MTI’s Upcoming Live Webcast on Recent ASTM Meeting Actions

Over the last several ASTM meetings, MTI has become very active in the discussion surrounding the usage of portable hardness testers and direct verification.  These issues are being debated as well at AMEC Committee meetings and Nadcap.

MTI’s Technical Standards Committee has weighed in heavily on these two issues with numerous members attending the latest ASTM meeting to ensure that the commercial heat treater’s concerns are heard.   

MTI will be hosting the next Heat Treat Live webcast on June 11 at 2 pm EST to provide an update to all members on these two issues.  We highly recommend that you tune in for the webcast to stay informed. 

CLICK HERE for full details and RSVP link to webcast.

Below is a full report put together by those who attended the ASTM meeting:

ASTM REPORT

The increased number of heat treaters present definitely influenced how Sam Low, Chairperson of the E28.06 sub-committee for indentation testing, views the concerns from those of us at the bottom of the supply chain.  The lab/academic types and producers that normally run this show were significantly outweighed.  We can't vouch for what happens after hours, of course.  It would help if more heat treaters were bona fide voting members.  Membership is not terribly expensive in and of itself, but allowing budget time and money to participate could be significant.  However, the more that can vote from our part of the world, the less influence the “old guard” has.

There needs to be a push for a decent uncertainty/bias study so that the accuracy and performance of portable testers can be better defined in a scientific manner and may put to rest the naysayers left out there.  A well-done and controlled study would validate our assumptions and arguments to treat portables as viable and trustworthy test devices. We have a gut sense of that now - the numbers should tell the tale.  

Here are thoughts on 2 big issues:

Direct verification requirements did not change.  It has always been in the specification, but compliance is not too good we suspect, especially for the older machines where the provenance is poor.  The difference is that now, Doug Matson's (Boeing rep to heat treat task group) pronouncement to the Nadcap community, will likely be a result of his attendance at these ASTM E28.06 meetings, and Nadcap and Med Accred auditors will be checking for the presence of a current direct verification document for each machine that can meet that requirement.

Mention of portable testers in ASTM E10 and ASTM E18.  This, of course, was the main topic for all the heat treat industry and particularly aerospace interests.  And, amazingly, there are still a few long-time members on the committee that vehemently disagree with including ANY mention of portables in these two specs.  They represent mostly laboratory service types and academics.  We did not hear from anyone in the oil & gas industry.  Fortunately, heat treaters were well represented at this meeting.  The list is as follows: Cincinnati Steel Treating, Phoenix Heat Treat, Hercules Heat Treating, Cook Induction, Continental Heat Treat, Valley Heat Treating, Quality Heat Treat, and Solar Atmospheres. Also, MTI was represented in the form of Robert Peters and Doug Matson, from Boeing being present.  Of all those attending from the heat treat world, Solar and Boeing were the only ones with voting rights.  There seemed to be more 'other' general interest folks there as well.  Sam Low said it was the highest attended meeting in a long time.

In any case, the words needed to include portable testers capable of meeting direct verification requirements will appear in the next edition of both specs.  That means, at a practical level, if a customer requires testing per ASTM E10 or ASTM E18 and your only choice is a portable hardness test unit (that is capable of meeting direct verification requirements) then it may be used under ASTM E10 or E18, as applicable.  If the portable tester cannot meet direct verification requirements, then ASTM E110 applies.  

A few caveats do apply however:

-The use of the portable tester must be permitted by the customer or design authority. This is a recommendation in the ASTM specs.  However, there is a question in the Nadcap AC7102/5 and MedAcred AC8102/5 checklists which requires a “yes” answer for 1) contact of the customer, or 2) confirming that the governing spec allows the use of a portable tester, beforehand (question 3.4.1).  Therefore this is a ‘shall’ requirement to any Nadcap or MedAccred approved supplier.

-The portable hardness tester is subject to daily verification.

-Once moved to the location where the test will occur the portable tester must be given an appropriate daily verification just prior to use, and preferably in the same orientation as the use on the part in question.

-It is recommended that the portable tester be given a daily verification again, after use, in the same manner as before use, to demonstrate that it was unaffected by the usage on the part.

-The reported value shall have a '/P' appended to it (e.g., 235HBW/P, for instance).

The proposed language was hashed out in the meeting (a subcommittee, numbered E28.06, Indentation Testing, of the larger E28, Mechanical Testing, task group) and it was to be forwarded out of the E28.06 subcommittee for balloting by the E28 task group.  Usually it is a “rubber stamp” of the subcommittee output.  

MTI would like to say “Thank You” to all the members who attended the ASTM meeting.  If you have any questions about how to become more involved in any industry group, feel free to contact Tom Morrison at 904-249-0448 ext. 103.