In Figure UCS-66.1, here the discussion is about reducing the MDMT and exemption for impact testing by evaluating the thickness ratio or the coincident stress ratio to take advantage of a lower membrane stress, and lower risk of brittle fracture.
RE: discrepancy between fig ucs-66 and fig ucs66.1
Regards,
Mike
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand