From: "Sprague, Harold O." <SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 15:41:22 -0500
By the time you put in the caveats (supplementary requirements) necessary
for the A572 your better off using the A 992 spec. That is what we are
doing. It is what is being manufactured anyway. And there is no price
differential. It is the first time that a real carbon equivalent is
specified. A992 is your friend.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ritter, Mike [SMTP:mritter(--nospam--at)lgt.lg.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 1:20 PM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: Grade 50 Steel Designation
> We typically put a note on our drawings that says steel (WF shapes) are
> to be ASTM A572, Grade 50. However, we recently had a peer reviewer say
> that we should probably specify ASTM A992.
> I spoke with a contact at a local steel fab shop, and he said that the
> 992 is probably more readily available, but is no less expensive than
> the 572. The 992 is the "dual certification" steel.
> Any comments? What do you guys specify? Is there a reason to specify
> one over the other if we're getting 50 ksi either way?
> Thanks in advance,
> Michael D. Ritter, PE