THE WILLIAM M.

MURRAY LECTURE, 1970

Design-stress Basis for Pressure Vessels

Lecture presents t h e e l e m e n t s f o r d e v e l o p i n g a r a t i o n a l basis f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of an a l l o w a b l e m e m b r a n e stress w h i c h will assure any chosen ratio between f a i l u r e pressure and o p e r a t i n g pressure

by Bernard F. Langer

ABSTRACT--The modes of failure of o pressure vessel which ore affected by the choice of material and wall thickhess ore given. The factors which should be considerecl in the choice of an allowable stress low enough to prevent these failure modes are discussed.

Introduction
It is w e l l k n o w n that the p r e v e n t i o n of s t r u c t u r a l fai l u r e of an y piece of e q u i p m e n t involves m u c h m o r e t h a n just the choice of a safe v a l u e of design stress. Much of t h e l i t e r a t u r e on p r e s s u r e - v e s s e l design d u r i n g t h e last 20 or 30 years has emphasized this point, and I think the message has gotten t h r o u g h to those r e s p o n s i b l e for design and for the imposition of safety criteria. A t th e beginning of this century, catastrophic boiler explosions in t h e U n i t e d States a v e r a g e d about one a day and a m a j o r factor in correcting this scandalous situation was the publication in 1914 of the A S M E Boiler Code. This Code established the principle that t h e m e m b r a n e stress prod u ced b y pressure in the w a l l of a vessel should not be allowed to exceed one-fifth of th e u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h of the material, as d e t e r m i n e d by a tensile test. The success of this simple r e q u i r e m e n t was so g r eat that, for a while, people t e n d e d to forget that o t h er r e q u i r e m e n t s w e r e also needed if o p t i m u m use w e r e to be m a d e of high t e m p e r a t u r e , high pressure, and the newer, stronger materials. Recognition of these m o r e sophisticated r e q u i r e m e n t s did occur, h o w e v e r , and resulted in m a n y papers on t h e r m a l stress, creep, cyclic loading, corrosion, stress concentration and limit analysis. T h e i m p o r t a n c e of these secondary effects was given f o r m a l recognition w i t h the publication in 1963 of Section I I I (Nuclear Vessels) of the Boiler Code and, later, Division 2 of Section VIII. These n e w e r Codes recognize t h a t seco n d a r y and localized stresses can be calculated and must h a v e higher allowable limits t h a n those assigned to p r i m a r y stresses. T h e t h e m e I wish to pursue h e r e is that it m a y be

t i m e to r e - e v a l u a t e the m o r e basic p r i m a r y stress limits to see if n e w criteria are needed to t a k e full a d v a n t a g e of t h e m a t e r i a l s w h i c h are n o w available. Th e lack of any sound technical basis for choosing the al l o w ab l e m e m b r a n e stress in a p r e s s u r e - v e s s e l wall is d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e w i d e v a r i a t i o n f o u n d in diff e r e n t Codes in different countries. F i g u r e 1 ( f r om Ref. 1) shows a striking comparison b e t w e e n t he w a l l thicknesses w h i ch w e r e r e q u i r e d in 1960 in various countries for essentially the same ser v ic e and material. R e f e r e n c e 2 gives a m o r e u p - t o - d a t e p i c t u r e and shows some i m p r o v e m e n t , but still t h e r e is no evidence that any rational technical basis for choosing allowable stress is b ei n g used. W h e n

2.6 - 2.4

2.2
2.0 o~ ~ 1.8 ---- 1.6 r ,~ 1.4 z v ~: i.2 ,~ 1.0 ~ 0.8 0.6 0.4

0.2
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 PRESSURE : LBS. PER SQUARE INCH

Bernard F~ Langer is Consulting Engineer, Nuclear Energy Systems, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230 1970 Murray Lecture was presented at 1970 SESA Fall Meeting held in Boston, Mass., on Octobe~ 18-22.

Welded cylindrical carbon-steel shell, 60-in. diameter, 100-percent radiography. As of 1960

Fig. 1--Comparative wall-thickness requirements in various countriesI

Experimental Mechanics I 1

2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 ~- 1.3

the economics of the design will h a v e been d e t e r mined and t h e designer can then direct his attention to refinements aimed at p r e v e n t i n g f at i g u e cracking, corrosion, elastic instability and plastic collapse of openings and heads.

Bursting
As a first step in rationalizing t h e calculation of the r e q u i r e d w a l l thickness of a vessel or pipe, let us see w h a t is n e e d e d to provide a safety factor against bursting which is consistent for the full range of c o m m o n l y used m at er i al s and design pressures. The prediction of bursting pressure was t h e subject of an e x t e n s i v e investigation sponsored by the Pressure Vessel Research C o m m i t t e e ( P V RC) , and the results w e r e i n t e r p r e t e d in Ref. 3. Th e conclusion r e a c he d there was that the bursting pressure of a cylindrical or spherical shell can be predicted w i t h reasonable accuracy if, in addition to the g e o m e t r y of the shell and the tensile s t r e n g t h of the material, consideration is also g i v en to t h e s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g properties of the material. Th e r e c o m m e n d e d formulas for calculating bursting pressure w er e: G i v en ~u', eu and W or t/di For cylinders,

,,< 1.2
" 1.1

1.0
1).9 0.8 0.7 0.6

0.5

.1

I J f I I I I I I
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 Eu0Rn

.9 1.0

Fig. 2--Values of cylinder and sphere factors for bursting-strength formulas of eqs (1) and (2F

Pb ~ ~u' Fc 1oge W
For spheres,
P b ~- au' F s

(1)

logeW

(2)

s e v e r a l c o m p e t e n t engineers are faced w i t h the same p r o b l e m and a r r i v e at such w i d e l y differing answers t h e r e must be something lacking in the m e t h o d of solution. The allowable stress in the wall of a pressure vessel or pipe should be such t h a t it provides at least the chosen ratio b e t w e e n f a il u r e pressure and operating pressure t h r o u g h o u t the entire life of the component. The assurance of this chosen ratio does not preclude all modes of failure; but it is, n e v e r t h e less, v e r y important. The thickness and type of m a terial needed to p r o v i d e t h e desired ratio must be chosen as a first step in the design and these are i m p o r t an t factors in d e t e r m i n i n g cost. Therefore, t h e y are w o r t h y of detailed study. The proper n u m e r i c a l v a l u e to be chosen for the safety ratio depends on circumstances such as economics, the possible overload, and the consequences of failure, w h i c h v a r y in specific applications. When it becomes necessary in this p a p e r to choose a safety ratio, I shall base it on the assumption that t h e A S M E Code is safe enough. What I shall discuss p r i m a r i l y is h o w to achieve the desired safety ratio af t er it has been chosen. T h e modes of failure w h i c h are influenced by the choice of m a t e r i a l and w a l l thickness are: (1) Bursting due to g e n e r a l yielding and r u p t u r e of the shell wall. (2) Ductile t e a r i n g at a discontinuity such as a nozzle or h e a d - t o - s h e l l junction. (3) B r i t t l e f r a c t u r e at a defect. (4) Creep r u p t u r e at e l e v a t e d t e m p e r a t u r e . If the m a t e r i a l and t h e w a l l thickness are chosen b y p r o p e r consideration of these four failure modes,

where: W = ratio of outside to inside diameter of shell = 1 q- 2t/di t = wall thickness of shell, in. d i = inside d i a m e t e r of shell, in. Fe = a factor for cylinders, dependent on eu (see Fig. 2). Fs = a factor for spheres, d ep en d ent on e, (see Fig. 2). Pb = bursting pressure, psi eu' = e n g i n e e r i n g strain at m a x i m u m load, also called " u n i f o r m e l o n g a t i o n " eu = true strain at m a x i m u m load ~ loge (1 + ~,') ~ u ' = en g i n eer i n g u l t i m a t e tensile strength, psi Fo r values of W less than about 1.4, it is convenient and sufficiently accurate to replace loge W w i t h the first t w o t er m s of the series expansion for the na t ur a l logarithm, loge W di 1 (3)

In these formulas, t h e s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g properties of the m a t e r i a l ar e r e p r e s e n t e d by ~,, t h e true strain at m a x i m u m load in t h e tensile test. If t h e true stresstrue strain c u r v e is r e p r e s e n t e d by
,r = Aen

(4)

then eu is a c o m m o n l y used a p p r o x i m a t i o n of the s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g exponent, n. Th e n e w e r A S M E Codes, Section I I I an d Div. 2 of Section VIII, are p u r p o r t e d l y based on a ratio of t h r ee b e t w e e n failure pressure and design pressure. Let us see w h a t this ratio r e a l l y is f o r some typical

2 I 1anuary 1971

TABLE 1--SAFETY FACTORS AGAINST BURSTING FOR VARIOUS MATERIALS

Material UTS YS S=a Unif. El.,
eu

pb

Sphere, d / t = 10 pa SF = pb/pa

pb

Cylinder, d / t = 10 pa

SF

Type 304 SS SA-516 SA-533B SA-517F A-538B

75000 55000 80000 115000 240000

30000 30000 50000 100000 230000

20000 18300 26700 38300 80000

0.55 0.31 0.17 0.11 0.04

19850 16550 26100 38900 84900

7280 6650 9700 13920 29060

2.73 2.49 2.69 2.79 2.92

10590 9150 14700 22100 48600

3640 3325 4850 6960 14530

2.91 2.75 3.03 3.17 3.34

materials, on the assumption that the b u r s t i n g pressure calculated from eqs (1) and (2) is correct. Table 1 shows the p e r t i n e n t data for five materials which cover the whole useful r a n g e of s t r e n g t h and s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g capability. The allowable general p r i m a r y m e m b r a n e stress, Sin, is the lower of onethird of the tensile strength or t w o - t h i r d s of the yield strength. The design pressures, p& are calculated from the appropriate formulas in the ASME codes, Section III a n d Section VIII, Div. 2. F r o m Table 1 we see that the safety factors against b u r s t i n g are higher for cylinders t h a n for spheres. For spheres, they v a r y from 2.49 to 2.92 and, for cylinders, the r a n g e is 2.75 to 3.34. The o p t i m u m allowable stress for each m a t e r i a l would be one which gave the same safety factor for all materials, but this allowable stress would have to be lower for spheres t h a n for cylinders. It does not seem r e a s o n able to penalize cylindrical vessels because of an i n h e r e n t weakness in the spherical shape, so this difference should be compensated for by a correction in the design f o r m u l a for spheres r a t h e r t h a n in the allowable stress. A factor of 0.85 in the f o r m u l a for the allowable pressure of a sphere of given wall thickness would make all spheres at least as safe as cylinders of the same material, and thus allow us to proceed with the choice of an allowable stress based only on cylinder considerations. The next question is what to choose for a safety factor. If we choose 3.0, the v a l u e implied b y Section III of the Code, we would have to lower the allowable stresses for some widely and successfully used materials, a n d experience does not indicate any need for this increase in conservatism. Therefore, let us choose a safety factor of 2.75, which is the lowest cylinder value in Table 1 and, thus, will not lower a n y allowables now in use. Table 2 shows the present Code allowable stress for each m a t e r i a l compared to the value which would provide a safety factor against b u r s t i n g of 2.75 in a t h i n - w a l l e d cylinder. It happens that the calculation of this suggested allowable stress is very simple. Combining the Code f o r m u l a for design pressure, Pa, of a cylinder, Pa = ~ d~ 2t (5)

the S,, value of eq (6) will give higher safety factors, and will thus be safe. Table 2 shows that, insofar as safety against the plastic-instability type of b u r s t i n g is concerned, the present Code allowable stresses u n d u l y penalize some of the h i g h e r - s t r e n g t h materials.
Cracking and Discontinuities

The setting of allowable stresses at a level which produces consistent safety factors against b u r s t i n g is a good start, b u t it c a n n o t be assumed w i t h o u t f u r ther investigation that these stresses are safe. After all, b u r s t i n g due to plastic instability in the smooth wall of a vessel is one of the least probable modes of failure. A more probable mode is cracking at a discontinuity, w h e r e the stresses and strains are higher t h a n in the smooth wall of the shell. The crack can be produced b y either a single severe overload or b y a succession of less severe loads (low-cycle fatigue). I n either case, the possibility of cracking is d e p e n dent on the a m o u n t of strain concentration which occurs at the discontinuity, and we shall see that the strain c o n c e n t r a t i o n is strongly affected b y the s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g properties of the material. S t r a i n concentration can occur i n a n y s t r u c t u r a l m e m b e r with stress gradients as soon as the loading exceeds the point at which the highest-stressed r e gion becomes plastic. If the plastic zone is highly localized, the s u r r o u n d i n g elastic m a t e r i a l controls the strain in the plastic m a t e r i a l and no strain concentration occurs. W h e n the plastic zone is large enough to become a significant factor in the stress distribution, however, the strains in the plastic zone become larger t h a n those which would be calculated b y the theory of elasticity a n d strain c o n c e n t r a t i o n m u s t be considered. A p p r o x i m a t e solutions of a few simple cases will illustrate this p h e n o m e n o n .

TABLE 2---Sin VALUES FOR BURSTING SAFETY FACTOR OF 2.75

Material Code Sin, psi Sm for SF = 2.75, psi Percent increase over Code Sm

1 2

with eqs (1) and (3) for large values of d J t ratios we find that

U T S X Fc
Sm= Safety Factor (6)

Type 304 SS SA-516 SA-533B SA-517F A-538B

20000 18300 26700 38300 80000*

21100 18300 29400 44200 98000

5.5 0 10.0 15.4 22.5

For small d J t ratios (high-pressure applications)

* A-538B is not a Code-approved material, but 80,000 psi is the value which would result from use of the present Code stress basis.

Experimental Mechanics

In the following e x a m p l e s w e shall define t h e s t r a i n - c o n c e n t r a t i o n factor, K,, as the actual peak strain divided by t h e p e a k strain calculated for c o m p l e t e l y elastic b e h a v i o r on the assumption t h a t the m a x i m u m deflections are the same in the two cases. Consider first the t a p e r e d flat bar in tension, shown i n Fig. 3, and use t h e a p p r o x i m a t i o n ~ = Aen for the s t res s -s t r ai n curve. (See A p p e n d i x A for notation). It should be noted that this is not an elastic-plastic a p p r o x i m a t i o n and has no v a l i d i t y in the elastic range. A t n = o it becomes a r i g i d - p e r f e c t l y plastic approximation. The solution for this case is g i v en in

A p p e n d i x A and is

KE =

1 -- p exp

('___,) (')
n

logo p

(7)

1 -- - n

F i g u r e 4 shows K~ as a function of n for t hr e e values of p. The strong d e p e n d e n c e of Ke on n and the significant effect of increasing t h e axial stress gradient (by increasing p) should be noted. Consider, next, t h e c a n t i l e v e r b e a m of r e c t a n g u l a r

(
,ov/
P Fig. 3 - - T a p e r e d flat bar in tension
~30 LI

.9.

T
z= DEFLECTION AT ANY LOCATION x

Fig. 5 - - C a n t i l e v e r beam

50 r / ~%-PERFECT

--,TA,LESS,T,E,
/--ANNEALED MILDSTEEL

[I/

40 30 20

............................

0 0.0

I.

A_

.A_

.... 1

..L

......... L

_ _

0.4

1.2 STRAIN- PER CENT

0.8

1.6

2.0

Fig. 6---Stress-strain curves~

,o
6

., ~

CLOSE DOTTED L LINE ~'~ SEMICIRCULAR ...... ~ BEAM FULLLINE + THREE-POINT

~5 ,,<

54
'

I,"

...... .Z-M,LOS,EEL

p=2

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8 0.9

1.0

n
Fig. 4 - - S t r a i n - c o n c e n t r a t i o n factors for tapered bar and c a n t i l e v e r

I
4

I
6

I
8

I
10

....NORMALIZED DEFLECTION Fig. 7 - - S t r a i n - c o n c e n t r a t i o n factors for beams 3

4 I January 1971

section w i t h a concentrated end load, as shown in Fig. 5. The solution is given in A p p e n d i x B and is K~ = 1-F2n 3n (8)

This case is also shown in Fig. 4. E v e n though the beam has no geometrical stress raiser, the K~ values are c o m p a r a b l e to those for the t a p e r e d bar with p = 2. The a p p r o x i m a t i o n K, = 1/n is seen to be c o n s e r v a t i v e for all cases except t h a t of the most s e v e r e l y notched tapered bar (p = 10). R e f e r e n c e 4 is a m u c h m o r e accurate and sophisticated application of these same principles to the p r o b l e m of bending of beams, and Ref. 5 proves the v a l i d i t y of the analysis by means of f a t i g u e - t e s t data. F i v e different loading conditions w e r e analyzed for four w i d e l y v a r y i n g stress-strain curves. F i g u r e 6 shows the stress-strain curves, which w e r e for elast i c - p e r f e c t l y plastic material, m i l d steel, a l u m i n u m and stainless steel. F i g u r e 7 shows K, for two of the loading conditions and all four of the stress-strain curves, plotted against the beam deflection n o r m a l ized to the deflection at the limit of elastic behavior. This figure shows clearly the effects of both g e o m e t r y and strain hardening. F o r example, for the elasticp e r f e c t l y plastic m a t e r i a l w i t h t h r e e - p o i n t bending, the strain concentration becomes infinite w h e r e a s for the same b e a m m a d e of stainless steel it levels off at a value of about 2.3. A n o t h e r proof of the validity of these concepts is presently being developed by the PVRC S u b c o m m i t tee on Effective Utilization of Yield Strength. In the

section on " B u r s t i n g " of this paper, it was shown that present methods of vessel design do not take full adv a n t a g e of the capabilities of h i g h - s t r e n g t h m a t e r i a l s if the a l l o w a b l e m e m b r a n e stress is based on a fraction of t h e u l t i m a t e tensile strength. The purpose of the P V R C investigation is to see if an allowable m e m b r a n e stress based on t h e plastic-instability t y p e of b u r s t i n g gives a d e q u a t e protection against failure at a discontinuity. The specimen used in these tests was a 6 - i n . - d i a m disk w i t h b u i l t - i n edge as shown in Fig. 8. P r e s s u r e was applied on one side of the disk as shown in Fig. 9 until failure occurred at either the c e n t e r due to plastic-instability b u r s t i n g or in the fillet at the b u i l t - i n edge. F i g u r e 10 shows an e x a m p l e of a c e n t e r failure and Fig. 11 shows an e x a m p l e of an edge failure. I shall discuss m o s t l y the edge failures here, since t h e y are the ones w h i c h are r e l e v a n t to the subject of failure at a discontinuity. The materials used included ones r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of all the five m a t e r i a l s considered in the section on " B u r s t i n g " (see Table 1) plus a few others such as SA-537 and a f u r n a c e - c o o l e d (instead of q u e n c h e d and t e m p e r e d ) SA-517F. Table 3 shows the test data and some results of an analysis of the data. The results w e r e analyzed in t e r m s of a s t r e n g t h ratio (SR) defined as the ratio b e t w e e n the e x p e r i m e n t a l failure p r e s s u r e and the calculated limit pres-

l IN.
~'
6 IN. DIA. t0 IN. DIA. ' .

Fig. 8---Disk specimen used in PVRC tests Fig. lO--Example of center failure
STRAIN-GAGEDCANTILEVERBEAM OR CENTRALDEFLECTIONMEASUREMENT

TEST

~ ~

GAGE

BLEEDLINE

Fig. 9--Arrangement of equipment for PVRC disk tests

Fig. 11--Example of edge failure

Experimental Mechanics I 5

sure of the disk. The limit pressure of a b u i l t - i n disk was calculated from Po = 2.81
where Po = t = R = ~"= S~ =
Su

(9)

limit pressure, psi disk thickness, in. effective disk radius, in. = 3 -- r fillet radius, in. average of measured yield strengths, psi

factor, Kt, and the plate thickness. The proportionality of strain and E t is an obvious and simple approximation. The effect of plate thickness was suggested b y a p r e l i m i n a r y study of the test data and seems reasonable since the strain at a plastic hinge for a given angle of rotation is obviously proportional to the thickness. Based on this hypothesis, the strength ratio can be normalized to the form

SR=Et

(')('0)
~-I ~ o -- 1

+ 1

(10)

The test results provide a wealth of information which will be analyzed in detail in future publications b y m e m b e r s of the PVRC Subcommittee on

where t = actual disk thickness, in. tt -- normalizing thickness, in. Pb = experimental b u r s t pressure, psi The last column in Table 3 shows this strength ratio normalized to t = 1 in. and Kt = 1.0. Figure 12 shows it plotted against n, the s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g exponent, obtained from t h e measured s t r a i n at maximum load in the tensile test.

Effective Utilization of Yield Strength. I will present here only a small part of this study, which is a test of the hypothesis that failure at the fillet is determined b y the strain in the surface fiber and that this strain is proportional to the theoretical stress-concentration

TABLE 3~FAILURE PRESSURES AND STRENGTH RATIOS FOR PVRC DISK TESTS
Test No.

Material

Yield Str., ksi

t, in.

r, in.

Kt

po, psi

pb, psi

Failure Mode

pb
po

Normalized SR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Type 304 St. St.

34.0

0.55

114 1/8 1/4 1/8 1/8 3116 1/4 3/16 1/8 1/8 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/8 1/8 1/4 1/4 1/8 1/8 1/8 3/16 1/4 1/4 3/16 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/4 1/4 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 3/16 1/4 1/8 1/8 1/8

318 3/8 3/8 114 1/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 1/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 1/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 1/8 1/4 3/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 1/8 1/4 3/8 5/8 3/8 3/8 1/8 1/4 3/8 5/8 3/8 3/8 1/8 3/8 5/8

1.21 1.12 1.21 1.16 1.29 1.16 1.21 1.16 1.12 1.29 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.12 1.29 1.21 1.21 1.12 1.29 1.16 1.16 1.21 1.21 1.16 1.29 1.16 1.12 1.09 1.21 1.21 1.29 1.16 1.12 1.09 1.16 1.21 1.29 1.12 1.09

835 209 835 191 174 468 950 535 239 199 1410 1410 1410 354 294 1840 1840 463 370 422 1035 2670 2670 1490 560 611 670 820 1243 1243 311 341 373 456 837 1490 1280 1540 1880

10000+ 7696 15000 7100 6850 10300 9825 7086 4943 3700 8581 7168 8558 6660 4800 12000 10925 6715 5300 6200 9600 9300 9725 8285 3900 5900 6800 7400 7300 7163 335O 4100 4700 5300 6000 8300 5425 8875 9650

None Cent. Edge C C C E E E E E E E C E E E C E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E C E E E E E

36.9 18.0 37.2 39.3 22.0

10.3 13.3 20.6 18.6

6.03 6.14 6.25 7.19 5.56 3.81 3.68 3.75 3.84 2.54 2.23 2.53 3.50 3.47 2.67 2.50 2.89 3.14 2.99 2.81 1.75 1.80 1.99 1.97 2.26 2.28 2.09 2.48 2.44 2.58 2.60 2.63 2.45 2.34 2.38 1.53 1.67 1.57

ABS-C

38.8

0.31

A-537

57.5

0.19

16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

A-533B

75.2

6.08 5.08 6.07 18.8 16.3

6.53 5.95 14.5 14.3 14.7 9.3 3.48 3.64 5.55 6.98 9.65 10.15 9.02 5.87 5.76 10.8 12.0 12.6 11.6 7.17 5.57 4.25 5.75 5.13

0.17

A-517F Q and T

109.0

0.11

A-517F Furnace Cooled ABS-C Pre-strained

85.2 85.2 60.8

0.10 0.10 0.10

1
A-538B

250.0

0.04

6 [ January 1971

F i g u r e 12 indicates that the strength ratio is linearly proportional to the s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g exponent and also seems to verify the hypothesis regarding the effect of stress concentration and plate thickness, at least for this geometry. It is also i n t e r e s t i n g to compare the results from specimens 5 a n d 37 in Table 3, which are the ones shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. These specimens were geometrically i d e n tical, but the stainless-steel specimen sustained a

A-538B
7 m

A-533B

A8S-C

6
f.r.

""
t.O

5 4 3
2

AN,,A"S-C-P.EST.A,.EO
-I I I I
p

A-S17F-FURNACE

COOLED

:
30 ss
I I I I

,.,.I,,.,,-

Y,
I

i i

I i

I A-517F-Q & T I

0.0

I I I l I 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 STRAIN-HARDENING EXPONENT,n

0.6

Fig. 12--Normalized strength ratio vs. strainhardening exponent

187_
1615-

/~"
/ r'

14-

t:u t
r = 3"~'"~,/

i 11L
12 ~ -

s/ /

DESIGN PRESSURE
-

-FROM (O-OE-7

:_
7-

/
V ~

./
M'<t
SR=2.75

,,-,.0
',='.~

,- 0/o /

1 0.0 0.1 1 I [ I i 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 STRAIN-HAROENING EXPONENT,n

0.7

Fig. 13---Strength ratio vs. strain-hardening exponent for various thicknesses and design
pressures

pressure 26 percent higher t h a n that of the rnaraging steel, in spite of the fact that its m a t e r i a l had only one-eighth of the yield strength. The shape of the stress-strain curve was o v e r w h e l m i n g l y more i m p o r tant t h a n the strength of the steel! We have now accumulated a considerable v a r i e t y of evidence, both analytical a n d experimental, to i n d i cate that strain concentration, and hence susceptibility to ductile failure at a stress raiser, is i n v e r s e l y proportional to the s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g exponent. Let us see if this hypothesis can be used to test the safety of the allowable design stresses proposed in Table 2. We will find, as m i g h t have been expected, that a general "yes or no" answer is not possible, b u t that the conclusion depends on the geometry, the m a g n i tude of stress concentration and the design method. Figure 13 shows strength ratio, as defined for the PVRC disk tests, plotted against n, as a p p r o x i m a t e d by e~, for various assumptions. The safety factor of 2.75, on which the suggested allowable Sm values in Table 2 were based, appears as a horizontal straight line. Variations of the PVRC disk geometry can be shown as sloping l i n e s e m a n a t i n g from the point n = o, S R = 1. On this diagram, w h e n e v e r the sloping line falls below S R = 2.75, the proposed design stress, S i n , gives a safety m a r g i n lower t h a n 2.75. Let us first e x a m i n e the set of conditions for which we have the best direct e x p e r i m e n t a l evidence, which is a 1/4-in.-thick 6 - i n . - d i a m circular disk with b u i l t in edges, 3/8-in. fillet radius and a design pressure equal to the limit pressure. Line A represents this set of conditions, and we see that the proposed Sm values gi~-e the chosen safety m a r g i n for values of n greater t h a n about 0.06, which includes the SA-517F steel b u t not the A-538B. Line B is copied from Fig. 12 a n d shows the situation for a 1-in.-thick head with negligible stress concentration at the fillet and a design pressure equal to the limit pressure of the b u i l t - i n disk. I n this case, failure would occur at the fillet before a c y l i n d e r having the same design stress would b u r s t unless n was greater t h a n 0.18. The use of a design pressure as high as the limit pressure of a b u i l t - i n disk is not reasonable, however, and line C shows the situation which would exist if the design pressure of t h e disk were reduced to the l i m i t pressure calculated for simply supported edges. Here the l i m i t i n g v a l u e of n is 0.10. The ASME Code f o r m u l a in Section VIII for an integral flat head would give a situation about the same as that represented b y line C, so this is a p r a c tical case. It would not be wise to generalize too b r o a d l y or too q u a n t i t a t i v e l y from the cases given above, since they are based on only the one simple geometry and the 2:1 r a n g e of thicknesses tested b y PVRC. We do not k n o w yet w h a t the effects are of other stress raisers such as nozzles, notches and welded joints. These are u n d e r investigation in the PVRC studies. It must not be t h o u g h t that a safety m a r g i n less t h a n the chosen value of 2.75 represents a n u n s a f e design. So-called "safety factors" have come down f r o m 5 in the original ASME Code to 4 i n Section VIII Div. 1, to 3 i n Section III, to 2.4 i n the r e c e n t l y proposed I S O / T C l l Code. These reductions are j u s t i fied b y increases in knowledge and practical experience. With the increased knowledge c o n t r i b u t e d b y the PVRC studies, a f u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n m i g h t w e l l be

Experimental Mechanics

17

justified after the studies are completed. The exact m e a n i n g of the values derived from Fig. 13 should be kept in mind. They m e a n only that, for the geometry considered, the design pressure can be exceeded by the factor SR before r u p t u r e will occur in a single pressure-load application. The thickness effect is applicable only after a plastic hinge has formed at the fillet due to gross over-pressure and, therefore, should not be expected to affect failures produced by t h e r m a l stress or low-cycle fatigue to the same degree.

IOO0 80O 6OO 400

_~--a

~
.-,

200
100

r162

~_ 80 6o
~ 40
20

Brittle Fracture
No set of proposed allowable stresses could ever be considered for general use w i t h o u t a study of the possibility of brittle fracture. This is a complicated subject which requires consideration of two additional parameters, t e m p e r a t u r e a n d defect size. The m a terial property of interest is called "fracture toughness" and the best q u a n t i t a t i v e measure of this p r o p e r t y is the "critical stress-intensity factor," Krc, which has the dimension lb / sq in. ~/in. The Kic of ferritic steel is low at low temperature, rises steeply in the " t r a n s i t i o n - t e m p e r a t u r e " range and appears to level off above the transition temperature, much as does the energy absorption in the Charpy V-notch test. Not much is k n o w n about the "upper shelf" of the Kic vs. t e m p e r a t u r e range because the specimens needed to measure this value in the tough region become prohibitively large, b u t Barsom and Rolfe 6 have developed an empirical correlation between u p p e r - s h e l f Charpy values and Kw which appears to be v a l i d - - a t least for steels with yield strengths greater t h a n 100,000 psi. The i m p o r t a n t relationship we wish to investigate here is that b e t w e e n failure stress and defect size. A n y given defect in a loaded m e m b e r has a stressi n t e n s i t y factor, Kz, d e t e r m i n e d b y the geometry of the m e m b e r and the stress field which surrounds the defect. W h e n the stress increases enough to make Kz equal to the K w of the material, brittle fracture occurs. A n a l y t i c a l and e x p e r i m e n t a l methods are available for d e t e r m i n i n g Kr for m a n y i m p o r t a n t geometrical configurations. For example, Fig. 14 shows the r e l a tionship b e t w e e n applied tensile stress, defect size, and KI for the case of a long semi-elliptical surface crack in a section m u c h thicker t h a n the crack depth. Let us see how deep a crack each of our materials listed in Table 2 could tolerate and still have our chosen safety factor of 2.75 against failure, at the proposed allowable design stress of Sin. Table 4 shows the results of this calculation. The Kzc values are those expected at about room t e m p e r a ture and were obtained from various sources. Reference 7 gives data on SA-533B and Ref. 6 has data on SA-517F a n d on A-538B. The Kzc for the lowerstrength steels had to be estimated conservatively, because for them a direct m e a s u r e m e n t of Kic at room t e m p e r a t u r e is not feasible. Table 4 shows clearly that, as the strength level of the steel increases, the tolerable defect size decreases. For the m o d e r a t e l y h i g h - s t r e n g t h SA-517F steel, the tolerable defect size is well w i t h i n the capabilities of available n o n d e s t r u c t i v e e x a m i n a t i o n methods. For a s u p e r - s t r e n g t h steel like A-538B, however, although

10

r
.02

] ][

]
2 4 6 810

.01

.04.06.08.1

.2 .4 .6.8 1 a.INCHES

Fig. 14--Stress vs. crack depth for long shallow semi-elliptical surface crack

the tolerable defects are detectable, the utmost caution must be used to avoid defects of even a few h u n d r e d t h s of a n inch in depth.

Creep Rupture at Elevated Temperature

W h e n we come to the problem of designing for e l e v a t e d - t e m p e r a t u r e operation, we must add creep distortion ,and stress r u p t u r e to the p h e n o m e n a which m u s t be considered. This creep p h e n o m e n o n is highly time d e p e n d e n t so that the time parameter, which can be ignored for l o w e r - t e m p e r a t u r e applications, becomes one of the most i m p o r t a n t factors. At a t e m p e r a t u r e w h e r e creep is insignificant, we need only to k n o w the loads and the n u m b e r of expected load applications. Except for the consideration of e n v i r o n m e n t a l effects such as corrosion and irradiation, we have no interest in k n o w i n g whether the specified life will be expended in one hour or 50 years. Not so at elevated temperature. Above 1000~ F, even for a good h i g h - t e m p e r a t u r e m a t e r i a l such as Type 304 stainless steel, there is a ratio of about 3 between the stress r e q u i r e d to produce r u p t u r e in 10 hrs and that required to produce r u p t u r e in 105 hrs. The writers of pressure-vessel codes are reluctant to be too specific a b o u t the time span for which their allowable stresses are considered safe, and for good reason. The acceptance of a code depends largely on its safety record and, if a code were to allow a high stress for, say, t w o - y e a r life, there is too much chance of h a v i n g users neglect to take the equipment out of service at the end of its specified life. The ASME Code uses about as good a compromise as can be devised b y basing its allowable stress at elevated t e m p e r a t u r e on creep and r u p t u r e data extrapolated to 105 hr, with stresses based on design pressure and t e m p e r a t u r e which are significantly higher t h a n the pressure and t e m p e r a t u r e at which most equipment is actually operated during most of its service life. This is w h y the ASME Code can be used with confidence for boilers which have service lives of three or four times the 10~ hr on which the stress limits were based. This compromise, which is necessary in a code given to the public for widespread use, should be clearly understood by the designer so that he does not a t t r i b -

8 I January 1971

TABLE 4~ALLOWABLE DEFECT DEPTH FOR SUGGESTED DESIGN STRESS

Material Yield Strength, psi Suggested SIn, psi
K~c at 80*F, ksl ~/in. a, a in.

Type 304SS SA-516 SA-533B SA-517F A-538B

30000 30000 50000 100000 230000

21100 18300 29400 44200 98000

120 120 150 170 80

1.12 1.50 0.91 0.52 0.023

l a is the depth of a long semi-elliptic surface crack which would cause failure at a tensile stress of 2.75 times the suggested Sm value,

creased possibility of deformation r a t h e r t h a n stress being the limiting parameter. It seems i n e v i t a b l e that design rules for elevated t e m p e r a t u r e which will result in efficient designs will differ from those presently being used for more moderate t e m p e r a t u r e s and it is probable that the recommended design methods will be more complicated. It is hoped and expected, however, that, after detailed procedures have been developed and applied, they can be reduced to simpler conservative procedures which will be adequate for the large m a jority of design problems.

Summary and Conclusions

ute more validity to the actual stress values t h a n is warranted. The sophisticated designer of a hight e m p e r a t u r e installation must know m u c h more about the behavior of his materials t h a n can be found in existing codes. If he depends too m u c h on the codes, he might well reach the erroneous conclusion that a given piece of e q u i p m e n t is not feasible for the desired operating conditions. On the other hand, he might also conclude that a t h i c k - w a l l e d vessel with pressure stresses well w i t h i n code limits was safe whereas, in fact, t h e r m a l stresses and consequent creep damage will cause p r e m a t u r e failure. A t h i n n e r vessel, with pressure stress higher t h a n the code allowable might actually be safer for a limited service life. Intensive work is now in progress on the developm e n t of more sophisticated methods for use in elev a t e d - t e m p e r a t u r e design and I shall not presume here to predict what form these methods will take. The work has been stimulated largely b y the needs of the l i q u i d - m e t a l fast-breeder n u c l e a r - r e a c t o r program, but the fossil-fuel boiler i n d u s t r y and the petrochemical i n d u s t r y will certainly profit b y the findings. I do not know what the design methods will be or what the m a n d a t o r y rules as tin.ally codified will say but, in m y opinion, they must contain some consideration of the following phenomena: (1) The time dependence of r u p t u r e stress. The allowable stress should v a r y with the specified d u r a tion of the loading. Short-lived vessels should not be handicapped b y the same rules as are needed for p e r m a n e n t p o w e r - p r o d u c i n g systems. Transients and accidents should not be subject to stress limits which are based on 105-hr creep and r u p t u r e properties. (2) The difference b e t w e e n design conditions and actual operating conditions. Clear definitions of these terms are needed so that the proper rules c a n be applied to each. (3) The m a t e r i a l damage associated with creep and stress relaxation. At temperatures below the creeprange plastic flow alleviates secondary stresses w i t h out any considerable damage to the material, as long as the secondary stress is not cycled too often. At high temperature, creep-relaxation also alleviates secondary stress, but the creep strain does damage the m a t e r i a l as much as though the creep had been produced b y a p r i m a r y load. Therefore, definitive rules are needed for the creep-fatigue interaction. (4) The importance of deformation in elevatedt e m p e r a t u r e design. W h e n creep occurs there is inEfficient yet safe use of m a t e r i a l in a structure can be attained o n l y if its behavior u n d e r service conditions is well characterized. The c o m m o n l y specified room-temperature mechanical properties--tensile strength, yield strength, and e l o n g a t i o n - - a r e i n adequate for this characterization and i t has been shown here that the most i m p o r t a n t omission from this list is the s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g rate, which is the slope of the s t r e s s - s t r a i n curve after the yield stress has b e e n exceeded. F o r t u n a t e l y , this p r o p e r t y is not difficult to m e a s u r e and can be d e t e r m i n e d with sufficient accuracy b y m e a s u r i n g the strain at m a x i m u m load d u r i n g the tensile test. The i m p o r t a n c e of strain h a r d e n i n g is so great that u n d e r some c i r c u m stances the effects of a t e n - f o l d increase i n yield strength might be completely cancelled out by a t e n fold decrease in s t r a i n - h ' a r d e n i n g exponent. The ratio b e t w e e n tensile strength and allowable m e m b r a n e stress in a p r e s s u r e - r e t a i n i n g component has decreased from 5 in the 1914 ASME Code to 2.4 in the 1970 I S O / T C l l Code, and is even lower for selected materials in some countries. Justification for this decrease has, however, been based p r i m a r i l y on experience r a t h e r t h a n r a t i o n a l analysis of the materials' response to service loadings. As in a n y empirical result, there is always the danger of its being used in a place w h e r e it is not really applicable. I n this paper the elements have been presented for developing a r a t i o n a l basis for the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of an allowable m e m b r a n e stress which will assure any chosen ratio b e t w e e n failure pressure and operating pressure. This r a t i o n a l basis requires the setting of allowable m e m b r a n e stress with adequate consideration of: (a) The s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g properties of the m a terial (b) The m a g n i t u d e of the geometrical stress raisers allowed in the design. (c) The m a g n i t u d e of the defects which could escape detection. (d) The expected n u m b e r of service loadings. (e) The required service life. (Required for elev a t e d - t e m p e r a t u r e service only) Some of the i n f o r m a t i o n needed to develop this rational basis is not yet available, b u t is b e i n g developed. A significant part is already available and could be used immediately. F o r example, the effects of s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g properties on b u r s t i n g strength and on the strain concentration at some types of disc o n t i n u i t y are already known. We do not know, how-

Experimental Mechanics [ 9

ever, what m a g n i t u d e of strain concentration to expect at a weld or at a nozzle-to-shell connection. Also, we still have m u c h to l e a r n about the interaction of creep and fatigue at elevated temperature. The concept t h a t h i g h - s t r e n g t h steels must be used with caution is c e r t a i n l y not new. Experienced designers have k n o w n this for a long time. If the designer's knowledge stops at this qualitative level, however, and he does not k n o w where and to w h a t extent this caution should be exercised, he can miss v a l u a b l e opportunities to use h i g h - s t r e n g t h materials. W i t h o u t m e a n i n g f u l knowledge, the admonition "use caution" can only be i n t e r p r e t e d to m e a n "do not use". Therefore, application and f u r t h e r developm e n t of the principles I have described should i n crease, not decrease, the use of h i g h - s t r e n g t h steels b y giving the user added confidence in their reliability w h e n the design a n d the service conditions are appropriate.

(2) Stress and strain in each cross section are uniform. From the geometry,

b=boq-(bl--bo)
P
--_ - = Aen

(/)

A(2)

A(3)

5=

edx

A(4)

Re~erences
I. Lancaster, ]. F., "A Comparison of United States, European and British Commonwealth Codes for the Construction of Welded Boilers and Pressure Vessels," ASME Paper 01-SA-40. Presented at ASME Summer Annual Meeting, Los Angeles (196I). 2. "Design Criteria of Boilers and Pressure Vessels," Collection of papers presented at the First International Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, Delft, September 1969. Published by ASME-1969. 3. Langor, B. F., "'PVRC Interpretive Report of Pressure Vessel Reseawh, Section l--Design Considerations," Welding Research Council Bull., (95), (April 1964). 4. Radomskl, M. and White, D. I., "'Some Theoretical Consideratlons Relating to Strain Concentration in Elastlc-Plastlc Bending of Beams," Journal of Strain Analysis, 3 (4), 304-312 (1968). 5. White, D. I. and Radomski, M., "Strain Concentration in Beams Under Cyclic Plastic Straining," Journal of Strain Analysis, 3 (4), 313-324 (1968). 6, Barsom, 1. M. and Rolfe, S. I., "Correlations Between Kro and Charpy V-Notch Test Results in the Transition Temperature Range," ASTM-STP466, "Impact Testing of Metals." Am. Soo. for Testing and Materials, 281-302 (1970). 7. Wessel, E. T., "Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics for ThickWalled, Welded Steel Pressure Vessels: Material Property Considerations," Westinghouse Research Labs. Scientific Paper 69-1DTBFPWR-P1. (Feb. 24, 1969).

We shall define the strain concentration, Ke, as the actual peak strain divided b y the peak strain calculated for completely elastic behavior on the assumption that the m a x i m u m deflections are the same in the two cases. I n other words, we shall compare two structures I and II which are geometrically identical w h e n unloaded. S t r u c t u r e I r e m a i n s elastic throughout, and structure II follows the plastic stress-strain law ~ -----Ae n. Both bars, I and II, are now pulled out to the same total elongation, 8. (The loads required to do this will not be the same for the two bars). KE is the ratio of the peak s t r a i n in b a r II to the peak strain in b a r I. For the elastic bar, I,

P
ee--~ bE
=

P
E
-

1
(~)
A(5)

bo+ ( b l - - b o )

bo+ ( b l - - b o ) ( l ) Pl
-loge
(bl/bo)

E ( b l -- bo) be~ l
-

APPENDIX A Strain Concentration in Tapered Bar

Consider the tapered flat bar in tension, shown in Fig. 3. The thickness of the b a r in the direction n o r m a l to the figure is one inch.
Let: e = stress at a n y cross section, psi A = strength coefficient, psi e= strain at a n y cross section s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g exponent 8 = total deflection over length l, in. ge = s t r a i n - c o n c e n t r a t i o n factor P = tensile load, lb E = modulus of elasticity, psi b0, bl, l are dimensions as in Fig. 3, in.
ee

-----bl -- bo

loge (bl/bo)

A(6)

8e (bl -- b0)

A(7)

bl loge (bl/bo)

At b = b0, ee i s a m a x i m u m , eemax. be (bl -- bo)

eemax
A(8)

bol loge (bl/b0)

For the plastic bar, II, ep= \-~1

( p y,n a n d t h u s (p~l,n____epbl,o \- -/
l ( p ~l/n

8.

Yl \-~-~ /

dx

bl/bo
X~

vertical coordinate measured from point 0

llu

Subscripts: e denotes elastic action

p denotes plastic action

bo+
A(1)

bz--bo

dx

A(9)

Assumptions:
(I) ~ =

Aeu

which, w h e n i n t e g r a t e d becomes

10 t 1anuary 1971

p ~l/n
~P= ( bl - b----~

1]
1 1

The maximum

s t r a i n , eemax, OCCURS a t x = eemax=

1 a n d is
B(2)

Phl 2El
-

~ .

from which

3hSemax
eemax = -

n
1 b0 e x p (1/n -- 1) 1 bl exp ( 1 / n 1) A(10)

2/2

B (3)

F o r p l a s t i c a c t i o n , t h e m o m e n t a t a n y c r o s s s e c t i o n is
I1 h

From the above relationships, and since the maxim u m s t r a i n s t i l l o c c u r s a t b = bo,

M = 2
Also,

ay dy = 2
e

A~ny dy

B(4)

=~(
epmaz

b,--bo l

)(

I )(1_1 bo e x p ( l / n )

e = kyork=
and A(ll)

B(5)

Y 1 b0exp [(l/n) -- 1] 1 blexp [(l/n) - - 1] Therefore T h e s t r a i n c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r , Ke, is Ke = From eqs A(8)

d2z
k=

dx 2
h ~n+2

B(6)

epmax,f o r
ee~p~ax

~e =

8p

M=2Ak

f n~

--2 yn+ldy=

2Akn

-2 /

~0

n+2

B(7)

and A(ll),

and with the notation

p = bilbo, w e f i n d

T h e m o m e n t e x p r e s s e d as a f r a c t i o n of t h e m a x i m u m m o m e n t is

Mmax
Kc =

2 epmax

loge p

A(12)
1 m
B(9)

1--p
= 2.,mo------S -=

APPENDIX B Strain Concentration in Cantilever Beam

C o n s i d e r t h e c a n t i l e v e r b e a m of r e c t a n g u l a r c r o s s s e c t i o n w i t h c o n c e n t r a t e d e n d l o a d as s h o w n i n Fig. 5. t h e t h i c k n e s s of t h e b e a m i n t h e d i r e c t i o n n o r m a l to t h e f i g u r e is o n e i n c h . L e t : 6 = s t r e s s at a n y p o i n t , i n t h e x d i r e c t i o n , psi e = s t r a i n at a n y p o i n t , in t h e x d i r e c t i o n = d e f l e c t i o n of b e a m a t f r e e e n d , in. P = l o a d at f r e e e n d , l b h, 1 a r e b e a m d i m e n s i o n s as i n Fig. 5, in. x = horizontal coordinate measured from f r e e end, in. y = vertical coordinate measured from neut r a l axis, in. z = v e r t i c a l d e f l e c t i o n of n e u t r a l a x i s a t a n y p o i n t , in. M = moment at any cross section, in.-lb k = curvature of beam, in.-1 O t h e r s y m b o l s as i n A p p e n d i x A. Assumptions: (1) ~ = Aa n (2) P l a n e c r o s s s e c t i o n s r e m a i n p l a n e . For elastic action, the maximum o c c u r s a t x = 0 a n d is pl 3 8e,nax = 3 E l deflection, 5e,,~:c,

or,

dx 2

B(10)

For the cantiliver beam, however, M x

Mmax
Therefore

l
1

d2z dx 2

2epmax [ X "~n h
B(ll) and using the end condidz = 0 B(12) B(13)

By integrating eq B(ll) tions:

A t x = 1, z = 0 a n d A t x = 0 , z = ~pmaz w e find t h a t

dx

h ( 1 q- 2 n )
epmax :

2nl 2

~)prnax

B (14)

T h e s t r a i n - c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r , f r o m e q s B (3) a n d B ( 1 4 ) is
epmax

Ke =
eemax

for ~emax ~ 5pmax

1 -{- 2 n 3n

or, B(1) K~ B(15)

Experimental Mechanics ] 11