×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ASME VIII-2 Fatigue Assessment

ASME VIII-2 Fatigue Assessment

ASME VIII-2 Fatigue Assessment

(OP)
I am trying to understand the fatigue assessment in ASME VIII-2. I am reading the assessment procedure in 5.5.3.2 along with example E5.5.3 of ASME PTB-3-2013.
Step 3(b) says to calculate the stress tensor at the beginning and end of the cycle and then calculate the range of the primary plus secondary plus peak equivalent stress (ΔSP,k) which is the equivalent von Mises stress. This value is then multiplied by Kf in equation 5.36. I take this to mean that the von Mises stress is to be multiplied by the applicable Kf for each point in the model.
In PTB-3 the stress is linearized wherever a Kf not equal to 1 is applied. My questions are as follows:

1. Why does PTB-3 use linearized stresses? It uses ΔSn ,k when applying Kf rather than ΔSP,k. This doesn’t seem to match the method in 5.5.3.2. Am I misreading this?
2. How are the total stresses in Table E5.5.3-3 of PTB-3 computed? In the 2010 version the value of ΔSP,k is always equal to the linearized values in Table E5.5.3-1. In the 2013 version these values are revised for the cases where Kf does not equal 1.0. For instance the value of ΔSP,k at the transition is 31.799 ksi, however the maximum von Mises stress at this location appears to be 33.377 ksi per Figure E5.5.3-2.

RE: ASME VIII-2 Fatigue Assessment

Sometimes the rules, as written, don't quite match up with what the rules ought to be. The FSRF was intended to be multiplied by a nominal stress - ostensibly the membrane-plus-bending equivalent stress. This what is written in PTB-1. However, we are still working that change through the Code Committees, and the change hasn't m made it through yet. I expect that change to be finalized for the 2017 Edition.

For the time being, follow the rules as written.

RE: ASME VIII-2 Fatigue Assessment

Quote (TGS4)

For the time being, follow the rules as written.

I hate it when people say that! smile Reminds me of the time my wife got a speeding ticket while crossing a local bridge. The next week they raised the limit from 55 mph to 65 mph and she would have been ok. I had to (gently) remind her that she did violate the law as it existed the day she got written up - and she would likely not prevail before a judge. She paid the fine.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources