STP-PT-076 Handling of Differences In YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength Between ASME and Other Standards (EN, AS, Etc.) STP-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/Switzerland Date of Issuance: June 26, 2015 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by ASME Pressure Technology Codes & Standards and ASME Standards Technology, LLC (ASME ST-LLC) Neither ASME, ASME ST-LLC, the author, nor others involved in the preparation or review of this report, nor any of their respective employees, members or persons acting on their behalf, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by ASME ST-LLC or others involved in the preparation or review of this report, or any agency thereof The views and opinions of the authors, contributors and reviewers of the report expressed herein not necessarily reflect those of ASME ST-LLC or others involved in the preparation or review of this report, or any agency thereof ASME ST-LLC does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone utilizing a publication against liability for infringement of any applicable Letters Patent, nor assumes any such liability Users of a publication are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person(s) affiliated with industry is not to be interpreted as government or industry endorsement of this publication ASME is the registered trademark of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher ASME Standards Technology, LLC Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990 ISBN No 978-0-7918-7037-2 Copyright © 2015 by ASME Standards Technology, LLC All Rights Reserved STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures iv Foreword vi Abstract vii INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ASPECTS 1.1 Materials Investigated 1.2 1% Strain Data DATA SOURCES 2.1 Definition Of Minimum Values 2.2 Carbon Steels 10 2.3 UTS and Creep 12 DETAILED COMPARISONS 15 CONCLUSIONS 43 REFERENCES 44 APPENDIX 45 iii STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength LIST OF FIGURES 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]) Figure 1-2: Comparison of ASME and EN with Repect to the European Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) Source [5] Figure 1-3: List of Foreign Codes and Standards Containing Materials which were also Included in the ASME Material Properties Tables 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 Figure 2-1: YS of 1Cr 0.5Mo Steel (Source [15]) Figure 2-2: Different Trend Curves for 1Cr-0.5 Mo Steel Figure 2-3: Examples of 2.25Cr-1Mo Yield Strength Data [14], [15] Figure 2-4: Comparison of EN-Pipe Data with Literature [15], [16] The Data Follow the Minimum Line of the Landoldt Data [15] The ORNL Data Represent the Trend-curve of the Average Values Figure 2-5: Heat Treatment and Room Temperature Strength Data for 2.25Cr-1Mo According to SA182 Figure 2-6: Y-1 Table Trend Curves for Different Qualities of 2.25Cr-1Mo Steels Compared With the Literature [15], [16] 10 Figure 2-7: Two Types of Y-1 Trend Curves for Carbon Steels Compared with Literature Data; 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], [13] 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 Rupture 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 ¼ 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 Time Dependent Data for a Carbon Mn Steel The EN (mean) Values 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 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 Given 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 Figure 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 iv STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength 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 3-11: 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 Q345R 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 Given 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 2013) 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 Mechanical 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 with 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 Tables (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 3-27: 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 v STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength 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 (either 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 with review of, commenting on, and editing of, this document Established in 1880, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is a professional not-forprofit organization with more than 135,000 members and volunteers promoting the art, science and practice of mechanical and multidisciplinary 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 ST-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 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 vi STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength 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 Originally, 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 vii STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength 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 equivalent 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 international 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), and 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 below 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 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 comparison 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 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 differences, or make recommendations for revising the stress tables) STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength Figure 1-2: Comparison of ASME and EN with Repect to the European Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) Source [5] Possible explanations for differences between 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 parametrizations (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 No recommendations were made for the materials highlighted in gray 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 Appendix 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 3.19 P305GH EN 10222-2 C 0.15-0.2, Si 0.4, Mn 0.9-1.6; norm, norm./tempered Figure 3-19: Comparison of Mechanical Data of P305GH EN_10222-2 with Current Values Given in Sect IID Tables (Edition 2013) Designation in Figure YS-EN YS_Y-1 Table _1A creep AS*0.67 Y-1_low Data source Yield strength given in EN 10222-2 Yield strength given in Table Y-1 (2013 ed.) Allowable stresses Table 1A (2013 ed.) Time dependent values from EN 10222-2*0.67 Yield strength given in Table Y-1 for fine grained carbon steels (2013 ed.) comments The comparison between EN 10222-2 and ASME IID Tables for P305GH shows the same behavior as seen already for P235GH Also, in this case, the EN values seem to follow the trend curve for fine grained materials rather than following the coarse grained ASME curve For the time dependent regime a quite good agreement between EN and ASME was found which was not considered in more detail here primarily due to lacking creep raw data for EN Proposal: Consider changing to fine grained trend curve in the ASME code 33 STP-PT-076: Handling of Differences in YS, UTS, and Creep Rupture Strength 3.20 13CrMo4-5 EN_10222-2 1Cr 0.5Mo : C