 |
| Purchase Information |
| Use this form to request purchase information on API online subscriptions. |
|
|
Document API TR 6AM is offered by IHS as part of an online subscription. This subscription contains many documents on the same topic.
You may also purchase this document alone from the IHS Standards Store.
API TR 6AM Document Information:
Title
Technical Report on Material Toughness
American Petroleum Institute
Publication Date:
Jan 1, 1995
Scope:
INITIAL TASK GROUP CHARGE
The July 30, 1986, API Subcommittee Meeting Minutes contained the
Material Toughness Task Group
Charge. It comprised Attachment 6. The charge(s) were:
Evaluate the material toughness requirements for API Specification 6A
materials, for acceptance
worldwide.
Perform a survey of the industry and review literature for material
toughness values based on
technical data and design requirements.
Devise a method or action to resolve difference between the European
and U.S. opinions on material
toughness.
Establish work groups to prepare appropriate revisions to API
Specification 6A for ballot by June
1987.
AMENDED TASK GROUP CHARGE
The Task Group came to several conclusions based on the charges:
Charge 1 : The Task Group could not evaluate worldwide parameters
necessary for acceptance of API
Specification 6A materials toughness requirements. The justification
for other groups' requirements
was not readily obvious.
Charge 2: The members of the Task Group comprised a cross section of
industry users and
manufacturers which have worldwide exposure. The Task Group could not
document any materials
related failures on equipment whose materials had met the API
Specification 6A requirement of 15
ft-lb. Ali documentable failures did not meet the existing
requirements. A literature survey
revealed no technical data or design requirements which are relatable
to API Specification 6A
equipment design or usage.
Charge 3: The differences between U.S. and European opinions on
material toughness relate directly
to a difference in philosophy. There are several differences, but the
major difference is that the
Europeans feel that the Charpy value relates to design while the U.S.
opinion is that the Charpy
test is a quality assurance exercise in sorting out "rogue materials."
All other differences stem
from that major premise.
Unfortunately, the technical justification of either of the
requirements is unclear. The historical
evidence indicates that both approaches are conservative since no API
Specification 6A equipment
failures have been attributed to brittle materials which met the
requirements of the existing
standards.
Therefore, the Task Group decided to start with a clean sheet and
adopted the charge to "Determine
what is necessary to prevent brittle fracture in the field."
Charge 4: With this charge in mind, the Task Group established work
groups for:
a. Literature survey.
b. Literature evaluation.
c. Correlations and calculations.
d. Position paper containing proposed changes.
About IHS
IHS (NYSE: IHS) is a leading global provider of critical technical information, decision-support tools and related services in a number of industries including aerospace and defense, automotive, construction, electronics, and energy. IHS serves customers ranging from large governments and multinational corporations to smaller companies and technical professionals in more than 100 countries. IHS been in business for more than 45 years and employ more than 2,300 people around the world.
