structural stainless--unobtanium?
structural stainless--unobtanium?
(OP)
I have a designer who wants stainless steel for corrosion protection & aesthetics, but assumed he could use typical carbon steel properties in the design. So he assumed yield strength of 50 ksi and ultimate tensile strength of 125 ksi.
I fear I may not be able to make this work.
These are rod & hanger assemblies for a bridge. Fatigue loading, some components welded, some machined. Outdoor exposure, but not to salt water and probably very little road salt, if any.
The bridge design specs say that the SS has to come from ASTM A 176, A 240, A 276, or A 666, or something that meets the chemical & mechanical requirements of something listed in one of those specs. Or "other published specifications that establish its properties and suitability and that it is subjected to analyses, tests, and other controls to the extent and in the manner prescribed by one of the listed specifications". Which I choose to interpret as "if I need to go elsewhere to make it work, so be it".
I am assuming we need some kind of austenitic SS, preferably 300 or 400 alloy group. 304 or 316 type would be best.
For starters, we need 1.75" threaded rod/bar.
Nothing in A 176 meets the strength requirements.
Nothing in A 240 meets both yield and ultimate strength requirements.
Nothing in A 666 meets the strength requirements unless I get into the cold-worked materials, but I think those are all just sheet, not plate or bar.
In A 276, I see:
XM-21 (S30452?), S30454, S31654, Condition B ("relatively severe cold work")
Are any of those available as 1.75" rod/bar? And threadable? (And available as melted & manufactured in the U.S.?)
But wait, there's more. That's for the threaded bar. There's also 1.5" and 1.75" plate that needs to be weldable, a pin with a 2.5" diameter head (needs to be machined down to 2" diameter where the head isn't), a clevis that needs to be machined from material originally at least 6.125" in diameter (not to be welded), and...rectangular tubing, 5"x4"x3/16", weldable. So far I can't find that rectangular SS structural (as opposed to ornamental) tubing even exists.
So...does any of this stuff exist? And would they be better off with a casting for the clevis?
Hg
I fear I may not be able to make this work.
These are rod & hanger assemblies for a bridge. Fatigue loading, some components welded, some machined. Outdoor exposure, but not to salt water and probably very little road salt, if any.
The bridge design specs say that the SS has to come from ASTM A 176, A 240, A 276, or A 666, or something that meets the chemical & mechanical requirements of something listed in one of those specs. Or "other published specifications that establish its properties and suitability and that it is subjected to analyses, tests, and other controls to the extent and in the manner prescribed by one of the listed specifications". Which I choose to interpret as "if I need to go elsewhere to make it work, so be it".
I am assuming we need some kind of austenitic SS, preferably 300 or 400 alloy group. 304 or 316 type would be best.
For starters, we need 1.75" threaded rod/bar.
Nothing in A 176 meets the strength requirements.
Nothing in A 240 meets both yield and ultimate strength requirements.
Nothing in A 666 meets the strength requirements unless I get into the cold-worked materials, but I think those are all just sheet, not plate or bar.
In A 276, I see:
XM-21 (S30452?), S30454, S31654, Condition B ("relatively severe cold work")
Are any of those available as 1.75" rod/bar? And threadable? (And available as melted & manufactured in the U.S.?)
But wait, there's more. That's for the threaded bar. There's also 1.5" and 1.75" plate that needs to be weldable, a pin with a 2.5" diameter head (needs to be machined down to 2" diameter where the head isn't), a clevis that needs to be machined from material originally at least 6.125" in diameter (not to be welded), and...rectangular tubing, 5"x4"x3/16", weldable. So far I can't find that rectangular SS structural (as opposed to ornamental) tubing even exists.
So...does any of this stuff exist? And would they be better off with a casting for the clevis?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies





RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Your designer needs to start over, with a metals catalog and technical reference at hand.
I have had some fairly fancy clevises flame-cut from 7" mild steel plate, 40 years ago. Any steel service center should be able to do as well today, stainless or not.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
I've suggested he start over with Fy=30, Fu=75. That seems to match a lot of 300 steels out there, including machinable 303. How's the corrosion resistance on 303, by the way?
S20161 I don't think has the same corrosion resistance as 304/316 and I'm told it may not be weldable. If he insists on sticking with it, I'm still not sure what shapes it's available in. I have my doubts about the tubing (which may end up being a non-issue as it is just being used as conduit so any weldable 304 should do) and the 6.5" round (or any other section from which a 3"x5" block can be machined).
My best bet for forcing a redesign is the availability issue. I must confess I have now gotten testy with the designer, who is a nice man.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
I would, however, do any appropriate yelling in private.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
I would look at a stainless steel 316L its machineable, weldable if you keep to the low carbon content and better corrosion resistance than 304
h
theres a few good links to other sites too if you look around at this reference above.
desertfox
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
A-240 plate will be weldable in 304 & 316, but strengths will be lower than 50 / 125.
Clevis maybe machined from A-182 forging (may be dual certified as bar, don't remember the spec) or plate, depending, again strengths are what they are.
Sounds like a redesign around material you can buy to me.
Regards,
Mike
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
0.03% max for 316L see this article also:-
http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=110
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Regards,
Mike
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
316 doesn't give you the yield or UTS you require anyway. A duplex stainless steel might, but at some serious cost, IF you can find someone to make the product forms you require. A re-design with more reasonable yield and UTS assumptions IS required if you wish to use material that will be of reasonable cost in the product forms you require.
303 is "free machining" but neither weldable nor particularly corrosion resistant. It is similar to 304 in resistance but in some services is inferior to 304. Sounds like corrosion resistance isn't your biggest concern in this application.
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
There are papers published on this. Try contacting TMR in Pittsburgh.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
I wouldn't worry about machining any of the Austenitic SS. We do this everyday as the majority of our equipment is SS. All it takes is a ridged setup and the proper tooling.
HgTx
Nitronic 60 might be a possibility with 105 TS and 55 YS and is avaiable along with 2205.
Mike Jones at Ameribolt said you should contact try these suppliers as to delivery times.
http://atlrod.com/tie_rods.htm
http://www.wecallinc.com/index.html
http://www.dysoncorp.com/specialtyfasteners.html
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Regards,
Mike
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Do any of the lean duplexes meet the required yield and tensile? These can be much cheaper, and you don't need the corrosion resistance of 2205 for your application by the sound of it.
Duplexes have higher minimum temperature limits than the austenitics- best to check if that's a problem in your application.
Most alloys are "weldable, machinable and corrosion resistant" in the seller's literature- it's a matter of degree! Duplex is all three, to a degree, but so are the austenitic grades. Welding duplex IS trickier than welding austenitics if you wish to obtain the same corrosion resistance in the welds and HAZ as the parent metal. Machining speeds/productivity rates will be nowhere near those for carbon steel. You can get duplexes in plate and bar easily enough, but finished product forms are very likely going to be custom-made for you in any duplex grade, whereas in plain-Jane 18-8 (304/L) you may find most of what you need in stock somewhere. Whether that's a big cost driver for the job or not depends on how much you're using of course.
In my business, cost is never an object- it's usually the SUBJECT. The notion of finding a material to meet someone's arbitrary selection of some physical properties is totally foreign to me- unless it's a few minor aesthetic pieces on a large job, it'd be "back to the drawing board, buddy!".
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
I think 2205 may very well be the generic version of the proprietary system he fell in love with (Macalloy 460 for the rods). We're still working on him to go to some other more normal material for the plates & clevis but that may not happen. I'm thinkin' it won't.
Cost...this is a "signature" project and the steel is not the largest part of it. It's not exactly that money is no object, but they're already not making the cheapest bridge they can build. How much of a price premium (rough %) are we talking about here?
Also, what does 2205 look like?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
"Pin should be through bored with a threaded rod for the caps on both ends.
The clevis would be cast from ASTM A 743, CF8M.
All welds would be TIG welds.
The bar, clevis and link plate would be 'hot finished and solution annealed after welding.' "
I question the TIG requirement and would prefer to leave that up to the fabricator as long as they meet the requirements of D1.6. Also I'm not sure what they mean by "hot finish". Or whether they want that and the annealing whether or not they weld.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
And still wants S20161 for the rods for Fu=125.
How's S20161 for outdoor exposure?
That's not to mention the discussion of the architectural finish.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
rmw
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
I'm not at all familiar with D1.6, but know that you can make nice, sound welds in 2205 which pass tensile and bend tests but have far too much ferrite in the weldment or HAZ to exhibit desireable corrosion resistance. So a little more care in welding will be required. Must it all be GTAW for your application? Probably not, but using a normal structural steel fabricator to do this work would be risky to say the least...
Again, suggest looking into LDX2101 or one of the other "lean duplexes" that others were raving about here when nickel prices went through the roof. 2205 is overkill from a corrosion resistance perspective. Never used it and hence never looked at its physical properties, but it would definintely be worth a look.
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube
RE: structural stainless--unobtanium?
That still leaves S20161 rod exposed. Adequate?
LDX2101 isn't listed in D1.6, which would add a whole new level of complication to dealing with this material.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies