ASTM F Standard Specification for Wrought Stainless Steels for Surgical Instruments. ASTM F – Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. ASTM F Find the most up-to-date version of ASTM F at Engineering
|Published (Last):||22 May 2014|
|PDF File Size:||15.4 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.5 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
As far as I am aware, the chemical requirements of F are identical to those of the referenced specification with a few exceptions I don’t believe A is one of them.
ASTM F – 12 Standard Specification for Wrought Stainless Steels for Surgical Instruments
Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. Link to Active This link will always route to the current Active version of the standard. The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.
The F spec is medical grade material.
One vendor claimed that F required a vacuum melt vs. F989 large distributors can re-certify the material if your company allows. ASTM does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents of this abstract are accurate, complete or up to date. Some implantable grade alloys may zstm cleanliness requirements. Register now while it’s still free!
I don’t know if it requires re-melting or vacuum melting but those may be needed to meet the cleanliness. Posting Guidelines Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Mechanical property requirements, heat treating requirements, hardness requirements and all other requirements asrm chemistry are governed by the appropriate material standards as referenced below or as agreed upon between the purchaser and supplier. Students Click Here Join Us!
Can someone enlighten me? Red Flag This Post Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate.
Few production environments have the luxury of ordering new equipment to replace existing machines on their shop floor. The data contained in Tables 1- 4 of this specification, including typical hardness values, common heat treating cycles, and examples of selected stainless steels that have been used for surgical instruments, is provided for reference only.
They can either re-test or simply verify mill-cert properties against F and issue another certificate under their own name. I believe that A is fine and has no discrepancy. Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework. The data contained in this specification, such as typical hardness values, common heat treating cycles, and examples of selected stainless steels that have been used for surgical instruments, are provided for reference only. You do own current copies of both specs, and any referenced general spec, right?
The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard. The ‘simple’ solution is to spec A but I’d rather understand where the problem lies. Since you are trying to invoke them as contract terms you have g899 make sure you have copies. This is sourcing and d899 issue.
This abstract is a brief summary of the referenced standard. A is widely used whereas F is limited to surgical applications. The Architecture, Engineering and Construction AEC industry is constantly looking for process improvements to better manage potential project delays and costs.
Distributors will have steels certified to A most of the times. Download Now The Architecture, Engineering and Construction AEC industry is constantly looking for asgm improvements to better manage potential project delays and costs.
Large distributors that have many medical-grade buyers or axtm long term agreements with such customers will have direct certification to F from mills.
I admit there is probably an additional burden to certifying to F but I’m not sure what it is; and that doesn’t necessarily explain the discrepancies in my experience. I do not know why and do not see benefit.
Now at my current company we have an internal specification for some aetm e. F instead imposes a narrower compositional range, mostly 0.
By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. This specification covers the chemical requirements for wrought stainless steels used for the manufacture of surgical instruments.
Fore example, there astn melting requirement for Mo but that is not regulated by F Join your peers on the Internet’s largest technical engineering professional community. However, now I’m getting notice from vendors that they are not able to source that material unless they buy a considerable minimum qty which is no good for price or time.
Since I don’t have an internal specification to cite I’ve gone back to referencing F However, F is for surgical instruments non-implantable and do not have such requirements unless it is inherent to the grades.