1、Handling of Differences In YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength Between ASME and Other Standards (EN, AS, Etc.)STP-PT-076STP-PT-076 HANDLING OF DIFFERENCES IN YS, UTS, AND CREEP RUPTURE STRENGTH BETWEEN ASME AND OTHER STANDARDS (EN, AS, ETC.) Prepared by: Wolfgang Hoffelner RWH consult GmbH/Switzerla
2、nd Date of Issuance: June 26, 2015 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by ASME Pressure Technology Codes ASME_2013 and ASME_2013_low Represent the Trend Curves of the 2013 Code Edition. ASME/MPC Data were Obtained by Digitization and Parametrization of Literature from 1974 12, 1
3、3 11 Figure 2-8: Trend Curves of SA-738 B. The Material Followed Originally the Fine Grained Trend Which Was Considered as an Error (see 18) 11 Figure 2-9: Yield Strength Reduction Factors for Carbon Manganese Steels According to the Chinese GB713 . 12 Figure 2-10: Differences in Creep and Stress Ru
4、pture Representations Between ASME and EN 13 Figure 2-11: 100,000 Hours Stress Rupture Data for EN P355GH . 13 Figure 2-12: ASME-EN Comparison of Time Dependent Data for 2 Cr-1Mo Steel. The EN (mean) Values Agree Well With the ASME Allowable Divided by 0.67 . 13 Figure 2-13: ASME-EN Comparison of Ti
5、me Dependent Data for a Carbon Mn Steel. The EN (mean) Values do not at all Agree with the ASME Allowable Divided by 0.67 14 Figure 3-1: Comparison of Mechanical Data of 10 CrMo9-10 EN 10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 15 Figure 3-2: Comparison of Mechanical Data
6、of 13 CrMo4-5 EN 10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 16 Figure 3-3: Comparison of Mechanical Data of 15CrMoR GB 713 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 17 Figure 3-4: Comparison of Mechanical Data of 16 Mo3 EN 10216-2 with Current Values Gi
7、ven in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 18 Figure 3-5: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P235GH EN 10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 19 Figure 3-6: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P265GH EN 10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 20 F
8、igure 3-7: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P275NH EN 10028-3 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 21 Figure 3-8: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P295GH EN 10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 22 STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UT
9、S, and Creep Rupture Strength v Figure 3-9: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P355GH EN 10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 23 Figure 3-10: Comparison of Mechanical Data of PT430 AS 1548 2008 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 24 Figure 3-1
10、1: Comparison of Mechanical Data of PT460 AS 1548 2008 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 25 Figure 3-12: Comparison of Mechanical Data of PT490 AS 1548 2008 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 26 Figure 3-13: Comparison of Mechanical Data of Q345
11、R GB 713 2008 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 27 Figure 3-14: Comparison of Mechanical Data of Q370R GB 713 2008 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 28 Figure 3-15: Comparison of Mechanical Data of X6CrNi18-10 EN10028-7 with Current Values Give
12、n in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 29 Figure 3-16: Comparison of Mechanical Data of X5CrNiMo17-12-2 EN10028-7 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) 30 Figure 3-17: Comparison of Mechanical Data of 13CrMoSi5-5 EN10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 20
13、13) . 31 Figure 3-18: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P280GH EN_10222-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 32 Figure 3-19: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P305GH EN_10222-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 33 Figure 3-20: Comparison of Mechan
14、ical Data of 13 CrMo4-5 EN_10222-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 34 Figure 3-21: Comparison of Mechanical Data of 11 CrMo9-10 EN 10222-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 35 Figure 3-22: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P235GH EN 10216-2 wi
15、th Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 36 Figure 3-23: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P265GH EN 10216-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 37 Figure 3-24: Comparison of Mechanical Data of 13 CrMo4-5 EN 10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Ta
16、bles (Edition 2013) . 38 Figure 3-25: Comparison of Mechanical Data of 10 CrMo9-10 EN 10216-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 39 Figure 3-26: Comparison of Yield Stress of 20MnMoNi4-5 EN 10028-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 40 Figure 3-2
17、7: Comparison of Yield Stress of 18MnMoNi5-5 EN 10222-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 41 Figure 3-28: Comparison of Yield Stress of X12Cr13 EN 10088-3 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) . 42 STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and
18、Creep Rupture Strength vi FOREWORD This report identifies and addresses discrepancies between ASME data, as reflected in the stress tables in ASME Section II Part D, and data from other codes and standards (EN, AS, etc.). Additionally, the report proposes action for resolving these discrepancies (ei
19、ther provide technical arguments to ex-plain the valid basis for the differences, or make recommendations for revising the stress tables). The author acknowledges, with deep appreciation, the activities of ASME staff and volunteers who have provided valuable technical input, advice and assistance wi
20、th review of, commenting on, and editing of, this document. Established in 1880, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is a professional not-for-profit organization with more than 135,000 members and volunteers promoting the art, science and practice of mechanical and multidisciplinary
21、 engineering and allied sciences. ASME develops codes and standards that enhance public safety, and provides lifelong learning and technical exchange opportunities benefiting the engineering and technology community. Visit www.asme.org for more information. The ASME Standards Technology, LLC (ASME S
22、T-LLC) is a not-for-profit Limited Liability Company, with ASME as the sole member, formed in 2004 to carry out work related to new and developing technology. The ASME ST-LLC mission includes meeting the needs of industry and government by providing new standards-related products and services, which
23、 advance the application of emerging and newly commercialized science and technology and providing the research and technology development needed to establish and maintain the technical relevance of codes and standards. Visit www.stllc.asme.org for more information. STP-PT-076: Handling of Differenc
24、es in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength vii ABSTRACT Several sets of mechanical data for materials which were introduced from other codes and standards into ASME Section II/D Tables and Code Cases are being investigated in this report to detect and, whenever possible, explain differences. Original
25、ly, deviations of not more than 2% were considered to be acceptable. Since in other non-ASME codes and standards temperature dependence of the UTS is not considered, only yield stress and time dependent properties are being compared. STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture
26、Strength 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ASPECTS The usual procedure for assigning allowable stress values to a non-ASTM-standard material that is being introduced into the ASME code is to apply the trend curves for yield stress, ultimate tensile stress, and creep-evaluations developed for the equivale
27、nt ASTM material, anchored to the minimum specified tensile stress and yield stress contained in the non-ASTM standard. This procedure can lead to considerable discrepancies in the allowable stress values for the same basic material when comparing ASME with other codes and standards. In an internati
28、onal environment, such discrepancies inevitably lead to questions about the basis for the ASME stress values, as demonstrated recently by inquiries from Australia regarding the allowable stress values for certain carbon steels (Record 07-914 1). As yield stress (Y-1), ultimate tensile stress (U), an
29、d creep values are usually taken for the determination of stress allowables, such discrepancies can have two consequences: When the ASME allowables are below the local (EN, AS, etc.) design parameters some designs might become locally non-conservative; when the local allowables (EN, AS, etc.) are be
30、low the ASME allowables local authorities might argue ASME-based designs are non-conservative because the locally valid mechanical properties are lower. The situation becomes even more complex when temperature dependent crossovers occur, as shown in Figure 1-1 2. A basic understanding of differences
31、 between ASME code and other codes and standards is very important for code harmonization efforts, like the Multinational Design Evaluation Programme MDEP 3, or in relation to other pressurized component design documents, like the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) 4. An example of a European compar
32、ison of ASME data with respect to PED is shown in Figure 1-2 5. Figure 1-1: Example for Materials Data Scatter and Evaluation Curves. Solid Line ASME Y-1 Tables for this Type of Material, Dashed Line EURONORM for this Type of Material, Dotted Line Calculated Average. (Data source 8) The objective of
33、 this report is to: Identify and address discrepancies between ASME-data, as reflected in the stress tables in Section II/D, and data from other codes and standards (EN, AS, etc.). Propose action for resolving the discrepancies (either provide technical arguments to explain the valid basis for the d
34、ifferences, or make recommendations for revising the stress tables). STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength 2 Figure 1-2: Comparison of ASME and EN with Repect to the European Pressure Equipment Directive (PED). Source 5 Possible explanations for differences betwe
35、en the various codes include the following. Differences in chemical composition Differences in production/heat-treatment Differences in definition of values (mean, lower-bound, minimum, etc.) Different datasets Different definitions of RT reference Different testing conditions 6 Different parametriz
36、ations (Larson-Miller, Manson-Haferd, etc.). 1.1 Materials Investigated A summary of the materials reviewed, the ASME SCII, Part D tables affected, and, for some, the actions recommended for those materials is presented in Appendix 1. No recommendations were made for the materials highlighted in gra
37、y for one of the following reasons. 1) No data at elevated temperatures were required; 2) non-ASME document does not contain elevated temperature data; 3) data are already harmonized (JIS-grades); or, 4) other investigations are currently being conducted (e.g. 11). For the rest of the materials in A
38、ppendix 1 a deviation in values between ASME and the foreign code of substantially more than 2% in yield strength was found, and all of those materials are considered further in this report. STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength 3 Figure 1-3: List of Foreign Code
39、s and Standards Containing Materials which were also Included in the ASME Material Properties Tables. Standard Nr. Title and available data AS 1548-1995-2008 Australian Standard: Fine grained, weldable steel plates for pressure equipment; shows temperature dependence of YS and stress-rupture data CS
40、A G40.21 Structural quality steel: similar to ASTM no elevated temperature data EN 10222-2 Steel forgings for pressure purposes, Part 2: Ferritic and martensitic steels with specified elevated temperature properties (includes Corrigendum AC:2000); English version of DIN EN 10222-2:2000-04; shows tem
41、perature dependence of YS, stress-rupture, and creep EN 10028-2 Flat products made of steels for pressure purposes, Part 2: Non-alloy and alloy steels with specified elevated temperature properties; shows temperature dependence of YS, stress-rupture, and creep EN 10028-3 Flat products made of steels
42、 for pressure purposes, Part 3: Weldable fine grain steels, normalized; shows temperature dependence of YS EN 10028-4 Flat products made of steels for pressure purposes, Part 4: Nickel alloy steels with specified low temperature properties; UTS/YS only at room temperature EN 10028-7 Austenitic mater
43、ials, shows temperature dependence of UTS, YS, and 1% strain, stress-rupture, and creep EN 10216-2 2002 Seamless steel tubes for pressure purposes: Technical delivery conditions; shows temperature dependence of YS, stress-rupture, and creep GB 713 2008 Chinese Standard: Steel plates for boilers and
44、pressure vessels; YS at elevated temperatures IS 2062 : 2006 Indian Standard: Hot rolled low, medium, and high tensile structural steel; only room temperature data JIS G 3118 Japanese Standard: Carbon steel plates for pressure vessels for intermediate and moderate temperature services; only room tem
45、perature values JIS G 5504 Japanese Standard : Heavy-walled ferritic spheroidal graphite iron castings for low temperature service; only room temperature values SA/NF A 36-215 Weldable fine grain steels for the transportation of dangerous substances; shows temperature dependence of YS SA/EN 10217-1
46、Currently not available for this report; details will follow, only one material The relevant materials groups are the following Carbon steels (majority) C - Mn - Si Cb-steels C-0.3Mo-steels 1Cr-0.5Mo-steels 1 1/4 Cr - 1/2 Mo Si-steels 2 1/4 Cr - 1Mo Mn - 1/2 Ni - V 9 Ni 16Cr - 12Ni - 2Mo 18Cr - 8Ni
47、13Cr STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength 4 Figure 1-4: YS Trend Curves for P235gh Plate and Seamless Tube. The EN Specifications Show Differences Between the Two Product Forms, in Contrast to ASME A list of foreign codes and its content with respect to elevated
48、 temperature data is given in Figure 1-3. Analysis of the data showed that there were usually no significant size dependent changes in the trend curves found. However, slight differences between different product forms of the same material can exist (particularly for EN-specifications) as demonstrat
49、ed in Figure 1-4 taking the carbon steel P235GH as an example. Such differences can be explained by the differences between the ASME ratio-values and the minimum values used in EN. 1.2 1% Strain Data EN 10028-7 introduces 1% strain data, which currently is not used in the ASME code. The 1% plastic strain data can be derived from the YS and UTS. The Ramberg-Osgood approach, which can be used to create the whole (engineering) stress-strain curve up to the ultimate tensile stress, is not sufficiently accurate for austenitic
