[MW:27192] FW: 27188] MR0103 Marking required or LOC . Which one acceptable

 

Hi  ASN,

 

MR 103 clearly specifies under scope: The materials, heat treatments, and material property requirements set forth in NACE MR0103 are based on extensive experience in the oil and gas production industry, as documented in NACE MR0175/ISO 15156, and were deemed relevant to the refining industry by the MR-103 task group.

 

In order to qualify SS 321H for MR-103 : It  shall meet the chemical composition requirements specified in Table-3., shall not exceed 22 HRC, shall be in the solution-annealed and quenched or solution-annealed and thermally stabilized condition, and shall be free of cold work intended to enhance their mechanical properties. Austenitic stainless steels containing lead or selenium for the purpose of improving machinability are not allowed.

 

Table 3 - Chemical composition requirements for austenitic stainless steels

Element Mass percentage.

C 0,10 max

Cr 16,0 min

Ni 8,0min

Mn 2,0 max

Si 2,0 max

p 0,045 max

s 0,04 max

·         Unlisted elements, such as molybdenum, nitrogen, titanium, and niobium (columbium), are allowed provided that the chemical composition requirements in Table 3 are met.

 

As stated above many of the materials adopted by MR-0103 were based on the extensive "Qualification, Acceptance and in Service Experience Regime" of MR-0175/ISO15156.

 

Hence it's not mandatory for the OEM to Stamp or Etch Mark on the Component as Products being in conformance to MR-0103.If client strongly insists on this point it may be a matter of agreements between the OEM (Supplier) and the End User (Client). However compliance statements on the materials certificates (MTR) is mandatory , when the technical requirements of MR-0103 (as stated above ) are fulfilled.

 

Based on the facts provided below, I would say supplier is on the right track.

 

Hope this clarifies your query.

 

Thanks.

 

 

P.Goswami.P.Eng, IWE.

Welding & Metallurgical Specialist

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pradip-goswami-2999855/

Email:pgoswami@quickclic.net,pradip.goswami@gmail.com

 

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of SRINI
Sent: December 13, 2017 11:52 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:27188] MR0103 Marking required or LOC . Which one acceptable

 

Dear Sir,

 

Material: ASTM 182 Gr 321H (FLANGE)

Size:1/2 inch x sch 80 s

 

As per client requirement MR0103

Manufacture not marking on flange as MR0103 , But manufacture given LOC for flange as meeting requirement MR0103.

 In MR0103 did not mentioned formarking,but MR0175 they mentioned at para 7.1 marking or documents also acceptable.

 

1)Is it acceptable or not.

2) according to which standard.

 

Please give advice and solution.

 

Regards

ASN

 

 

--
https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Virus-free. www.avg.com