Materials & Welding: Re: [MW:23646] IMPACT TEST REQUIRMENT AS PER ASME 31.3

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Re: [MW:23646] IMPACT TEST REQUIRMENT AS PER ASME 31.3

For sub-size specimens it is normal practice for standards to specify proportionally lower impact energy values than for full-size specimens due to their smaller cross-sectional areas. There is nothing wrong in procedure, you could convince your client in the same manner what you explained in your question.

but why did you go with 3mm specimen from 11.91mm? In my opinion one specimen will cover both the consumables, since the consumables are any way tested at MDMT.

On 2 October 2015 at 21:52, 'srinivasan muthukrishnan' via Materials & Welding <materials-welding@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear Experts,

In our project we qualified The PQR as per sec IX, Material X-65 (GROUP-2),consumable: E8010-P1& E8018GH4R,thk 11.91
.PROCESS: SMAW. PROJECT: PIPELINE. service GAS line.
client requirement is the impact testing shall be conduct at the design metal temperature or 0deg c which ever is lower.
So we take account from our PMS MDMT is -18degc, each consumable we done the impact test including sub size size specimen temperature penalty also calculated.

1. E-8010-P1 specimen size is 3mm penalty temperature is 22.2deg as per31.3 table 323.3.4 (design temperature + penalty)= -41deg c.
2. E-8018GH4R specimen size is 8mm no penalty impact temperature is same as MDMT -18deg c.

Accordingly above mentioned list we followed and conducted impact test also passed , now the client questing why you done the high value impact test conducted.

Please advice is there any wrong calculation. if wrong please correct me.

Regards,
Srinivasan.M