Maximum Allowable Stress

Related terms:

Rod, Turbines, Temperature, Goodman Diagram, Service Factor, Tensile Strength,

Maximum Stress, Allowable Stress, Rod String

View all Topics

Learn more about Maximum Allowable Stress

Mechanical Design of Pressure Vessels

Maurice Stewart, in Gas-Liquid And Liquid-Liquid Separators, 2008

5.2.3 Maximum Allowable Stress Values

The maximum allowable stress values to be used in the calculation of a vessel's
wall thickness are given in the ASME code for many different materials. These
stress values are a function of temperature. Section VIII of the ASME code, which
governs the design and construction of all pressure vessels with operating pressures
greater than 15 psig, is published in two divisions. Each sets its own maximum
allowable stress values. Division 1, governing the design by rules, is less stringent
from the standpoint of certain design details and inspection procedures, and thus
incorporates a higher safety factor. The 1998 edition incorporates a safety factor of
4 while the 2001 and later editions incorporate a safety factor of 3.5.

The 2001 edition of the code yields higher allowable stresses and thus smaller wall
thicknesses. For example, using a material with a 60,000-psi tensile strength, a vessel
built under the 1998 edition (safety factor = 4) yields a maximum allowable stress
value of 15,000 psi, while a vessel built under the 2001 edition (safety factor = 3.5)
yields a maximum allowable stress value of 17,142 psi. On the other hand, Division
2 governs the design by analysis and incorporates a lower safety factor of 3. Thus,
the maximum allowable stress value for a 60,000-psi tensile strength material will
become 20,000 psi.
Many companies require that all their pressure vessels be constructed in accordance
with Division 2 because of the more exacting standards. Others find that they can
purchase less expensive vessels by allowing manufacturers the choice of either Divi-
sion 1 or Division 2. Normally, manufacturers will choose Division 1 for low-pressure
vessels and Division 2 for high-pressure vessels.

The maximum allowable stress values at normal temperature range for the steel
plates most commonly used in the fabrication of pressure vessels are given in Table
5.3. For stress values at higher temperatures and for other materials, the latest
edition of the ASME code should be referenced.

> Read full chapter

History and Organization of Codes

Maurice Stewart, Oran T. Lewis, in Pressure Vessels Field Manual, 2013

Section II, Part D

Provides tables with maximum allowable stress in tension at different temper-
atures for all the various materials of construction
Values should be used to determine the thickness of various pressure vessel
parts using code equations and calculation procedures
When allowable stresses are requested for a new material not listed in the code,
evaluation should be based on an evaluation of test data for this material
Appendix “B” (Nonmandatory), Section VIII, Division 1, lists the requirements
to obtain approval of a new material
Following is a general discussion of common vessel materials approved by the
code

> Read full chapter

Traditional low alloy steels in power

plant design
D.G. Robertson, in Coal Power Plant Materials and Life Assessment, 2014

4.6 Design stress values for low alloy steels

In the USA, ASME presents lists of maximum allowable stress values in Section
II Part D of the Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code. These ‘design stress’ values are
determined from the room and elevated temperature proof/yield strength values
(time-independent properties regime) and the creep rupture or the creep strain
values (time-dependent regime). In Europe, until about the year 2000, each country
had similar but different approaches to ‘maximum allowable stress’ values. However,
there is now a European-wide standard – EN 12952 (2001) – which in Part 3 gives
only design factors to be applied to the appropriate property value. In Japan, Code
501 of the METI also includes design factors. A review of the various design factors
employed by ASME, EN and METI has been discussed elsewhere (Orr and Robertson,
2009).

As an example for the low alloy steels of interest, Fig. 4.7 compares the maximum
allowable stress values for ‘T22’ steel from ASME and METI codes, and EN values
as calculated from the property values in EN 10216-2 (2002), using the factors of
EN 12952 (2001) Part 3. Clearly, in the time-independent strength region, the EN
values are the highest and the difference between EN and the others is temperature
dependent. Although the time-independent values from the METI code are similar
to those from ASME, they are clearly the lowest. In the creep regime, the differences
between METI and ASME are generally negligible, and the EN values are very similar
to the others at temperatures above 500°C.

4.7. Maximum allowable stress values for ‘T22’ steel from ASME and METI Codes,
and calculated values based on EN creep/proof strength values.

It is interesting to note in Fig. 4.7 that ASME and METI publish stress values up to
650°C, and Section II of the former code states that T22 steel can be used at up to
649°C (for Section I applications). This temperature is well above the ‘oxidation limit’
for steels with 2.25%Cr as their base, and therefore the ASME and METI limits need
to be used with care.
> Read full chapter

High-temperature materials
B.A. Pint, R.G. Brese, in Fundamentals and Applications of Supercritical Carbon
Dioxide (sCO₂) Based Power Cycles, 2017

4.1.1 Alloy creep limitations

Alloy mechanical data can be presented in various ways, for example, as the maxi-
mum allowable stress based on the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) code,
Fig. 4.1. However, this information does not convey the maximum temperature
capability of various alloys. Through broad participation of the US boiler industry, the
A-USC program focused on a simple industry metric for determining the maximum
use temperature in the time-dependent or creep regime: 100,000 h creep rupture
lifetime at 100 MPa stress. This metric defines a maximum use temperature for
tubes and pipes for each class of structural alloys. In effect, the metric takes into
account thermal fatigue concerns by screening out the case of a weak material
needing a very thick-walled tube or pipe that will have large thermal gradients during
each heating and cooling cycle and be susceptible to thermal fatigue cracking. A
stronger alloy (i.e., meets 100 kh at 100 MPa metric) at the same temperature
will require a thinner wall to meet the component design life and be less likely
to have fatigue cracking problems in service. Thus, ferritic–martensitic (FM) steels
(e.g., 9–12% Cr steels like Grade 91) are limited to 600°C, advanced austenitic
steels to 650°C, and Ni-base alloys are needed for steam temperatures >650°C,
Fig 4.2(a). Among Ni-base alloys, it is important to differentiate the more common
solid solution–strengthened (SS) Ni-base alloys such as 625, 617, and 230 (Table 4.1)
and the stronger PS Ni-base alloys 740 and 282 that are needed at 750–760°C. The
considerable difference in strength is shown in Fig. 4.1, and the A-USC consortium
focused attention on the benefits of PS Ni-base alloys, even for 700°C applications.
To enable the use of the newer PS alloys, the A-USC consortium successfully
completed a ASME BPV code case to qualify alloy 740 for high-temperature use
up to 800°C. A similar code case to 870°C is in progress for alloy 282, which is
slightly stronger than 740, and the work likely will be completed in 2019 (estimated
allowable stresses are shown in Fig. 4.1 from the initial data). The cumulative creep
testing required for ASME BPV qualification is 500,000 h at 590–925°C. While 740
(and its refinement 740H) was specifically developed for coal-fired boilers (Zhao
et al., 2003; Shingledecker and Pharr, 2013; deBarbadillo et al., 2014), alloy 282 was
developed for aircraft applications (Pike, 2008) and only under the A-USC programs
did it gain interest for boiler (and steam turbine) applications.
Figure 4.1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code allowable stresses as a function of
operating temperature for several Fe- and Ni-base alloys.

Data from deBarbadillo, J.J., Baker, B.A., Gollihue, R.D., 2014, Nickel-base superal-
loys for advanced power systems – an alloy producer’s perspective. In: Proceedings of
the 4th International Symposium on Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles, Pittsburgh, PA,
September 2014, Paper #3; Pint, B.A., DiStefano, J.R., Wright, I.G., 2006. Oxidation
resistance: one barrier to moving beyond Ni-Base superalloys. Materials Science and
Engineering A 415, 255–263.
Figure 4.2. (a) Stress for creep rupture at 100,000 h as a function of temperature for
several classes of structural alloys and (b) maximum use temperatures for various
alloy classes for two different sCO2 pressures and tube sizes (both with 6.35 mm
wall thickness) (Wright et al., 2013). Both solid solution–strengthened (SS) and
precipitation-strengthened (PS) Ni-base alloys were evaluated. The higher strength
PS alloy 740 is shown in (a). The dashed line in (a) assumes a tube with 50.8 mm
outer diameter and 6.35 mm wall thickness and 30 MPa pressure.

Table 4.1. Chemical composition of typical structural alloys investigated for this

application

Alloy Fe Ni Cr Al Other
Ferritic chromia-forming steels
Gr.22 95.5 0.2 2.3 < 0.9 Mo, 0.6
Mn, 0.1 Si
Gr.91 89.7 0.1 8.3 < 1 Mo, 0.3 Mn,
0.1 Si
VM12 83.3 0.4 11.5 < 1.6 W, 1.5 Co,
0.4 Mo, 0.4
Mn, 0.4 Si, 0.2
V
410SS 86.9 0.1 11.8 < 0.5 Mn, 0.4 Si
EBrite 72.6 0.1 25.8 < 1.0 Mo, 0.2 Si,
0.1 V
Austenitic Fe-base chromia-forming steels
201SS 70.8 4.1 16.2 < 6.7 Mn, 0.5 Si,
0.3 Mo, 0.9 Cu,
0.2 Co
304H 70.4 8.4 18.4 < 1.6 Mn, 0.3 Si,
0.3 Mo, 00.4
Cu, 0.1 Co
316 66.6 9.6 19.0 0.01 2.4 Mo, 1.7
Mn, 1.0 Si, 0.2
Cu, 0.1 Co, 0.1
W
347HFG 66.0 11.8 18.6 0.01 1.5 Mn, 0.8 Nb,
0.4 Si, 0.2 Mo,
0.2 Co
NF709 49.0 25.0 22.3 0.02 1.5 Mo, 1.0
Mn, 0.4 Si, 0.2
Nb, 0.2N
Sanicro 25 42.6 25.4 22.3 0.03 3.5 W, 3.0 Cu,
1.5 Co, 0.5 Nb,
0.5 Mn, 0.2
Mo, 0.2 Si, 0.2
N
AL6XN 48.2 24.1 20.4 0.01 6.0 Mo, 0.5
Mn, 0.3 Cu, 0.2
Co, 0.1 Si, 0.2
N
800H 43.2 33.8 19.7 0.7 1.0 Mn, 0.5 Ti,
0.3 Cu, 0.3 Si,
0.2 Mo
310HCbN 51.3 20.3 25.5 < 0.3 Co, 0.4 Nb,
1.2 Mn, 0.3 Si,
0.3 N
Fe-base alumina-forming alloys
APMT 69.2 0.2 21.1 5.0 0.2 Hf, 0.1 Mn,
2.8 Mo, 0.6 Si,
0.3 Y, 0.1 Zr
PM2000 74.6 0.1 18.9 5.1 0.5 Ti, 0.4 Y, 0.1
Mn, 0.25 O
AFA-OC4 49.1 25.2 13.9 3.5 2.5 Nb, 2.0 Mo,
1.9 Mn, 1.0 W,
0.5 Cu, 0.2 Si
Ni-base chromia-forming alloys
600 9.4 73.1 16.4 0.3 0.1 Mo, 0.2 Ti,
0.1 Si, 0.2 Mn
625 4.0 60.6 21.7 0.09 9.4 Mo, 3.6 Nb,
0.2 Ti, 0.2 Si,
0.1 Mn
230 1.5 60.5 22.6 0.3 12.3 W, 1.4 Mo,
0.5 Mn, 0.4 Si
C617 0.6 55.9 21.6 1.3 11.3 Co, 8.6
Mo, 0.4 Ti, 0.1
Si
282 0.2 58.0 19.3 1.5
 10.3 Co, 8.3
Mo, 0.06 Si, 2.2
Ti, 0.1 Mn
740 1.9 48.2 23.4 0.8 20.2 Co, 2.1
Nb, 2.0 Ti, 0.3
Mn, 0.5 Si
MA754 0.4 78.7 19.1 0.3 0.4 Ti, 0.4 Y, 0.4
O
Ni-base alumina-forming alloys
214 3.5 75.9 15.6 4.3 0.2 Mn, 0.1 Si,
0.02 Zr
224 27.2 47.0 20.3 3.8 0.4 Ti, 0.3 Co,
0.3 Mn, 0.3 Si,
0.001 Zr, 0.00
1Y
247 0.07 59.5 8.5 5.7 9.8 Co, 9.9 W,
0.7 Mo, 3.1 Ta,
1.0 Ti, 1.4 Hf

Compositions were measured by inductively coupled plasma and combustion analy-

ses in mass%.< indicates less than 0.01%.

As mentioned earlier, sCO2 applications can draw many material design lessons
from coal-fired boilers. However, it should be noted that steam boilers achieved
613°C/34.5 MPa in 1960 at the Eddystone plant (Henry et al., 2007) and in 2013, the
current state-of-the-art Turk plant was dedicated in Arkansas with 607°C/25.3 MPa
maximum steam conditions (Pint, 2013). Both used conventional stainless-steel
tubes (e.g., 17/14 PH, 347H) for the hottest section of the superheater. High-
er temperature boilers using Ni-base alloys are still many years away. Currently,
a demonstration of the performance of Ni-base alloys for steam boilers and turbines
is planned in a DOE sponsored component test (ComTEST), currently under design
(Romanosky et al., 2016). This project involves many of the same partners involved
in the A-USC Consortiums.

Applying the A-USC understanding about the temperature-strength limitations,

results of recent calculations are shown in Fig. 4.2 to indicate the suggested ranges
associated with specific pressure conditions in proposed sCO2 cycles (Wright et al.,
2013; Shingledecker and Wright, 2006). Fig. 4.2(a) shows maximum temperature
capabilities for various alloy classes for a 50.8-mm outer diameter tube with 30 MPa
sCO2. Fig. 4.2(b) shows similar temperature limits for two different tube sizes and
two different pressures. One thing to consider is that no allowances for environ-
mental compatibility have been included in Fig. 4.2 calculations.

> Read full chapter

Application of Fracture Mechanics

Yong Bai, Wei-Liang Jin, in Marine Structural Design (Second Edition), 2016
29.1.2 Fracture Mechanics Design Check
The fracture mechanics design check of ultimate limit state can be applied in three
alternative ways, which are evaluations of

• Maximum allowable stress

• Minimum required fracture toughness

• Maximum tolerable defect size

Maximum Allowable Stress

The fracture mechanics strength criteria can be applied to the derivation of the
maximum allowable stress at a given cross section. This value is obtained when the
material fracture toughness and the defect size are specified. If the actual local stress
exceeds the maximum allowable stress derived, a different local design should be
undertaken in order to reduce the local stress level and fulfill the fracture mechanics
criteria.

Minimum Required Fracture Toughness

The minimum required fracture toughness should be derived through the fracture
mechanics design check when the design geometry is established and a defect tol-
erance parameter is specified. The derived fracture toughness then allows designers
to select a suitable material for any particular structure of concern.

Maximum Tolerable Defect Size

A maximum tolerable defect size can be derived when the geometry and the fracture
toughness of the selected material are known. For statically loaded structures, the
maximum tolerable defect size must satisfy the fracture mechanics criteria. For
dynamically loaded structures, the maximum tolerable defect size represents the
critical crack size in a fatigue failure event. It may be used to minimize the risk of
unstable fracture throughout the operating life of the structure. The result also gives
direct input to the calculation of the fatigue crack growth period.

The three levels of procedure applied in fracture assessment (Reemsnyder, 1997) are:

Level 1. Utilization of the crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) design curve

(explained in Section 38.2)
Level 2. The normal assessment or design safety format that makes use of
the failure assessment diagram (FAD) (described in Section 39.3). No practical
safety factors need to be applied here.
Level 3. Utilization of the FAD based on detailed information on the stress–s-
train curves of materials. Partial safety factors are applied to the defect size,
stress level, etc.; see Section 39.4.

More information can be obtained from API 579 (2001), Andersen (1991), and BSI
(1999).

> Read full chapter

Specifying and Purchasing Turboex-

panders
Heinz P. Bloch, Claire Soares, in Turboexpanders and Process Applications, 2001

2.5 Exhaust Casing

2.5.1The design of the main pressure containing exhaust casing (Figure 5-26) shall
be such that the primary stress levels at the metal temperature will not exceed
the maximum allowable stress values specified in the ASME BPV Code for the
material used. The construction rating for the exhaust casing shall be adequate
for the specified condition, but no less than 3 psig at 1,200°F; the rating shall
be listed on the data sheets.Figure 5-26. The exhaust casing fabrication is
stainless steel. In this picture, the bearing housing can be seen in the center
of the casing. The inboard (diffuser) end of the inlet casing will be bolted to
the exhaust casing bellows.
2.5.2The exhaust casing supports (Figure 5-27) shall be designed for true centerline
support at the horizontal centerline of the exhaust casing. The support system
shall be adequate for the total load, including one times the forces and
moments per NEMA SM23 paragraph 8.06, without affecting the rotor blade
radial tip clearance.Figure 5-27. The exhaust casing is free-standing on it own
wobble foot support. Axial expansion and vertical alignment are allowed by a
centering key at the bottom of the casing. The casing is free-floating within the
constraints of the wobble feet, bottom key, backup plate, and bellows joint. This
view shows the discharge end of an axial compressor in the lower right. The
expander rotor support system is pedestal-type with integral bearing housing,
independent of the inlet and exhaust casings.
2.5.3The exhaust flange shall be of the weldneck type with raised face designed in
accordance with ASMEBPV Code Section VIII. The flange shall be vertical up
(Figure 5-28) with a surface finish of 150–250 micro inches. The gasket shall
be of the spiral-wound metal type with a seating stress of 10,000 psi.Figure 2.5.4
5-28. Gas exits through the upward-oriented exhaust connection.
The exhaust casing shall be provided with two valved view ports (Figure 5-29) 2.5.5
located so their lines of sight intersect at mid-height of the rotor blading. The
valves shall be capable of withstanding the conditions specified, but not less
than Class 300, with a purge connection between the valve and the sight glass.
The valve size shall be the Seller's standard but not less than 4 in.Figure 5-29.
This view shows the conical stainless-steel backup plate closing the exhaust
casing. The two flanged connections on the right are for the rotor blade viewing
ports. The bearing housing is shielded from the backup plate by 3.5 in. (90
mm) of insulation.
The exhaust casing shall be provided with at least one man-way opening with2.5.6
gasketed cover for internal casing access by personnel.
A drain shall be provided at the low point of the exhaust casing and be at least
1.5 in. in size, Class-300.

> Read full chapter

Mechanical Fastening
In Handbook of Plastics Joining (Second Edition), 2009

18.5.2 Design
Maximum pull-out forces are obtained by creating the greatest allowable inter-
ference between the parts, which is obviously dependent on the strength of the
materials used. Part geometry and design must ensure that hoop stresses produced
do not exceed the maximum allowable stress for the plastic material [10].

18.5.2.1 Calculation of Interference Limits

For thick-walled cylinders, the diametral interference between a shaft and a hub can
be determined from the following formula:

where, I = diametral interference, mm (inches),

Sd = design stress limit or yield strength of the polymer, generally in the hub, MPa
(psi) (A typical design limit for an interference fit with thermoplastics is 0.5% strain
at 73°C (163°F)),

Ds = diameter of shaft, mm (inches),

Eh = modulus of elasticity of hub, MPa (psi),

Es = elasticity of shaft, MPa (psi),

μh = Poisson's ratio of hub material,

μs = Poisson's ratio of shaft material.

W is a geometric factor, given by:

where Dh is the OD of the hub, mm (inches).

If the shaft and hub are of the same material, Eh = Es and μh = μs and the above
equation simplifies to:

If the shaft is a high modulus metal or other material, with Es > 3 × 104 MPa
(4,350,000 psi), the last term in the general interference equation is negligible, and
the equation simplifies to:

Maximum diametral interferences for many plastics have been calculated by the
plastics manufacturers for hubs and shafts of varying diameters at particular temper-
atures. These values should generally be reduced by a safety factor; safety factors of
1.5–3 are appropriate for most applications. A safety factor of 1.5 is recommended for
unreinforced thermoplastics, and a safety factor of 3 is normally used for reinforced
polymers, which takes into account imperfections and lower strength regions arising
from injection molding, such as weld or knit lines [10, 26].

18.5.2.2 Reduction of Stress Concentrations

The high stresses produced in press fit assembly can make the parts more suscepti-
ble to chemical and thermal attack. To reduce stress concentrations, parts and inserts
should be clean and free of all incompatible chemicals. Inserts with smooth, rounded
surfaces will result in lower stress concentrations than knurled inserts, and parts that
are being inserted should not be located near knit lines [4, 6, 7].

> Read full chapter

Hydrogen embrittlement of nickel,

cobalt and iron-based superalloys
J.A. Lee, in Gaseous Hydrogen Embrittlement of Materials in Energy Technologies:
The Problem, its Characterisation and Effects on Particular Alloy Classes, 2012

17.3.3 Fracture properties

Gaseous hydrogen has a significant influence on the crack initiation and growth
behavior, particularly when reasonably large surface flaws exist on a susceptible
material exposed to a high pressure hydrogen environment. Therefore, fracture
mechanics is usually required to assess the maximum allowable stress and service life
of a component, based on the surface flaw sizes and crack growth rates, in hydrogen
environment (ref. 37). The published information for crack growth behaviors and
particularly the fracture properties in hydrogen environment are significantly less
extensive than the NTS and smooth ductility (RA, e). There are two common types of
fracture properties: the threshold stress intensity factor (KTH), and crack growth rates.
The literature data for the cyclic-load crack growth rates (da/dN) will be discussed in
Section 17.3.6.

Using the ASTM E-1681 test standard (ref. 38), the threshold stress intensity factor
(KTH) in hydrogen environment determined from a pre-cracked specimen, under
static loading, can be a very time-consuming task. For instance, according to work
performed by Perra (ref. 36), a hydrogen test duration was typically 5000 hours
(7 months) so that an average crack velocity as small as 10− 11 m/s could be resolved.
According to Chandler and Walter (ref. 25), for certain types of materials, the KTH
values are difficult to measure because of the basic problem in determination
of actual crack growth versus crack branching in gaseous hydrogen environment.
Because of the intrinsic nature from the experimental setup to determine the KTH by
using a monitoring system for the ‘onset’ of crack initiation; theoretically, it appears
that the KTH measurement may be more sensitive as a hydrogen embrittlement
indicator than the simple HEE index based on NTS or RA ratio. In reality, the KTH
proves to be difficult to measure accurately for certain gaseous hydrogen tem-
perature and pressure set up conditions. According to Perra (ref. 36), the reported
KTH values, as shown in Table 17.4, for superalloys such as A-286, JBK 75 and Incoloy
903 must be interpreted, in his own view as ‘on a relative rather than an absolute
basis, and the apparent KTH values within each sample group can vary as much as
± 15%’. Figure 17.4 shows the trend behavior of KTH values as a function of hydrogen
pressure for Inconel 718 and Incoloy 903 tested at room temperature (ref. 39).
17.4. Effects of hydrogen pressure on threshold stress intensity (KTH) for Inco 718
and 903 (ref. 39).

For material screening purpose, the KTH values can also be used as the HEE indexes
according to the ASTM-G129 test standard. There are two types of HEE indexes
based on the KTH ratios relative to the fracture toughness KIC and KC:

Plane strain threshold stress intensity factor ratio,

[17.7]

Threshold stress intensity factor ratio,

[17.8]

Notice that the denominators or the ‘normalizing factors’ for the first index is KIC and
for the second index is KC, both measured in air or inert environment. The values
for KI(TH) and KTH are stress intensity factors measured in hydrogen for plane strain
and non-plane strain specimens, respectively. Accelerated test procedures for KTH
measurement have also been proposed in recent years to estimate the KTH values
from a pre-cracked specimen, without spending a considerable amount of time
for the specimen to be under a constant static loading as baseline in ASTM-E1681
(ref. 38). These relatively rapid test procedures are proposed in terms of using a
minute incrementally rising load or displacement based on relatively slow strain
rates (SSR) on the pre-cracked specimens. According to ASTM-G129 and more
importantly the ASTM-F1624-6 (ref. 40), ISO 7539-9 (ref. 41) and Dietzel (ref. 42,
43); the proposed incremental step loading technique and/or SSR for the estimation
of Kth are usually in the order of 1 to 10 μm/h. Notice that these SSR values for
the pre-cracked specimens (the determination for KTH) are much slower than the
typical SSR values for notched and smooth tensile specimens (the determinations
for NTS and ductility, respectively). Additional information on modern test methods
and quantitative-accelerated testing for KTH in hydrogen can be found in Chapter 8
of this book.

During the process of determining the KTH values for A-286 superalloy using mon-
itoring system for the ‘onset’ of crack initiation under slow rising displacement,
it has been reported by Chandler and Walter (ref. 25) that evidence of slow crack
growth did occur in hydrogen environment for A-286, which has been qualitatively
classified as negligibly embrittled by hydrogen based on the NTS index ratio of 0.97
shown in Table 17.3. However, this crack growth observation occurred only with
loads large enough to cause yielding, and the crack growth for A-286 was considered
to be very slow by Chandler. If the material was tested under such large loads as
to cause yielding, one may expect that the resulting KTH value could be high and
possibly approaching the KC value for A-286 as tested in air. For A-286, JBK-75 and
Incoloy 903, under various ST + A conditions as shown in Table 17.4, their KTH values
are shown to be heavily affected by hydrogen. Therefore, the HEE index based on
smooth RA ratio for these materials in Table 17.3, for heat treatment in ST + A
conditions, are in qualitative agreement with the trend behavior for KTH values in
hydrogen. As an illustration for the similar behaviors between the HEE index derived
from KI(TH)/KIC and RA ratio, Fig. 17.5 shows two HEE index trend lines for Inconel
718, tested in 34.5 MPa hydrogen pressure for a wide range of temperature from
-195 to 540 °C (− 320 to1000 °F). Surprisingly, the trend line for HEE index from
RA ratio appears to be of a better indicator or more sensitive than the HEE index
from KI(TH)/KIC ratio, with an exception for a single data point at -195 °C, where the
KI(TH)/KIC ratio appears to be more sensitive to hydrogen embrittlement detection
(ref. 44). Both of these trend lines show that the maximum HEE effect occurs near
room temperature, and this effect is diminishing when the temperature is below
− 200 °C and above 550 °C.

17.5. Trend lines for Inconel 718 based on HEE index from KIH/KIC and RA ratio (ref.
44).

> Read full chapter

BENDING
E.J. HEARN Ph.D., B.Sc. (Eng.) Hons., C.Eng., F.I.Mech.E., F.I.Prod.E., F.I.Diag.E., in
Mechanics of Materials 1 (Third Edition), 1997

Example 4.4
(a) A reinforced concrete beam is 240 mm wide and 450 mm deep to the centre
of the reinforcing steel rods. The rods are of total cross-sectional area 1.2 ×
10−3 m2 and the maximum allowable stresses in the steel and concrete are 150
MN/m2 and 8 MN/m2 respectively. The modular ratio (steel : concrete) is 16. (b)
Determine the moment of resistance of the beam.
If, after installation, it is required to up-rate the service loads by 30% and
to replace the above beam with a second beam of increased strength but
retaining the same width of 240 mm, determine the new depth and area of
steel for tension reinforcement required.

Solution
(a) From eqn. (4.16) moments of area about the N.A. of Fig. 4.19.Fig. 4.19. From
whichh = 200 mmSubstituting in eqn. (4.17),and from eqn. (4.18)Thus the safe
moment which the beam can carry within both limiting stress values is 69 kN
m.
(b) For this part of the question the dimensions of the new beam are required and
it is necessary to assume a critical or economic section. The position of the N.A.
is then determined from eqn. (4.19) by consideration of the proportions of the
stress distribution (i.e. assuming that the maximum stresses in the streel and
concrete occur together).Thus from eqn. (4.19)From (4.17)Substituting for h/d
= 0.46 and solving for d gives From (4.20)i.e.A = 1.44 × 10−3 m2

> Read full chapter

Maximizing Machinery Uptime

In Practical Machinery Management for Process Plants, 2006

ASME Code Calculation for Shells Under Internal Pressure

The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code gives formulas for determining vessel
thicknesses. For cylindrical shells under internal pressure the formulas are

(18.3)

where R is the inside radius, S is the maximum allowable stress, P is the internal
design pressure, t is the minimum required thickness, and E is the joint efficiency
factor. For spherical shells, the code requires that

(18.4)

For ellipsoidal heads, the governing formulas are given as

(18.5)
 where D is the inside diameter of the head skirt.

For torispherical heads, the code provides the formulas

(18.6)

where L is the inside spherical or crown radius. For conical shells,

(18.7)

where is half the included (apex) angle, and D is the inside diameter at the point
under consideration.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.