engineering fundamentals Discussion Forum
Directory | Career | News | Standards | Industrial | SpecSearch®
Home Membership Magazines Forum Search Member Calculators

Materials

Design

Processes

Units

Formulas

Math
List Recent Topics | Start a New Topic
 

<< Previous Message No. 17740 Next >>
Author: rorschach
Time: 06/20/06 08:32 PST
This is a reply to message no. 17737 by rorschach
Reply | Original Message | New Topic | List Topics | List Messages on This Topic
Current Topic:
Proper drawing material specification for steel
a follow up example of how a company standard for materials can be both helpful and harmful. where I used to work, we did a lot of downhole stuff for Shell Oil. a year or so earlier Shell had experienced a massive failure due to metallurgy problems with a very common alloy for downhole use. inconel 718. as a result of their investigation, they required all vendors supplying products made out of inconel 718 to meet very stringent standards for chemistry, heat treating, and grain structure. standards that were above and beyond what are required under the AMS/SAE standard that it is conventionally supplied in.  since we had a standard for NACE MR 0175 suitable Inconel 718 already in house, it was simple enough to modify it to meet the new standards. however not all of our customers required that level of qualification, so we had to copy the standard over to a new standard for shell's product and then revert back to the earlier revision. but that meant we had to modify a number of drawings with notations concerning the new standard if it is to be made for Shell. that also meant that we had to keep separate inventory as well. but it was decided that the cost of the extra testing and qualification justified that expense.
[ List Replies to This Message Only ]

Home  Membership  About Us  Privacy  Disclaimer  Contact  Advertise

Copyright © 2018 eFunda, Inc.