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


Manganese value is more

Manganese value is more

Manganese value is more

Dear all,

We have LTCS Pipe(18" 160 sch A333 GR. 6), completed the flattening test. In the chemical analysis report shows manganese composition value is 1.49 but the range is between. 290 to 1.06

Shal we accept dis. Experts share your opinions

RE: Manganese value is more

Do you own a copy of A/SA 333? Read note A on Table 1. You're clearly above the limit of note A.

RE: Manganese value is more

Is the Mn composition on the suppliers CMTR or was this a check that you performed? If the latter, what method was used to perform the check?

Also, I don't have the -18 revision of the standard but I doubt it has changed, on the chemistry table there is a footnote for grade 6 that allows Mn up to 1.35% depending on the carbon content.


RE: Manganese value is more

And there is the additional tolerance on a check chemistry.
Though like Bob I am more concerned with how you measured it.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Manganese value is more

I initially expected the same thing on the product analysis. I worked to the casting specs for years and A703 has the additional tolerances for a product analysis.

Unless it was changed in the -18 version A333 references A999. For product analysis A999 kicks you back to the material standard, the chemical testing standard A751 does not include product analysis tolerances either. A333 has a method if the product analysis if requested on the PO to be done by the supplier but does not mention a product analysis done by the purchaser. A333 does not provide extended tolerances for the product analysis. Unless there are other standards that they are working to it looks like any product analysis would need to meet the chemical requirements in A333.


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! Already a Member? Login


eBook - Rethink Your PLM
A lot has changed since the 90s. You don't surf the Web using dial-up anymore, so why are you still using a legacy PLM solution that's blocking your ability to innovate? To develop and launch products today, you need a flexible, cloud-based PLM, not a solution that's stuck in the past. Download Now
White Paper - Using Virtualization for IVI and AUTOSAR Consolidation on an ECU
Current approaches used to tackle the complexities of a vehicle’s electrical and electronics (E/E) architecture are both cost prohibitive and lacking in performance. Utilizing virtualization in automotive software architecture provides a better approach. This can be achieved by encapsulating different heterogeneous automotive platforms inside virtual machines running on the same hardware. Download Now

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