Maximum Allowable Stress

1/31/2019 Maximum Allowable Stress - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Maximum Allowable Stress
Related terms:
Rod, Turbines, Temperature, Goodman Diagram, Service Factor, Tensile Strength,
Maximum Stress, Allowable Stress, Rod String
View full index
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
Division 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.
History and Organization of Codes

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/maximum-allowable-stress 1/15
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 temperatures 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
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.
Sign in to download full-size image
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.
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 maximum 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 superalloys 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
Alloy Fe Ni Cr Al Other
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 analyses 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. Higher
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 environmental compatibility have been
included in Fig. 4.2 calculations.
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 tolerance 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–strain 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).
Specifying and Purchasing Turboexpanders

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 5-28. Gas exits through the upward-oriented exhaust connection.
2.5.4The exhaust casing shall be provided with two valved view ports (Figure 5-29) 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.
2.5.5The exhaust casing shall be provided with at least one man-way opening with gasketed cover for internal casing access
by personnel.
2.5.6A drain shall be provided at the low point of the exhaust casing and be at least 1.5 in. in size, Class-300.
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 interference 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:
I=SdDsW[WμhEh+1−μsEs]
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:

W=1+(DsDh)2(DsDh)2
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:
I=SdDsW×W+1Eh
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:
I=SdDsW×W+μhEh
Maximum diametral interferences for many plastics have been calculated by the plastics manufacturers for hubs and shafts
of varying diameters at particular temperatures. 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 susceptible 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].
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 temperature 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,
HEEindex=KITH/KIC [17.7]
Threshold stress intensity factor ratio,
HEEindex=KTH/KC [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 monitoring 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).
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. Determine the moment of resistance of the beam.
(b) 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
10−9(240×h×h2)=16×1.2×10−3(450−h)10−3
120h2=(8640−19.2h)103h2+160h−72000=0
From which
h = 200 mm
Substituting in eqn. (4.17),
momentofresistance(compressive)=(240×200×10−6)8×1062(450−66.7)10−3=73.6KNm
and from eqn. (4.18)
momentofresistance(tensile)=(16×1.2×10−3)150×10616(450−66.7)10−3=69.0KNm
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)

hd=11+tmc=11+150×10616×8×106=0.46
From (4.17)
M=bhc2(d−h3)=h2d(1−h3d)cbd2
Substituting for h/d = 0.46 and solving for d gives

d=0.49m∴h=0.46×0.49=0.225m
∴ From (4.20)
A=0.24×0.225×8×1062×150×106
i.e.
A = 1.44 × 10−3 m2
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
t=PR/(SE−0.6P)orP=SEt/(R+0.6t) (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
t=PR/(2SE−0.2P)orP=2SEt/(R+0.2t) (18.4)
For ellipsoidal heads, the governing formulas are given as
t=PD/(2SE−0.2P)orP=2SEt/(D+0.2t) (18.5)
where D is the inside diameter of the head skirt.

For torispherical heads, the code provides the formulas
t=0.885PL/(SE−0.1P)orP=SEt/(0.885L+0.1t) (18.6)
where L is the inside spherical or crown radius. For conical shells,

t=PD/2cosα(SE−0.6P)orP=2SEtcosα/(D+1.2tcosα) (18.7)
where α is half the included (apex) angle, and D is the inside diameter at the point under consideration.
About ScienceDirect Remote access Shopping cart Contact and support Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing
you agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered
trademark of Elsevier B.V.

Maximum Allowable Stress - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maximum Allowable Stress - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/31/2019 Maximum Allowable Stress - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

View full index

Mechanical Design of Pressure Vessels

5.2.3 Maximum Allowable Stress Values

History and Organization of Codes

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

Section II, Part D

Traditional low alloy steels in power plant design

4.6 Design stress values for low alloy steels

Sign in to download full-size image

4.1.1 Alloy creep limitations

Sign in to download full-size image

Sign in to download full-size image

Ferritic chromia-forming steels

Gr.91 89.7 0.1 8.3 < 1 Mo, 0.3 Mn, 0.1 Si

410SS 86.9 0.1 11.8 < 0.5 Mn, 0.4 Si

Austenitic Fe-base chromia-forming steels

Fe-base alumina-forming alloys

Ni-base chromia-forming alloys

MA754 0.4 78.7 19.1 0.3 0.4 Ti, 0.4 Y, 0.4 O

Ni-base alumina-forming alloys

Application of Fracture Mechanics

29.1.2 Fracture Mechanics Design Check