Analysis of Foreign and Domestic Material Specifications for Ships Components
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NBS Reference Publi- cations MR.qiR R2-2481 || AlllQfc, 2SBfl i sis of Foreign and Domestic Material Specifications for Ships Components U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards National Measurement Laboratory Fracture and Deformation Division Washington, DC 20234 October 1 981 Issued April 1 982 Final Report Prepared for - QC States Coast Guard merit of Transportation iuu igton, DC 20590 . Ub6 32-2431 1332 JfATrdNAL BUREAU " . Of STANDARDS LIBRARY 7 1983 OG“f 0—<2Q/ NBSIR 82-2481 t v, t ' ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHIPS COMPONENTS \ J. G. Early and L. D. Ballard U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards National Measurement Laboratory Fracture and Deformation Division Washington, DC 20234 October 1 981 Issued April 1 982 Final Report Prepared for United States Coast Guard Department of Transportation Washington,. DC 20590 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director i . NOTICE This document has been prepared for the use of the United States Coast Guard, Department of Transportation Responsibility for its further use rests with that agency. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of^the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official view or policy of the Coast Guard or the National Bureau of Standards; and they do not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report, or portions thereof, may not be used for advertising or sales promotion purposes. Citation of trade names and manufacturers does not constitute endorsement or approval of such products. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 3 PURPOSE 3 COMPARISON CRITERIA 4 Composition Criteria. 5 Metallurgical Effects. 5 Size and Shape Effects 8 RESULTS 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11 REFERENCES 11 SPECIFICATIONS COMPARED Steel ASTM A3 6 Structural Steel ' JIS G3101 13 DIN 17100 25 ASTM A53 Black and Galvanized Steel Pipe JIS G3454 39 DIN 1626 49 ASTM A106 Seamless Steel Pipe JIS G3456 63 ASTM A3 12 Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipe JIS G3459 71 DIN 17440. 8 1 ASTM A426 Ferritic Alloy Steel Pipe JIS G5202 95 ASTM A576 Carbon Steel Bars JIS G4051 103 DIN 17200/ /DIN 17210 109 ASTM A307 Carbon Steel Fasteners JIS G3101 Ill DIN 267 ..' 113 DIN 17200 121 DIN 17240 125 i Page ASTM A307 Carbon Steel Fasteners JIS G4 107 129 DIN 17240 133 DIN 17440 135 ASTM A105 Carbon Steel Forgings ' - JIS G3201 141 DIN 17200 149 ASTM A285 Pressure Vessel Steel Plates JIS G3103.... A 157 ' DIN 17155 1 161 ASTM A515 Pressure Vessel Steel Plates JIS G3103. 169 DIN 17155 173 ASTM A216 Carbon Steel Castings JIS G5151 183 DIN 17245 187 ASTM A217 Alloy and Stainless Steel Castings JIS G5151 191 DIN 17245 195 ASTM A43 Gray Iron Castings JIS G5501 199 DIN 1691 205 Nonf errous ASTM B584 Copper Sand Castings JIS H5 1 i 1 211 DIN 1705 217 ASTM B124 Copper and Copper Alloy Rod JIS H3250 221 ASTM B88 Copper Water Tubes JIS H3300 225 DIN 17671 233 ASTM Bill Copper Condenser Tubes JIS H3632. 239 DIN 1785 245 ASTM B62 Bronze Castings JIS H5111 251 DIN 1705 255 ASTM B43 Brass Pipe DIN 17671 259 ii . ABSTRACT Under United States law. United States flag vessels must satisfy applicable United States codes and further, the materials of construction of these vessels must satisfy the material requirements specified in these codes. For %r esseis manufactured whether in foreign countries , a determination must be made as to materials of construction produced under foreign specifications for specific components such as piping and flanges, are acceptable in performance to materials produced under approved U.S. specifi- cations . The evaluation process used by inspectors for determining the compatability between approved domestic material specifications and foreign specifications is not always uniform. Current procedures often emphasize only chemical and mechanical charac- teristics and do not always give sufficient weight to such factors as processing differences and weldability or to the effect on mechanical property data of location, geometry, and orientation of test specimens. In many of the published specification compilations, comparisons of foreign and domestic material specifications are made only on the basis of first, chemical composition, and second mechanical property limits . The result of this limited approach is often an extensive but unusable list of apparently equivalent specifications. The absence of a more comprehensive technical analysis of the equivalency or lack thereof necessitates a case-by-case review and the possibility of inconsistent determinations of acceptability. A program has been initiated at the National Bureau of Standards under the sponsorship of the United States Coast Guard to develop a manual of equivalent engineering standards which specifies those foreign specifications that are equivalent to acceptable domestic specifications, those foreign specifications that are not equivalent, and those that would be equivalent if certain additional criteria are met. Results are presented here of a detailed technical comparison between foreign specifications, principally Deutsche Industrie-Normen (DIN) standards and Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) , and selected domestic material speci- fications issued by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) This comparison has identified technical areas of commonality, difference, and omission that could have a significant impact on component performance. 1 (THIS PAGE IS BLANK) 2 7 . INTRODUCTION Under United States law, United States flag vessels must satisfy applicable United States codes, and further, the materials of construction of these vessels must satisfy the material requirements specified in these codes. For vessels manufactured either in foreign countries or manufactured domestically with foreign produced materials , a determination must be made as to whether materials of construction produced under foreign specifications for specific components such as piping and flanges, are acceptable substitutes for materials produced under approved U.S. specifications. I The evaluation process used by inspectors for determining the compatibility between approved domestic material specifications and foreign specifications .is not always uniform. Current procedures often emphasize only chemical and mechanical characteristics and do net always give sufficient weight to such factors as processing differences, weldability, or the effect of location, geometry, and orientation of test specimens on mechanical property measurements 3 In many of the published specification compilations (l-M-)^ ^, comparisons of foreign and domestic material specifications are made only on the basis of first, chemical composition, and second, mechanical property limits. The result of this limited approach is often an extensive but unusable list of apparently equivalent specifications. The absence of a more comprehensive technical analysis of the equivalency or lack thereof necessitates a case-by- case review and the possibility of inconsistent determinations of acceptability PURPOSE A program has been initiated at the National Bureaa of Standards under the sponsorship of the United States Coast Guard to develop a manual of equivalent engineering standards which specifies those foreign specifications or specific grades within the specif ication that are equivalent to acceptable domestic specifications, those foreign specifications or grades tham are not equivalent, and those that would be equivalent if certain additional criteria are met. Results are presented here of detailed technical comparisons between foreign specifications, principally Deutsche Industr ie-Normen (DIN) standards and Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS), and selected domestic material specifications issued by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). These comparisons have identified technical areas of commonality, difference, and omission that could have a signif ican impact on component performance. TS The isolated numbers in parentheses net SrSTiCSS —“5 ^c: o H am the end of this report. 3 . COMPARISON CRITERIA The process of determining whether or not one material specification is equivalent to another can be complex and is dependent on the evaluation of a variety of factors and a decision as to their relative importance. A finding that two material specifications are equivalent implies that these materials will be interchangeable in their many applications, that is, they will perform in a known manner, even though the specification documents are not principally performance standards Comparing foreign material specifications to domestic specifications is further complicated by differences in the philosophy of specification writing, not only for foreign versus domestic, but different specification styles among domestic specifications. Some specifications are highly specific in listing typical applications or end-uses while others are highly specific in listing end-uses for which the specification does not apply either because of inappropriateness or because another specification covers that application. Some specifications contain hints about the rationale for specific requirements or limits while others provide no guidance. Some specifications