acom

AV E S TA S H E F F I E L D C O R R O S I O N M A N A G E M E N T A N D A P P L I C AT I O N E N G I N E E R I N G

Stainless Steel Design Stresses

in EN and ASME
Pressure Vessel Codes
by Jan Jonson, Avesta Sheffield AB,
Research and Development, SE-774 80 Avesta, Sweden

Pressure vessel design rules are changing. The European Directive on pressure
equipment is effective from December 1999. The new harmonised European
code for unfired pressure vessels will later be available for general use, and
gradually replace current national codes.
Design stresses for austenitic grades are based on Rp1.0 yield strength and
Rm tensile strength at the design temperature. Duplex grades follow ferritic
principles with Rp0.2 and RmRT. ASME VIII-1 adopted in July 1999 the
increased stress values from Code Case 2278, where the traditional safety factor
to Rm tensile strength is reduced from 4 to 3.5.
Resulting wall thicknesses are compared for codes and steel grades.
The potential to utilise duplex steel more efficiently is discussed.

INTRODUCTION
New technical rules for pressure vessels
were implemented in Europe in the end
of 1999. They are based on the
Directive on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States concerning
pressure equipment from 1997. Of
particular interest for stainless steel are
the harmonised standards, EN 13445
Unfired pressure vessels and EN
10028-7 Stainless steel flat products
for pressure purposes, which have
been drawn up by standardisation
committees during the 1990s.

THE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

During the 1800s steampower
successively replaced the traditional
power sources, wind and water.
The development towards higher steam
pressures was followed by an increasing
number of explosions in ships,
locomotives and factories. By 1900 the
rate of boiler explosions was one per
day in the USA.

The technical principles for design

and construction of boilers were
formulated in the USA in the 1830s by
the first government sponsored research
[1]. In Germany the first standards were
laid down in the 1880s by voluntary
cooperation between manufacturers of
materials and boilers together with
operators and inspectors [2]. It was
however only after legislation and
adoption of uniform rules that the
situation could be controlled.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code was first published in 1915. The
prescribed rule for calculation of
allowable working pressure; Taking
one sixth of the tensile strength found
stamped on the plate, multiplying it by
the thickness of the plate, and dividing
by the radius of single riveting, was
similar to the first formula in the
Steamboat Act of 1852. The safety
factor has later been reduced from 6 to
4 and last year to 3.5, and other
properties are also considered.

1-2000

However, for the brittle steels of that

time, tensile strength was an adequate
limiting property.
191113 it was found that the highly
alloyed chromium steels had unique
resistance to rusting. In Germany
Maurer/Strauss patented the 20-7 CrNi
steel and in Great Britain Brearly
patented the hardenable 13 Cr steel.
Both had approximately 0.25% carbon.
The excellent high temperature
oxidation resistance of 20 Cr steel was
pioneered by Becket in the USA, and
Monnartz found that molybdenum
improves the corrosion resistance to
various acids [3]. Molybdenum content
has then been gradually increased to
7% in current superaustenitic grades [4].
Stainless steel is today defined as
steel with minimum 10.5% Cr. On its
surface a film of some 10 atomic layers
of chromium oxide is formed
spontaneously. This protects against
further attack and the corrosion slows
down gradually. Aluminum and
titanium exhibit the same self-healing
mechanism with a stable oxide film.
For iron and copper, however, the
corrosion products formed are not
protective and there will be a linear
metal loss.
The expanding process industries
used CrNi and CrNiMo steels for
requirements on corrosion resistance
and long service life. These steels have
an austenitic microstructure (face
centered cubic the most densely
packed atomic structure), which gives
high formability, deformation hardening
and ductility as in gold, silver and
copper. They differ from common
steels, which are ferritic (body centered
cubic) and may be hard and brittle like
the Cr steels for cutlery. Stainless steel
became synonymous with austenitic
structure and CrNi.
The different microstructures of
stainless steel were eventually mapped
and characterised, particularly after

acom 1 2000
adoption of welding processes in the
1930s. Empirical diagrams and
formulas were developed to give
guidance in material selection and
fabrication: The well-known Schaeffler
diagram [5] got many followers [6],
which give popular illustrations to the
composition areas for:
the basic structures: Ferrite (F),
Martensite (M) and Austenite (A)
the dual structures: Semiferrite (fM),
Supermartensite (aM), Unstable
austenite (mA), Duplex (fA)
intended precipitation hardening
(PH), unintended carbide and
intermetallic precipitates
Note that traditional austenitic grades
contain traces of ferrite. Grades without
ferrite are referred to as fully austenitic
(aA), and may be sensitive to
solidification cracking.
The diverse microstructures
determine the wide range of stainless
steel fabrication and use properties. It
would undoubtedly favour their use, if a
globally agreed system for grouping of
stainless steel after microstructure and
chemical composition could be
implemented.
The unique mechanical properties of
austenite were gradually considered in
the pressure vessel codes. In Europe,
safety against brittle fracture was
safeguarded by requirements on other
properties than mere tensile strength.
Material yield or 0.2% proof strength
became controlling. For austenitic
stainless steel there was a change to
1.0% proof strength during the period
196575, in connection to adoption
of the SI-system within steel
standardisation. The earlier unit kg/mm2
was replaced by N/mm2, but
unfortunately not by MPa.
In the 1950s nitrogen was developed
as an alloying element together with
manganese, and in the 60s it was added
to the common 18-8 and 17-10-2 grades
[7]. First added as metal, later as gas.
An addition of 0.1% N will increase the
minimum yield strength with 30%,
from 210 to 280 N/mm2, and improves
the pitting resistance. Furthermore does
nitrogen substitute for carbon and
nickel as austenite stabilisers. New steel
grades developed since then in Sweden
have to a large extent been based on the

economic efficiency of nitrogen

alloying.
In the early 1960s, the high rate of
austenite deformation hardening was
utilised in the Avesta method for
coldstretching of pressure vessels in
connection to the pressure test [8]. A
few percent deformation will give the
vessel a considerable and homogeneous
yield strength improvement, and the
wall thickness may be reduced by 50%
or more. The method was standardised
in 1975 [9]. Coldstretched sheet with a
0.2% yield strength of 350 N/mm2 was
standardised in Sweden and Germany
[10], and is now available as
continuously coldstretched, CCS.
In the 1970s the electric arc furnaces
were complemented with AODconverters (Argon-OxygenDecarburisation). The production of
steel with maximum 0.030% carbon
was simplified, which reduced the
problem with intergranular corrosion in
certain environments. Vaporisable
residuals like cadmium, zinc, bismuth,
lead were also eliminated, to improve
hot ductility. Introduction of
continuous casting enabled greater slab
and coil weights for downstream
processing and improved steel
homogeneity and reproducibility.
Duplex stainless steel with a mixed
structure of ferrite and austenite (40/60)
was introduced to the market in a larger
scale during the 1980s, but was being
produced at Avesta in the early 30s
[11]. It combines the ferrite resistance
to stress corrosion cracking and the
austenite ductility with high yield
strength over 400 N/mm2. Only half of
the nickel content in austenitic grades is
required, making efficient use of this
metal resource.
The annual growth rate of stainless
steel during the last 40 years has been
6%. Today stainless steel makes up 2%
of the world steel tonnage, with the
main part, 75%, being austenitic.
However, the value of stainless steel
accounts for 10% of the world steel
production and 30% of the Swedish.
The global integration within stainless
steel production as well as fabrication
influences the technical rule structure in
the direction of fewer and more
up-to-date standards for the stainless
steel market [12].

THE NEAR FUTURE

The new harmonised pressure vessel
code EN 13445 was planned for
implementation year 2000, but is
delayed one year. However, the
Pressure Equipment Directive (PED)
for the European Union is operative
from December 1999 and compulsory
from May 2002 [13]. National pressure
equipment standards have been revised
to conform to the new PED. The
harmonised material standard EN
10028-7 Stainless steel flat products
for pressure purposes is operative from
January 2000. There are no drastic
changes in design principles or steel
grades in Europe, but many new
standards to refer to.
ASME Code Case 2278 introduced
in 1998 higher design stresses based on
the experience of ASME VIII-2, where
the factor to tensile strength has been 3.
In the Code Case this factor was
reduced from 4 to 3.5, i.e. by 12%. This
principle was then used in the revision
of ASME VIII-1 in July 1999. Tensile
strength is now limiting for YS/TSratios over 0.43. In EN the
corresponding limit for ferritic steel is
0.63. An alternative design route for
high strength steels that set the limit to
0.80 was withdrawn from the first EN
code edition.
In the future, global manufacture of
pressure vessels will be made according
to basic principles in these two systems.
The transition for international
manufacturers and users is simplified
by supplying products that are multicertified to old and new standards:
steels in different material standards
EN + ASTM + SS + BS + DIN
steels with Cmax 0.030 and 0.07
1.4307 + 1.4301 + 304L + 304
steels with Momin 2.5 and 2.0
2343 + 1.4436 + 316
New EN steels combined with old
requirements may thus be used before
and after the change.

ESSENTIAL SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS AND
DESIGN CRITERIA
PED specifies in Annex 1 the essential
safety requirements that shall be met.
They are structured on design,
manufacturing and materials (Table 1).

acom 1 2000
The manufacturer shall analyse the
hazards as basis for design and
construction. Design for adequate
strength should consider traditional
factors like internal/external pressure,
ambient/ operational temperature,
reaction forces, corrosion, creep, fatigue
etc. and is made by the methods:
design by formulas (DBF)
design by analysis (DBA)
design by experimental procedure
(DBE)

For welded joints the coefficients are

maximum:
1.0 for full, 0.85 for random and 0.7
for no non-destructive examination.
Final assessment is based on fluid
groups 12, hazard categories I IV
and assessment modules AG.

The new EN standard for unfired

pressure vessels has been formulated
from above directives by the
standardisation committee CEN TC54
and for stainless steel by ECISS TC23
and TC22.
Some of the differences between EN
and ASME are tabulated below
(Table 2).

The hydrostatic test pressure shall not

be less than:
1.43 x the allowable pressure and
1.25 x the temperature adjusted
pressure.
Steels are considered sufficiently
ductile for lowest temperature if:
Rupture elongation = min. 14 % and
impact energy = min. 27 J.

Table 1.
Overview of essential safety requirements.
Design

Manufacturing

Materials

adequate strength with adequate safety

against all relevant failure modes
safe handling and operation
necessary examination
draining/venting and filling/discharge
corrosion, chemical attack and wear
integration of components to assemblies
safety devices against exceeding limits
external fire

Procedures for:
forming
joining
non-destructive tests
heat treatment
traceability
Final assessment
insp. of equipment/documents
proof test
Marking and labelling
Operating instructions

Material that is ductile and tough

prevents brittle type fracture
chemical resistant for scheduled life
not significantly affected by aging
intended for processing procedures
Values for design calculations from:
harmonised EN standards,
European approvals (EAM, EMDS)
particular material appraisal
Product control
quality system or direct inspection

Table 2.
Some differences between EN 13445 and ASME VIII-1.
Rule sector

EN

ASME

Design
Units
Allowable stresses calculated by
Ferritic steel factors
applied on
Austenitic steel factors
applied on

C and N/mm2
Designer
1.5
Rp0.2T
and
1.5 or 1.2
Rp1.0T
and

F and ksi
Committee, tables for grades/products
1.5
3.5
Rp0.2RT, Rp0.2T and RmRT, RmT
1.5 or 1.11
3.5
Rp0.2RT, Rp0.2T and RmRT, RmT

Manufacture
Stress at proof test ferritic
austenitic

min. Rp0.2RT/1.05
min. Rp1.0RT/1.05 (max. RmRT/2)

1.5 RmRT/3.5
1.5 RmRT/3.5

Materials
Flat product standard grades
Revision period for standards
New grade approval
Steel data

39 + 9 EN special in EN 10028-7
5 year
EMDS
Newer RT and HT min. values

39 + 70 ASME special in ASME SA240

Continuous
Code Case
Older RT min. values from ASTM
HT typ. values from ASME trend curves

2.4
RmRT
3
RmT

acom 1 2000
ALLOWABLE STRESSES AND
MINIMUM THICKNESSES
Today the designer tries to select the
optimum grade, whereas the possibility
to choose between code systems is
limited. Manufacturers and users
continue with systems they are used to.
Different legal and technical rule
structures, diverse units, designations
and properties complicate comparison.
If we however limit the comparison to
consider primary membrane stresses
and static conditions, the general
tendencies may be shown with the help
of computer conversion. The results for
RT and 200C are given as thickness
index, where the EN thickness for basic
18-8/17-10-2/1.4301/1.4401/304/316 is
set to 10.0 (Table 3).
EN will allow 20% lower wall
thickness (25% higher stress) than
ASME for RT design with traditional
grades. The difference is reduced with
increasing temperature, to nil at 400C.
The EN advantage is even more
pronounced for nitrogen grades and the
newer austenitic and duplex grades,
where the difference in thickness is
35% at RT and 020% at 300/400C.
Within the code systems, EN gives
greater advantage for the newer grades
(2035% thinner) than ASME (035%
thinner).
EN maximum design stresses for
austenitic grades are based on the
traditional formula Rp1.0/1.5 but allows
for grades with elongation over 35%
also the lower of Rp1.0/1.2 and Rm/3.
This new principle gives generally
higher stresses, which are in the
range 10% to +20% of current stresses
in national codes.
The new design stresses according to
EN 13445 and ASME VIII-1 are
compared in Figure 1.
In the long perspective it is likely
that harmonising developments will
reduce differences between the systems.
Initiatives have also lately been taken
within ISO to investigate the
possibilities for international
recognition of regional and national
codes.

Table 3.
Resulting wall thicknesses (index) according to EN 13445 and ASME VIII-1.
Steel type
Austenitic

Cr-Ni-Mo

Temp.

EN

ASME

EN vs ASME

18-8/17-10-2

RT
200C

10.0
10.0

12.5
10.2

20% thinner
2%

RT
200C

8.2
8.9

12.5
10.2

35%
15%

20-18-6

RT
200C

7.6
7.1

9.3
7.9

20%
10%

22-5-3

RT
200C

6.5
6.3

9.8
8.0

35%
20%

17-10-2

RT
200C

Do. + Nitrogen

New austenitic

Duplex

Coldstretched

POTENTIAL
DESIGN STRESSES
FOR DUPLEX GRADES
The austenitic grades eventually got
special criteria for allowable stresses
that took advantage of their specific
non-brittle and work hardening
behaviour.
Today duplex grades are evaluated
according to ferritic grade criteria.
Their behaviour is however more
similar to austenitic grades, with energy
absorbed before ductile fracture that is
twice the common ferritics. Can
austenitic criteria be justified for
duplex grades?
Two basic questions then have to be
answered:
maximum allowed stresses for
prevention of brittle fracture
maximum allowed stresses for elastic
behaviour.
Requirements for prevention of
brittle fracture is treated by the EN
code in Annex D. Methods are defined
to establish impact energy
requirements. A model may be made
for empirical relations between fracture
toughness, yield strength, wall
thickness and temperature [14].
Elastic and plastic behaviour may be
measured in biaxial loading of
cross-shaped specimens. Established
stress-strain response is then applied to
a newly developed constitutive model,
to define the grade specific parameters
[15]. The constitutive model is used in

(6.2)
(6.4)

finite element calculation of vessel

components. Measurements on the
components in pressure loading will
show the reliability of the model.
The elastic behaviour of the pressure
vessels under loading conditions is not
only governed by the yield strength of
the steel supplied. Also the proof test
conditions may influence.
Traditionally the proof test is made
as a general leak and stability test, and
a maximum stress below the minimum
Rp0.2/Rp1.0 strength of the steel is
prescribed. The new EN code applies a
factor of max. 0.95, and the ASME
factor is similar in practice.
In the mentioned Swedish
coldstretching method much higher
stresses have been exploited. Factors of
up to 2 are used to get improved yield
strength on austenitic stainless vessels.
This experience may be utilised to
integrate a homogenising pressure
test as a manufacturing procedure.
A factor of 1.11.3 may be applied
without getting any significant plastic
deformation of the vessel, because of
plus tolerances in wall thickness and
plate strength. The procedure will also
ensure elastic behaviour of the vessel
and its weld joints, and reduce residual
stresses.
A European project to review
limitations and design rules for 3 high
strength steel types, quenched and
tempered/thermomechanical
processed/duplex stainless steels has

acom 1 2000
300

300

CSD
EN - spec.
250

250

EN

18-8 + Coldstretched

VIII-1 rev.

MPa

VIII-1
200

200

150

150

100

100

18-8 + Nitrogen

18-8
50

50

MPa

100

200

300

400

500

300

300

250

250

200

200

150

150

100

100

20-18-6 + Nitrogen

100

200

300

400

500

400

500

22-5-3 Duplex + Nitrogen

50

50

0
0

100

200
300
Temp. (C)

400

500

100

200
300
Temp. (C)

Figure 1.
Maximum allowed design stresses in EN and ASME between RT and 400C for:
Austenitic 18-8, 18-8 +Nitrogen, 20-18-6 +Nitrogen and Duplex 22-5-3 +Nitrogen.
Comparison with 18-8 according to the Swedish Cold-stretching Directions (CSD).

acom 1 2000
Table 4.
Standard and potential properties for duplex 22-5-3. Resulting wall thickness (index).
Standard

Steel

Product

EN 10028-7

1.4462

ASTM A240

S31803

CR strip
HR plate
CR/HR
CR/HR strip

Potential

started [16]. An alternative design route

for ferritic grades, with tensile factor
1.875, will then be evaluated.
Duplex steels owe their high strength
mainly from nitrogen alloying and the
fine grain size. By balancing
microstructure and strip processing of
current standard grades even higher
strength properties may be reached for
cold and hot rolled strip (Table 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure vessel design criteria were

originally based on the brittle
behaviour of ferritic steels and their
ultimate tensile strength. Austenitic
stainless steels have a very ductile
behaviour, and eventually their yield
strength became controlling.
Comparison of the EN and ASME
codes is complicated by different
legal and technical rule structures,
diverse units, designations and steel
properties.
Higher strength properties in newer
steels are utilised better (1535%) in
the EN code, more the lower the
temperature.
The modern duplex stainless steels
combine the best characteristics of
ferrite and austenite and optimum
design criteria for them will be
investigated in a European research
project.

Min. properties, RT (N/mm2, %)

Rp0.2 Rp1.0 Rm
A

Wall thickness, RT
EN
ENalt ASMErev

max. 6 mm
max. 75 mm
max. 50 mm

480
460
450

max. 8 mm

500

580

660
640
620

20
25
25

6.5

750

25

5.5

REFERENCES
1. MARTIN D BERNSTEIN. Design
criteria for boilers and pressure vessels
in the USA. 6th Int. Conf. on Pressure
Vessel Technology, Beijing, 1988,
p 111 136
2. WERNER E HOFFMANN. Design
criteria of boilers and pressure vessels
in the Federal Republic of Germany.
6th Int. Conf. on Pressure Vessel
Technology, Beijing, 1988, p 1731
3. J H G MONNYPENNY. Stainless iron
and steels. Chapman & Hall, London
1926, p 215 and 254
4. MATS LILJAS. Superaustenitic
stainless steels: development,
fabrication and use. Scandinavian
Journal of Metallurgy 1998;27
5. A L SCHAEFFLER. Selection of
austenitic electrodes for welding of
dissimilar metals. The Welding Journal
1947;10, p 601 620
6. MANFRED SCHIRRA. Die historischempirische Entwicklung des
Gefgediagrammes der CrNi-Sthle.
Stahl und Eisen 1992; 10, p 117120
7. MATS LILJAS, JAN-OLOF NILSSON.
Development of commercial nitrogenrich stainless steels. 5th Int. Conf.
on High Nitrogen Steels. EspooStockholm, 1998
8. JAN JONSON. Coldstretched austenitic
stainless steel pressure vessels. 2nd Int.
Conf. on Pressure Vessel Technology,
San Antonio, USA, 1973, p 11571165
9. CSD. Cold-stretching directions.
SIS-Pressure vessel commission, 1991
10. VdTV WB 411 Kaltgestreckte
nichtrostende Sthle. Verband der TV,
1995

5.6
9.8
5.2

8.1

11. JAN OLSSON, MATS LILJAS. 60

years of duplex stainless steel
applications. NACE, Corrosion 94,
Paper No. 395, 1994
12. JAN JONSON. International
standardization of stainless steel.
Applications of Stainless Steel 92.
Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. p 842 851
13. 97/23/EG Directive on the
approximation of the laws of the
Member States concerning pressure
equipment. European Parliament and
the Council of the European Union.
1997
14. ROLF SANDSTRM. Minimum usage
temperatures for ferritic steels.
Scandinavian Journal of Metallurgy
1987, p 242252
15. ANDERS OLSSON. Constitutive
modelling of stainless steel. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research. 1998,
46:13, Paper No. 242
16. EU 5th Framework Research and
Technological Development Project.
Economical and safe design of pressure
vessels applying new modern steels.
ECOPRESS. 2000 2002.

This article was first presented at

Stainless Steel 99, Italy, June 1999.
Uppdated Jan 2000.