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


Use of MTR tensile results for evaluating MAWP as per UG 101(m) proof test

Use of MTR tensile results for evaluating MAWP as per UG 101(m) proof test

Use of MTR tensile results for evaluating MAWP as per UG 101(m) proof test

Hello forum,

I understand this topic is discussed many times on the forum, but looking at the conclusion of below post in forum (refer the last comment)

And corresponding contradictory ASME interpretation : https://cstools.asme.org/Interpretation/Interpreta...

I am confused.
But IMO, if the MTR shows the 3 tensile test results (for a while let us keep aside, whether there exists 3 or not), shouldn't it be acceptable?
Is my interpretation of ASME interpretation wrong?

One more que, i have to proof test a vessel part (clamp consisting of std bolt SA193 B8 & clamp element made up of SA240 type 304). If I only apply just sufficient pressure rather than the pressure at which any of the component will be burst, which components (bolt or clamp) Suavg values should be used in the MAWP formula?
At last, I can calculate the MAWP for both bolt & nut and use the conservative value. But here i need to perform tesile test on both component.
But before this if we get clear idea, we can avoid tensile test on one of the test.
Do share your opinion.


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


White Paper - The Evolving Landscape of Commercial Battery-Powered Trucks
What’s driving the evolving landscape of truck electrification? What are the barriers, motivators and strategies for accelerating the electric transition? What insights and resources are available for today’s design engineers working to achieve industry disruption and evolution? For answers to these and other pertinent questions, read this white paper. Download Now
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

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