.

ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS STRENGTH DATA FOR THE

ASME BOILER AND PR;:SS'";K VESSEL CODE

M. K. Booker

Bv decant ,nco

o )

h l

,J M l ( : l e

h e

Pulji.iho. or , e c , D , e n , a c k n o , m

B.L.P. Booker
cover,ng the j r , , , j L .

Mechanical Properties Data Analysis Center

Oak Ridge National Laboratory*
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

MAST!

ABSTRACT

Tensile and creep data of the type used to establish

allowable stress levels for the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code have been examined for type 321H stainless steel.
Both inhomogeneous, unbalanced data sets and well-planned
homogeneous data sets have been exaained. Data have been
analyzed by implementing standard "manual" techniques on a
modern digital computer. In addition, more sophisticated
techniques, practical only through the use of the computer,
have been applied. The result clearly demonstrates the
efficacy of computerized techniques for these types of
analyses.
INTRODUCTION

The b o i l e r and P r e s s u r e Vessel Code of the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers c o n t a i n s e x t e n s i v e g u i d e l i n e s for t h e design of
components i n various i n d u s t r i e s .

One of the most important a s p e c t s of

these guidelines is the establishment of alienable design stresses for

the various materials listed in the code.

Although the exact criteria

for setting allowable stresses vary from situation to situation (in

particular, elevated temperature nuclear c r i t e r i a are more detailed),
the basic materials properties addressed include:

*Operated by Union Carbide Corporation for the U.S. Department of

Energy under contract W-7405-eng-26.
.DISCLAIMER
This book M3i prepared as an account of work joensored by an agency of tti Un-lid SiaiM Gcutf nmwit.
Neither the United Sidles Government nor any agency thereof. <v any o l tfcee emoinveey rryVi any
vtWTaniy, eapteu at tnolied. or ?um any legal liability or respanability tor me d t t j ' - c y .
c usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or urotesj diy.ioieo. o'
s mat its uie MOu'd " a t inltinti? DirvaMy ownnl righti_ Reference herein TO arty icecidt
rcia' pfodua, ixocen, or service by trada name, trademark, m^iujfaclu'et. or otfterwiw. doei
not ntCBsiarily conniti <> r.- imo'y its endo'ienient, recommendalion. ar 'avoring by in United
States Guvenment w any agency thereof. T^e n i * a"d ooinioni ot authors e x c n i e d herem do not
neceiurily Hale or f-fleet those o ' the United States Government or any agency thereof.

BSTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED

1.

yield strength (0.2% offset),

2.

ultimate tensile strength,

3.

stress to produce a secondary creep rate of 0.01% per 1000 h,and

4.

stress to produce rupture in 100,000 h.

In the most general case, both average and "minimum" properties are
of interest.

A large number of data for many materials might be

involved in the above analyses.

Variables of interest include

temperature, chemistry, grain size, product form, section size, heat

treatment, and others.

In the past, most analyses have been performed

by primarily manual techniques.

The results of these analyses have

generally been satisfactory, but the growing number of available data

makes such analyses more and more tedious for the analyst.
The sheer mass of available data increasingly suggests the use of
the modern digital computer for handling and analysis.

Computerized

systems are now available to perform a full range of data storage,

retrieval, display, and analysis.

The advantages of computerizing the

management of large sets of data are obvious.

In terms of analysis,

computerization allows implementation of a variety of sophisticated

techniques with a maximum of ease and efficiency.

This paper

illustrates the use of the computerized Mechanical Properties Data

Analysis Center (MIDAC) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in analysis of
material strength data of the type used by the ASME Code. The data used
fcr illustration involve type 321H stainless steel, but similar
techniques would of course apply to other msierials as veil.

ANALYSIS OF TENSILE PROPERTIES

Data

The tensile data examined include a set supplied to MPDAC by the

Metal Properties Council (MPC)* and a set obtained from the Japanese
National Research Institute for Metals (NRIH).1

(The NRIM data are

referenced* as pertaining to type 321 stainless steel, but as far as can

be determined the material falls within specifications^ for type 321H.)

Methods

The method commonly used for evaluation of yield and tensile

strength data for ASME Code purposes involves Smith's "ratio"

technique.*

Briefly, strength values for a given heat at elevated

temperatures are divided by the corresponding room temperature strength,

yielding a series of strength ratios as a function of temperature.
method seeks to achieve two main goals.

This

First, if the curves of log

strength vs temperature are parallel for different heats, then the data
for different heats will collapse onto a single strength ratio vs
temperature "trend curve."

The existence of this trend curve both

simplifies the analysis and protects the results from various spurious
effects caused by inhomogeneous and incomplete data distributions.
Second, if the ratios for different heats do not collapse onto a single

*A11 data supplied by MPC were compiled under the direction tf

W. E. Leyda of Babcock and Wilcox Company. There is no implication that
r.he data were generated in MPC ^sting programs or that MPC has endorsed
the accuracy and consistency of the data.

curve, then this lack of collapse may point up features of behavior that
were formerly hidden by data scatter.

Of course, in no way does the

ratio technique decrease scatter in the data that scatter is real and
must be dealt with.
Note that in the first case above the ratio trend curve represents
the behavior of strength ratios as a function of temperature for all
heats.

In the second case there is no unique trend in the ratios, since

the trend will vary from heat to heat.

In this case the best fit trend

curve seeks to represent average behavior among the available heats.

Thus, more data are required to define the trend curve in the second
case than in the first.

In either case data scatter and other effects

will yield some variation in behavior about the mean trend curve.
Average values of strength as a function of temperature can be
defined by multiplying the average room temperature strength by the
ratio trend curve.

Minimum values can be defined by multiplying the

specified room temperature minimum strength by the trend curved

This

relationship between the specif:cation minimum and the minimum strength

used in setting allowable stresses is clearly desirable.

However, it

should be noted that the resulting minimum strength curve lias no

statistical meaning.

Also, due to the average nature of the trend

curve, there is a 50% chance that data for a heat just meeting the room
temperature specification strength will fall below the predicted
elevated temperature minimum strength.

(There is also a chance that the

heat will no longer meet the room temperature minimum upon retest.)

The ratio technique was developed for use with existing manual
analysis methods, but i t can easily be implemented by computer, saving
considerable time and labor.

Results are illustrated below.

The

historical success of ".he ratio technique indicates that its basic

premise is sound.

Probably the major fault of the technique is i t s

heavy reliance on the accuracy of available data at room temperature.

(In most analyses done at MPDAC, we have found that room temperature
data exhibit at least as much scatter as corresponding elevated
.temperature data.-)- Thus,the question arises:

can modern computer

techniques produce an analysis method that uses assumptions identical to

the ratio technique but utilizes a l l data for normalization, not just
room temperature data?

The answer is yes.

Yield and tensile strength are often expressed as simple

polynomial functions of temperature:

j y

where
S

the predicted yield or tensile strength,

temperature, and

constants whose values are estimated by regression or other

techniques.

In essence, che ratio technique involves an implicit' assumption that

different heats display parallel curves of log strength vs

temperature.''*

As a f i r s t step toward implementing this assumption in a

direct data f i t , Eq. (1) can be rewritten as

log 5 = I b'/r1 .

(2)

This equation is not equivalent to Eq. (1) but would be expected to

describe the data equally as well.
Next, one employs a technique of centering the data for each heat
as has been reported for creep data by Sjodahl.-*

The equation thus

becomes

l 5 W - log Sh = ] i r [ ^ - 2j] ,
log

(3)

where the barred symbols represent average values of each variable for
each heat.

The index ^ again refers to the power of temperature, J

refers to the particular t e s t , and a refers to the particular

heat.

Equation (3) can be arranged as

_.

-t=l

i1

~r

or as
/

log S = (log 5,h -

ib.Tb

+ lb,Th,

Note that the terra in parenthesis is a constant ( ^ )

(5)

for a given heat.

The other tern on the right side of the equation is a function of

temperature but not of heat. Thus, a fit of Eq. (3) to the available
data will yield predictions for the different heats that are parallel in
log S vs T but that have different intercept values.

These intercept

values are determined by a regression fit to all data, not merely by the
room temperature strength asff in ratio technique.

In fact, heats for

which no room temperature data at all are available can be included in

the heat-centered analysis.

Such heats would, of course, have to be

excluded from the ratio analysis.

Note that since each heat has its own

intercept, no explicit intercept term is required in the model in Eq. (3).

If the assumption of log S T parellelism is not met, plots of
strength ratio vs temperature tend to emphasize effects which cause the
lack of parallelism.

Likewise, residual plots of (log S log S) vs T

from the above regression technique will point up such effects (S is the
observed strength, S is the predicted strength).

The regression tech-

nique can be used to determine a statistically defined average or minimum curve (see Appendix), or these predictions can be keyed to room temperature values as in the ratio technique.

Thus, the technique pre-

sented here includes all the advantages of the ratio technique but
avoids its major disadvantages.

This technique is, however, suited only

to computer analysis not to manual analysis.

Results

Data for yield strength and ultimate tensile strength from the two
available data sets were analyzed both by the ratio technique and by the
technique of heat-centered regression analysis.

The ratio technique was

lmpleraeated by fitting the ratio data as a function of temperature using

the form
Ratio = 1 + ax{T-To) + a 2 (f-T j )2 + a 3 ( M ) 3

( 6 )

where a\, a-^t and a-^ are least-squares regression constants, and?" is
room temperature.

This equation form assures that the various strength

ratios will be unity at room temperature, as desired.

The heat-centered regression was performed based on models of the
form
log 5 = Ck + a t T + a2 T1 + a2 T 3

(7)

except for the NRIM data for yield strength, o , which were described by

log a = Ch+ ax T .
The C, values are the
Appendix).

(8)

heat constants for the equations (see above and

Constants for the individual heats and average heat

constants for each equation are piven in Table 1.

Table 2 l i s t s the

between-heat, within-heat, and total variances determined for these

equations.
Figure 1 displays the results obtained for the various data sets
using the ratio technique, while Fig. 2 shows the results obtained with
the heat-centered regression technique.

In both Figs. 1 and 2,

"minimum" behavior has been calculated by normalizing the appropriate

trend curve to the room temperature specified minimum strength (207 HPa
for yield strength, 517 MPa for ultimate tensile strength).

In Fig. 3, "minimum" predictions are made with the heat-centered

regression technique by the quasi-statistical procedure of subtracting
two standard errors in log strength from the predicted log average.
(The standard error is the square root of the total variance.)

Finally,

Figs. 4 and 5 compare predictions from the two methods with data on an
individual heat basis.

The ratio technique, being rigidly tied to the

roon temperature data, cannot in general describe the higher temperature

data as well as can the heat-centered regression technique.
Tables 3 and 4 compare results from the two techniques for the
present data.

Also shown are results derived by Smith" from a data base

that presumably was similar to the MPC data, although i t included both
321 and 321H material.

Since all data are involved in determining the

strength level (heat constant) for each heat, the heat-centered

regression f i t s the data for each individual heat better than does the
ratio technique.

In terms of average predictions, the two methods yield

generally similar r e s u l t s .

The exception occurs for the MPC yield

strength data, where the unusual behavior of heat 41 causes the ratio
technique to predict unrealistic trends.

The heat-centered

regression

technique does predict realistic trends, similar to those predicted by

Smith.

(Smith used the ratio technique, but several data were omitted

from the analysis to force r e a l i s t i c

predictions.)

Predicted minimum values based on the room temperature minimum

strength are also generally similar for the two methods, again with the
exception of the MPC yield strength data.

Also, a l l yield strength

minima predicted by this technique are unconservative for these data

10

because many of the data do not aect the specification.

Minima

determined by average ninus two standard errors (an empirical approach

based on MPDAC experience) describe the data better in general than the
specification-based minima.

For the URIl-l ultimate tensile strength data

predictions from both techniques are similar.

In summary, the heat-centered regression analysis yields a clearly
superior description of individual heat behavior.

For well-balanced

multi-heat data sets the techniques yield similar predicted trends.

For

sparse, ill-conditioned data the regression technique appears to be less

affected by "quirks" in the data and therefore describes the data
better.

The ability of the regression technique to yield minimum

predictions based on the data rather than on specification also has

advantages in data description.

The ratio technique was formulated

specifically to allow treatment of sparse data sets and minima

prediction, yet the regression technique is superior to the ratio
approach on both of these counts.

The advantages of the regression

method are therefore obvious, both on a theoretical basis and on the

basis of application to real data.

A more complete discussion of these

results can be found in Ref. 4.

ANALYSIS OF CREEP PROPERTIES

Data

Only data for rupture life will be examined in this paper, but
similar methods can be used for the description of minimum creep rate
data if they are available.

Again, both data from US sources (supplied

11

by MPC) and data from the Japanese NRIM (obtained, as were the tensile
data, from the MPDAC computer files) were used.
The original 191 MPC rupture data (several were later excluded from
the analysis) represented 66 heats of material, with the majority of the
heats having seen only one or two tests each.

Of these 191 tests, 161

were conducted at a temperature of b4yC (1200F), with the remaining

data scattered over the range 593-816UC (1100-1500F) in temperature.
Thus, it can be seen that these data represent an extreme example of the
data distribution problems often encountered in Code analyses. The
available data were not generated as part of a comprehensive program
designed to develop a well-balanced data base for analysis.

Rather, the

data probably represent an historical collection of tests conducted in

several unrelated programs with different goals in mind.

These data

should therefore present a severe test of any analytical method.

By way of contrast, the NRIM data represent a very well-planned,
systematic, well-balanced set of tests that is ideally suited to the
types of analyses involved in setting allowable stresses.

The two data

sets examined thus repi^sent opposite ends of the spectrum of that would
be encountered in such analyses.

Methods

Methods commonly used for evaluation of creep rupture and minimum

creep rate data for ASME Code purposes are discussed in Ref. 3.
methods historically used fall into two basic categories:
extrapolation of isothermal log alog t

The

(1) direct

curves, and (2) analysis by

standard

iiMc-tonper;itutv

comnio;ily

In no on -in I n d i v i d u a l

strength

values

strength

trend curve vs r er-'porature.

typically

par i:~.i.-tor '.

lot

has i.: , v i t h

fro:n t h" i n d i v i d u a l

done nsin,", .ill

data

t h e r e .ire seldom s u f f i c i e n t

The d i r e c t

lots

later

thy l'j -h
used

an.ily-~.is

population,

to perfurn

rupture

to e s t a b l i s h a

The parametric

.is a s i n g l e

data

e x t r a p o l a t i o n ':

if

is

only

such -in a n a l y s i s

h-jc.iu.se
uri em :i lot

separately.
The d i r e c t
analytically

isothermal

but has u s u a l l y

on l o g - l o g paper.
lot-to-lot

(1)

(2)

been performed

include

and
the

is

in that

sense

of

the

implemented

via n manual e x t r a p o l . i t ion

the

problem of

coi::mendable.

Its

following:

The graphical e x t r a p o l a t i o n

on the p a r t

approach can be

This technique d i r e c t l y addresses

variations

shortcomings

extrapolation

can r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a b l e

judgement

analyst.

Uncertainties

are

isotherms a r e n o n l i n e a r .

greatly

increased

Conversely,

sometimes be 4**rrt5 erroneous-by,

if

the log O log

assumption of such l i n e a r i t y may

introducing

additional

errors

on

extrapolation.
(3)

Since only data a t

informtion

froui o t h e r

one temperature a r e t r e a t e d

temperatures

given l o t a r e not s u f f i c i e n t
must be i g n o r e d .
available
(4)

is ignored.

Moreover,

to determine a given i s o t h e r m ,

Thus, the method does not make e f f i c i e n t

any time,
if

data

for a

Lhcse data
n.-.e of

the

information.
Data a t d i f f e r e n t

temperatures may r e p r e s e n t

Thus, what nay appear to be a temperature e f f e c t

effect

at

of d i f f e r e n c e s

between

lots.

different

lots.

may l a r g e l y be an

The parametric approach h;is tho advantage of treating all data

together.

However, that method also involves sever '1 Inherent

disadvantages.
(1)

The problem of lot-to-lnt variations is not directly

addressed.

Ignoring this significant effect may result in large errors.

For example, a few points tor unusually strong or weak heats can
significantly distort the shape of the best fit curve.
(2)

Any given parameter involves very specific and rigid

assumptions about behavior.

If the wrong parameter is used (i.e., if

the assumptions are not met), the results may contain significant
errors.
(3)

Literally hundreds of parameter forms are available.

Choice

of the correct parameter can be a formidable task..

(A)

Available data are often dominated by tests run at a single

temperature (as in the current MPC data).

In these cases it may be very

difficult to accurately determine temperature dependence by standard

parametric techniques.
Several recent advances'> in the use of computerized analytical
techniques for the treatment of creep and creep rupture d-ita have
. brought new hrpe that previously insoluble problems such as those
mentioned above might be conqueied.

The power of the modern digital

computer ha? made possible the achievement of new strides in the

treatment of lot-to-lot variations, selection of model forms, and
statistical analysis of results.

It is to be hoped that any methods

springing forth from this new technology wuuld be iubued with a wide
range of advantages, including those listed below.

(1)
Integral
(2)

Ability
part of

to treat

the quest. Ci, ,.f l o t - t o - l o t

variations

as an

the analysis;

Sufficient

flexibility

to a l ! r.-.; f i t t i n g

a wide range of

behavior, such as by automatic consideration of a -ide variety of

models;
(3)

Ability to establish a s t a t i s t i c a l l y

viable estimate of

average and minimum behavior;

(4)

Minimized v u l n e r a b i l i t y

concentration of

the data over a narrow temperature

a v a i l a b i l i t y of only a few data

(5)

to "bad" data d i s t r i b u t i o n s ,

for each of several

range or
l o t s ; and

Ease of a p p l i c a b i l i t y ar.d minimization of manual labor

involved in producing r e s u l t s , especially for large data

"Computerized" techniques otjfer
approaches.

This report

which was felt

a wide range of

to be adequately suited

the f i r s t

possible

to the data at hand.

the current

Other
analysis

time this p a r t i c u l a r approach was ^sed at MPDAC.

Similar techniques have since been used successfully

data s e t s , however.

sets.

presents r e s u l t s obtained using an approach

approaches are c e r t a i n l y possible, and in fact

represents

such as

for

Thus, experience has been gained

t a t i o n of the analysis in a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s .

several

other

through implemen-

The method i s essen-

t i a l l y a synthesis of those previously used by Sjodahl^ and by

Booker,' and in that sense the authors

feel

that i t

represents a step

forward in the technology of such analyses.

The heart of

the current method involves the use of

data as proposed by Sjodahl.-*

This method provides

"heat-centered'

the maximum

13

protection against poorly Ji.-.iribuied data bases, and

it.:; use here was

actuated by the particularly "ncssy" distribution of the data supplied

by MPC.

However, it will be seen that the method is also .advantageous

for the well-distributed NRIM data.

First assume that the loftarithn of rupture life (lop, t ) * has been
i V3-en as the dependent

variable for the analysis.

Label

log t t as y.

Now assune that Y can be expressed as a linear function (in the

regression sense) of tern? involving stress (a) and temperature (?').
Label these terms as A'. .

In general form we thus have

where the c's are constants estimated by regression, and ^

is the

predicted value of log rupture life at the Xth level of the independent
or predictor variables, X.-,
is a constant intercept

Note that X

is always unity and that a

term.

As the next step, each variable (}' and all X's) is "heat centered,
and the equation becomes

*The debate that has sometimes arisen over this choice is not
central to the results obtained and will not be discussed here.
References 5, 7, 8, and 9 address the subject. The authors frankly do
not feel there is any legitimate question over the choice of dependent
variable.

16

where the bar rod variables represent average values for a given lot and
h represents the Lndex of the lot involved.

The prediction of log

rupture life itself will then be given by

:/

:V

Y.- = y. - 7 a'X.. .
t r -L

N
The term 1\ a'X.,
the intercept term a
have a different

[ a'.X..,.
L-

(11)

J.

is a constant for a given heat and replaces

in the uncentered analysis.

Thus, each heat will

intercept terra, but a l l other coefficients will be

common to all heats.

(Ti-.ere is no separate a'

term, since it would be

superfluous,)
Heat centering of the data involves no complicated mathematics and
can be done by anyone who can add, subtract, and divide.

However, for

large data sets these simple operation?- can become quite tedious, and
Che centering is best done by computer.

Implications of the

heat-centering are also straightforward,

although a f i r s t

glance at

Eq. (11) can leave one lost in a maze of variables and subscripts.
As pointed out above, different
different

l o t s are treated as having

intercept values, but a l l other equation constants are

lot-dependent.

Thus, a l l heats vary in similar manner in the

independent variable, but any two heats will always be separated by a

constant increment in log t

space.

This assumption of parallelism may

or nay not be a good one in any given case.

For both data sets examined

here the assumption was judged to be appropriate.

Adjustments

that

might be made to the method in the case of lack of parallelism were

17

therefore not attempted.

Such adjustments s t i l l need to be examined for

ocher data sets.

If any lot is represented by a single datum, nil heat-centered
variables will be zero, and that lot will not contribute to
establishment of stress and temperature dependence, although ic will
contribute to the calculation of average and minimum values as described
below.

If a l l data for a given lot occur at a single temperature, all

pure temperature variables will be zero, and that lot will not
contribute to the estimation of temperature dependence.

Thus, criteria

(1) and (4) above are already met l o t - t o - l o t variation is addressed

directly and vulnerability of the method to "bad" data distributions is
minimized.
Use of heat-centered models to predict average, and minimum behavior
is described in detail in the Appendix.

Suffice i t to say here that the

method certainly presents an estimate of the average far superior in

r e l i a b i l i t y to that obtained from fitting

the entire data base as a

single population without regard to lot-to-lot: variations.

In its

ability to separate the within-heat and between-heat variances, the

method also offers superior possibilities for the estimation of minima.
Thus, c iterion (3) is met.
The selection of the particular model form to use in Eqs. (911)
can be performed exactly as previously described by Booker.^

Details of

the model selection procedure will not be repeated here except to

reemphasize the power and flexibility of the techniques involved.
Literally tens of thousands of potential models can be explored then

18

reduced to a handful and finally

analyst.

Some judgement is s t i l l

asset than l i a b i l i t y .

to one with a ^inimun of tediun for the

involved, but that is considered more

Any method relying s t r i c t l y on computerized

calculations without the opportunity for appropriate human intervention

i s dangerous at best.

Criterion (2) above is well-satisfied.

The analyst makes several decisions along the way, but all actual
computations are performed by machine.

The final result is a single

equation with perhaps three or four regression constants to describe a

data set such as that supplied here by MPC. Thus, the fifth and last
criterion mentioned above is met by this approach.

S t i l l , the true test

of the method is in i t s actual application to the data, as described in

the next section.

Results

The current data were analyzed using five different approaches:

(1) graphical extrapolation of individual heat data (where possible);
(2) isother.al fitting procedures; (3) modeling of individual heat data;
(4) fitting of standard parameters to a l l data as a single population;
and (5) the above heat-centered regression and generalized n;ndel
selection procedure.

Results from each approach will be presented and

then compared in this section.

Individual heat graphical extrapolation was not attempted for most
of the MPC data since most data were at a single temperature.

Also,

most heats were represented by only two data, which the authors do not
consider sufficient

to yield meaningful extrapolations.

Graphical

results (in tercis of 10^-h rupture strengths) are presented for the NRIM

data and MPC Heat 41 in Table 5.

Most log alog t

isotherms for these

data appeared to be curvilinear, and extrapolations were raade

accordingly.

Such curvilinearity greatly increases the uncertainty in-

graphical extrapolations, but the current extrapolations are relatively

short due to the amount of long-term data available.

The results in

Table 5 should therefore be fairly reliable although not exactly

reproducible.
Isothermal f i t s to the scatter band of available data were
performed for the NRIM data and for the MPC data at 649C (1200F).

For

the NRIM data terras higher than linear in log were found to be
insignificant

in these f i t s , although the data again show clear signs of

curvature on an individual heat basis.

The MPC data were best fit by a

cubic stress dependence, similar to Eq. (12) below, but this equation
was ill-conditioned upon extrapolation.

Thus, a l l of these isothermal

f i t s resulted in choice of linear log alog t

behavior is inconsistent with the data.

models even though such

Table 6 gives 10^-h rupture

strengths estimated from this approach.

Individual heat data for all NRIM heats and for heat 41 of the MPC
data were fit both by standard parameters and by generalized model
selection procedures.

It was discovered that the data for a l l heats

could be adequately represented by an equation of the form

log tp=

aQ+ ajUog o)2 + ^ ( l o g 0)3 + Oj/T ,

(12)

where the <2's are coefficients determined by least squares for each
heat.

Values of stress ( o) were expressed in MPa, time ( t,) in h, and

temperature (21) in K.

Mote that Eq. (12) is a form of the common

Orr-Sherby-Dorn tine-temperature parameter.1"3

Predicted 105-h rupture

strengths from these f i t s are given in Table 7.

All MPC and a l l NR
' IM data were separately analyzed as single
populations using the Orr-Sherby-Dorn,10 Larson-Miller, 11 and
Manson-Siiccop1^ time-temperature parameters.
dependence was assumed for all models.

A cubic log stress

Such an approach is clearly

dangerous since it ignores the significant heat-to-heat effects apparent

in the data.

The approach is a common one, however, and one hopes

(rightfully or not) that a l l the errors and uncertainties will somehow

cancel cut and yield reasonable r e s u l t s .

Values of the coefficient of

determination,/?-, and the standard error of estimate, SEE, from these

f i t s are given in Table 8.

(This standard error includes a mixtare of

between-heat and within-hcat variations, and i t s real meaning is

unclear.)

The Orr-Sherby-Dorn parameter provides the best overall

fits

for both data sets, but the differences among the three parameters are
not large.

Table 9 shows predicted v: _ues of lO^-h rupture stress from

the standard parameters.

Also shown are "minimum" values determined by

subtracting two standard errors of estimate from Table 8 from the

predicted average log time, since log time was regarded as the dependent
variable in these analyses.
Finally, the available data were analyzed by the heat-centered
regression and generalized model selection procedure described in t last section.
log tj

As a f i r s t

step data were plo'ted in terms of log a vs

and several preliminary runs were made.

A few data were omitted

as outliers as a result of these* runs.

The conclusion from those

"preasse ssnents" was that the assumption of parallel"" :..i among heats was
a good one for these data and that Che data could be described by models
involving the terns listed i". Tauit 10.

Thus, a total of 1474 nodels

were examined at t'r.is stage.

After this run the ten best models with 2, 3, and 4 terras were
selected for further study.

Of these 30 models most were rejected

because of poor behavior on extrapolation or other undesirable

characteristics.

(Most fit the actual data approximately equally well,

as shown in Table 11.)

are listed in Table 12.

Models chosen for final study (with s t a t i s t i c s )

Again, most of these models f i t

the data about

as well as a l l the others; all also behave well on extrapolation.

Therefore, one could defend the choice of any of these candidate models.
For the I-tpr data three of the final candidates were forms of the
Orr-Sherby-Dorn parameter; one was a Larson-Miller parameter.
general, the OSD model forms fit

these data slightly better than the LM

forms, so the LM parameter was rejected.

could equally well be chosen.

In

Among the three OSD forms, any

We chose model 456 bar.ed largely on the

fact that i t provided the best f i t s

to the NR
' IM data (below).

This

criterion was used because the NRIM data set is much better balanced and
included longer term data.

Therefore, the NR
' IM data would be expected

to better characterize trends in behavior.

Following the procedures described above and in the Appendix,
individual heat constants, the average constant, and the variance
components were estimated for a l l of the candidate models.
final selected raodel the best-fit equation is

For the

22

log t

= C, - O.26909(log o ) 2 - 0.32703(log a ) 3 + 17549/r , (13)

n

where
a

stress (MPa), and

temperature (K).

Values of C, for the individual heats are given in Table 13.

average heat constant was 11.363.

The

Figure 6 displays typical

comparisons of predicted and experimental MPC data, while Table 14 shows

estimated values of the lO-'-h rupture strength from the above model.
The log a-log t

isotherms predicted from Eq. (13) are concave

3?

downward when plotted in the conventional fashion, as are those

predicted from a l l models in Table 12.

One might argue that these

predictions are overconsei/vative, especially since the curvature upon

extrapolation is generally more pronounced than that predicted from the
NRIM data.

Certainly one could choose a model that f i t s slightly more

poorly to yield more optimistic extrapolations, or one could adjust Eq.

(13) to ., ield more opLimistic r e s u l t s .

However, based on these data

alone, such procedures would clearly be presumptuous.

The uncertainty

caused by the sparseness of the data could potentially yield large

errors on extrapolation.
welcome and justified

Therefore, the conservatism of Eq. (13) is

based on the MPC data alone.

Possibly a better

way to treat chose data would be to combine them with the NRIM data.

//'-'</

The pooled data sets would then yield optimum predictions based on a l l

'//c

available infe'nation.

However $ the ASME Code has traditionally frowned

on the use of foreign data in allowable stress assessments, so this

combination was not attempted.

/
/

23

Examination of data plots, model forms, etc., for the NRIM data led
to the choice of model 456 as the optimum, although all of the models in
Table 12 yielded very similar results.

For this model the best-fit

equation is

log t

= C, - 1.0520 (log a)2 - 0.06884(log o ) 3 + 16752/j .

(14)

Values of C, for the individual heats are again given in Table 13. The
average heat constant was 9.229.

Figures 7 and 8 compare predictions

from Eq. (14) with available NRIM data.

The fits are in all cases

excellent, with only very slight deviations from the predictions even
though heat-to-heat variations are significant,
For both data sets the heat-centered regression approach describes
the behavior of individual heats well, describes the mean trend well,
and yields good predictions of minimum behavior, even when those
predictions are based on an empirical definition.

The method provides

reasonable extrapolations, though it is never possible by any method to

determine the actual accuracy of any extrapolation in the absence of a
detailed physical model for the subject process.

Comparison of Methods

The five methods used for the rupture data analysis can be compared
in various ways,

the first comparison that comes to mind involves the

actual calculated values of the lO^-h rupture strength.

Unfortunately,

this comparison is somewhat artificial since the correct value of this

strength is unknown.

For the NRIM data the value can be reasonably

estimated, however, since many data are available up to and beyond

5 x lCr

h.

A comparison of Tables 5, 7 and 14 show the predicted

individual heat results are quite similar whether the heats are treated

separately (Tables 5 and 7) or all together in the heat-centered

regression.

Given that the results are conparable for individual heats,

the advantages of pooling the data together are obvious.

Table 15

compares predicted average strengths, with all methods again being

generally comparable.

Note, however, that of the raultiheat approaches

the heat-centered regression results are most similar to the averages of

the individua1 neat analyses.
difficult.

For the MPC data comparisons are

By intentional design the heat-centered regression results

are slightly more conservative than the others, but no significant

conclusions can be drawn.
Figures 911 present some additional comparisons of the current
results with those reported earlier^ by Smith for this material.

Again,

the data base used by Smith was similar (but not identical) to the "MPC"
data base used herein.

Smith's results were obtained from individual

heat graphical fits and extrapolations followed by determination of a

linear relationship between log rupture strength and temperature.
The average predictions are fairly similar except that the current
MPC data results become relatively more and more conservative at higher
temperatures, as expected.

The data are not sufficient

to determine

which of the two sets of predictions is more accurate.

Figure 11 compares minimum SLrength predictions from the two
sources.

Smith1r minimum strength values were obtained by multiplying

the average strengths by tha ratio of average minus 1.65 times the
standard error at 649C to the average at 649C.

This procedure is

equivalent to subtracting 1.65 SEE in log strength from the average aL

a l l temperatures.

Minimum values from the current heat-centered

25

analyses were determined by subtracting 2 SEE in log time from the

average predicted log t values at each temperature.

A comparison of

Figs. 10 and II shows that the current safety factors involved in the
minimum definition are slightly larger than those used by Smith.
However, the available data indicate that the current predictions are
not overcont>ervative.
The various methods can also be compared on the basis of several
general criteria, as described below.
(1)

OVERALL USEFULNESS:

The heat-centered regression results are

clearly the =:.-- t generally useful of the five methods.

One simple

equation describes both individual and multiple heat (average and

minimum) behavior.

Setting of statistical bounds are also possible

since the method yields a clear estimate of variance components. None

of the other methods come close in terms of all-around utility of the
results.
(2)

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:

The heat-centered regression

technique is igain the only one of the five methods that even approaches
statistical rigor.

Therefore, it is the only method with the potential

for yielding meaningful statistical inferences such as tolerance limits,

etc.
(3)

ANALYST JUDGEMENT:

Requirement of judgement on the part of

the analyst is b->rh a positive and negative factor in assessing a

method.

It is desirable to allow i n t e ^ c t i o n of the analyst and to

provide capability for input of engineering judgement.

I t is also

desirable to provide standardized results that are r e l a t i v e l y

independent of individual preferences.

In these regards the isothermal

26

and parametric s e n i o r band fits require the least judgement on the [>-.rt
of the analyst v/hile also providing the least opportunity for
interaction on the part of the analyst.

On the other hand, the

graphical extrapolation and heat-centered regression approaches require

Che most judgement but provide tnaximura opportunity

fo- thi. analyst to

use his knowledge and experience to influence the results.

(A)

DATA INFLUENCES:

balanced data sets.

All of the methods work, best with good,

The heat-centered regression approach is also

particularly well-suited to the analysis of "bad" data sots.

The

graphical approach also allows one to use judgement in negating *"he

effects of unbalanced data.

the heat-centered regression approach

performs this negation automatically, however, as well as providing more

efficient use of the full data base.
(5)

ABILITY TO DESCRIBE DATA:

For the very "good" MRIM data

results from different methods are qui^e comparable.

However, only the

heat-centered regression results provide a complete description of both

single and multiheat data.
reasonable descriptions.
descriptions.

For "bad" data the method also yields

No other method provides such comprehensive

The parametric methods yield no predictions beyond the

range of data in some cases at high temperatures; the graphical and

isothermal fitting approaches do not include comprehensive estimates of
temperature dependence, and so on.
Using the above criteria, Table 16 cor pares the various methods
based on the opinion of the authors.

Other reviews might reach slightly

different conclusions, but we believe the overall superiority of

heat-centered regression a:.d similar automated techniques to be obvious.

If nothing else, automation allots one to try a wi Jor ranp.i' of

approaches than rnip.ht be practical nanually.

Limit Setting

The analysis of rupture data for design purposes generally has two
goals.

One goal involves an attempt to describe actual material

behavior.

That goal has been dealt with above.

The other goal involves

setting safe design lower limits on behavior so that rupture of

components in service

'ill be precluded.

A detailed discussion of such

lirait-setting procedures is beyond the scope of this report.

However,

the regression models developed by the current methods are particularly

amenable to limit-setting treatments.

Therefore, a brief description of

some possible lirait-setting procedures will be given here.

Limit setting procedures can be either statistical or engineering
in nature.

Statistical limits may include several basic types,

including confidence limits, prediction limits, and tolerance limits.

general discussion of statistical limits is given in kef. 13. The

advantage of these limits is that they are well defined and have clear,
quantitative implications.

However, they involve certain assumptions

such as that the experimental data obey a certain distribution (usually

normal).

Violation of these assumptions removes the quantitative

meaning of the limits and can in fact make them misleading.

Also, these

limits are intended primarily for use within the range of the
experimental data.

Use of such limits for extrapolation beyond the data

base (such as is generally necessary with creep data) is dangerous at

best.

28

Engineer ing-type
somewhat a r b i t r a r y
the

limits ha'.'.- r!;<> <! i ^advantage t h a t

In nature and cin

Lnd ividuaL a n a l y s t .

flexible

region.

lover

linit

They also do not necessarily

assumption1-, as to else data d i s t r i b u t i o n .

s e t t i n g such U n i t s

judgement of

they hive the advantage of being

enough to yield a "reasor.at 1 " estimate of

even In the extrapolated

specific

Hovevcr,

r"!y heavily on the

they are

behavior
rely on

A corcnon method of

involves s u b t r a c t i n g a constant multiple of

the

standard error of e s t i m a t e , SEE, from the mean value of s t r e s s at a

given rupture

time or rupture

The choice of
as the specific
data, etc.

time at a given

the p a r t i c u l a r

stress.

method to use depends on factors

purpose of the a n a l y s i s , d i s t r i b u t i o n

Most design codes specify

(allowable s t r e s s

of

that an a d d i t i o n a l

reduction) be applied

such

the a v a i l a b l e
safety

factor

to the "lower l i m i t " value

additional conservatism, whichever method is used.

for

The regression

approach described above his the advantage of being e a s i l y adaptable

any of

the limit

to

s e t t i n g techniques discussed above.

Figures 10 and 11 present only an indirect comparison of the common

Code method for basing the minimum on a set decrement

from average log

s t r e s s with the procedure used herein of basing the safety

time.

The comparison in Fig. 12 i s more d i r e c t .

Here,

the

factor on
individual

heat graphical e x t r a p o l a t i o n s have been analyzed as a function of

temperature per Smith's approach in Ref. 6.
obtained for

ICH-h rupture strength are e s s e n t i a l l y

derived from the heat-centered

temperatures

The average values

regression aproach.

identical

thus

to

those

At the higher

the regression minimum values become progressively more

conservative than the graphically derived values, however.

This

trend

29

occurs because the regression Diniaa include a fixed safety factor on

time; as the slope of the log stress-log tine curves increases at the
higher temperatures, this fixed time factor corresponds to a
progressively larger factor on stress.

In fact, Fig. 12 indicates that

the graphically-derived results become continuously less conservative as

Che temperature increases.

The regression results, on the other hand,

remain in approximately the same relation to the actual individual heat

minimum graphical predictions, indicating greater consistency with data
trends.
A final possible approach would be to use the heat-centered
regression analysis to define rupture strength values for individual
heats and then to treat those values by the strength trend curve
approach.

Note that in constructing the trend curves strength values

for a given heat were used only for temperatures at which data for that
heat were available.

Additionally, only values for temperatures up to

704C were used to assure a linear relationship between log strength and
temperature.
Shown in Table 17 are average, average 1.65 SEE, and average 2
SEE predictions from both approaches for 1CH, 10', and lO-'-h rupture
strength at various temperatures.

Note that the choice of the SEE

multiplier (1.65 or 2) is somewhat arbitrary.

These two values are

typical of those ^.omnionly used and are shown for comparison.

(Assuming

a normal distribution, 1.65 is a lower limit on the value of this

multiplier if one seeks a lower limit in strength above which one has a 95%
confidence that the true mean lies.)

For iho well-balanced NRi:t data the results fron the t'-'o nethods
are fairly similar, though again the minima based on stress becone
increasingly less conservative in a relative sense for higher
temperatures and longer times, when the stress exponent tends to
increase.
The extreme inhomogeneity in the MPC data base makes the strength
trend curve analysis susceptible to large errors and biases, whereas the
heat-centered regression approach is inherently protected against such
biases.

The trend curve results are still fairly similar to the

heat-centered regression results, although the values at 538C are

consistently and significantly higher from the former approach.

Note

that this temperature is slightly below the lowest temperature

represented in the data.

the above comment concerning decreased

conservatism in the stress-based minima at higher temperatures still

applies.

A nore cosaplete discvission of these results can be found in

Ref. A.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results presented above clearly demonstrate the applicability

of modern computeri?.ed techniques for the analysis of material strength
data such as those required for setting allowable stresses for the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.

These techniques, when used in

conjunction with modern computerized system for data storage and

retrieval, provide an efficient means for data processing that far
outstrips the capabilities of older manual data analysis techniques.
Specific conclusions follow.

31

1.

The well-known ratio technique for analysis of yield and

tensile strength data can easily be implemented by computer.

However,

a heat-centered regression technique thnt involves similar assumptions

about material behavior can also be inplemented.

This latter technique

makes more efficient use of available data, since it bases the strength
of a given heat on all data for that heat, not just on the room
temperature strength.

As a result, even heats for which no room

temperature data are available can be analyzed with this technique.

2.

The computer is a useful tool in facilitating analysis of

creep-rupture data by many standard techniques.

Moreover, it opens up

the possibility of additional analysis techniques that would be too

cumbersome to implement manually.
3.

For the data sets examined in this paper (type 321H stainless

steel), a computer-implemented heat-centered regression aproach used in

conjunction with a generalized model selection procedure was found to be
superior to the standard techniques applied.

This superiority was

evidenced by increased accuracy in data fitting, more efficient use of

available data, less susceptibility to biases caused by inhomogeneous
data distributions, and increased precision of available statistical
information to describe the fits.
4.

The superiority of the heat-centered regression approach for

treatment of both tensile and creep-rupture data persists whether the

data base examined is extremely inhomogeneous and poorly balanced or
whether it is very homogeneous and well-balanced.

However, these

techniques are particularly useful for the inhomogeneous data sets due

Co Che protection they provide against potential lar^e biases that could
be caused by the data distribution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the Mei.il Properties Council, Inc.,

using funding provided hy cho American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of these organizations.
We would also like to thank the United States Department of Energy (DOE)
for permission to do the work at the DOE facilities at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.

The cooperation of G. M. Slaughter and C. R. Brinkraan

in this regard is also appreciated.

and

We would like to thank

for reviewing the contents of this manuscript

and Linda Pollard for typing the draft.

33

REFERENCES

1.

"Data Sheets on the Elevated Temperature P r o p e r t i e s of IB Cr-8

Ni-Ti S t a i n l e s s S t e e l for Boiler and Heat Exchanger Seamless Tubes
(SUS 321 HTB)," NRIM Creep Data Sheet N'o. 5A, Uatior^i',

Institute
2.

for Me talc,

Research

Tokyo '(1978).

"Standard S p e c i f i c a t i o n for Seamless and Welded Aunt u t i c

S t a i n l e s s Steel P i p e , " ASTM Designation A312-74, 1975 Annual Book
of AST!-! Standards,

Part 1, American Society for T e s t i n g and

M a t e r i a l s , P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1976, pp. 209-215.

3.

G. V. Smith, "Evaluation of Elevated-Temperature Strength Data,"

J. Materials

4.

4 ( 4 ) : 378-908 (December 1969).

M. K. Booker and B.L.P. Booker, Automated

Tensile

Data for Type 321H Stainless

Steel,

Analysis

of Creep and

r e p o r t prepared for the

Metal Properties Council, I n c . (September 1979).

5.

L. H. Sjodahl, "A Comprehensive Method of Rupture Data Analysis

with Simplified Models," pp. 501515 in Characterization

of

Materials for- Service at Elevated Temperatures, MPC-7, American

Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1978.
6.

G. V. Smith, An Evaluation of the Yield, Tev.sile,

Rupture Strengths

Creep and

of Wrought 304, 316, 321, and 347 Stainless

Steels

at Elevated Temperatures, ASTM Publication DS 5S2, American Society

for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1969.
7.

M. K. Booker, "Use of Generalized Regression Models for the

Analysis of Stress-Rupture Data,"

Characterization

of

Materials

for

J^rv'.cc

at

Elcvaied

?~s:rrcr"zzicre;:,

MPC-7, A m e r i c a n

Society

of

Mechanical rlngineers, 1973, pp. 459499.

8.

D. R. Runmler, "Stress-Rupture Data Correlation Generalized

Regression A n a l y s i s , An A l t e r n a t i v e to P a r a n e t r i c Methods, in
Reprodu:-iiility

and A^-r.^zcy

of yectizKical

Tests,

ASTM,

P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1977.
9.

G. J . Hahn, General E l e c t r i c Conpany, P r e s e n t a t i o n to Workshop on

Needs and Solutions to Problems in the Area of Useful Application
of Elevated Temperature Creep and Rupture Data, Cleveland, Ohio,
August 30-31, 1977.

10.

R. L. Orr, 0. D. Sherby, and J . E. Dorn, " C o r r e l a t i o n of Rupture

Data for Metals a t F.levated Temperatures," Trzr.s.

ASy.E 46: 113-123

(1954).
1J.

F. R. Larson and J . Miller, "A Ticie-Tempei'atare Relationship for

Rupture and Creep S t r e s s e s , "

12.

Tvarr.c. ,\Sy.F.l^: 765761 (1952).

S. S. Manr.on and G. Succop, "Stress-Rupture P r o p e r t i e s of Inconcl

700 and C o r r e l a t i o n on the Basis o1: Several Tiue-TenporaLure
Paraaeters," Sij"z:csiicn or. MeiaZt'ic i-'aterials fev Service Above
lC00FJ ASTM STP 174, American Society for T e s t i n g and M a t e r i a l s ,
P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1956, pp. 40-46.

13.

G. J . Hahn, " S t a t i s t i c a l I n t e r v a l s for a Normal Population, Part 1,

Tables, Examples, and A p p l i c a t i o n s , "
115-125 (1970).

J. Quzliiy

Technology 2 ( 3 ) :

Table l. Heat Constants Determined from Heat-Centered Regression on Tensile Data

MPC Data
Unaf
ncd L

Average
91E
91A
91D
41
26
21C
21B

Yield Strength
Constant
2.342
2.345
2.291
2.369
2.425
" 2.393
2.273
2.316

NRIM Data
Ultimate Strength
Constant
2.767
2.772
2.764
2.790
2.723
2.785
2.781
2.776

Yield Strength
Constant
Average

ACA
ACB
PCC
ACo

ACH
ACJ
ACL
ACM
ACN

2.377
2.346
2.393
2.387
2.449
2.439
2.463
2.304
2.343
2.266

Ultimate Strength
Constant
2.791
2.787
2.803
2.789
2.802
2.793
2.819
2.780
2.779
2.768

Table 2.

Variance Values 2 Obtained by Heat-Centered

Regression on Tensile Data
variances

Vw

MPC Yield Strength

0.00226

0.00219

0.00445

MPC Ultimate Strength

0.00169

0..00932

0.0110

NRIM Yield Strength

0.0448

0.,00315

0.0530

NRIM Ultimate Strength

0.00216

0..00160

0.00376

A11 variances in terms of log strength for strength

values in MPa.
'"Between-heat variance.
c
.Within-heat variance.
d
Total variance; VT = VD + V .

Table' 3. Predicted Values of Yield Strength

1leat-Centered Regression

Ratio Technique

Ternperature
C
(F)

Average^
MPa
(ksi)

Average12
(ksi)
MPa

Minimum^
MPa
(ksi)
MI'iC

260
316

371
427
482
533
59 3
649
704
760

RT
(500)
(600)
(700)
(800)
(900)
(1000)
(1100)
(1200)
(1300)
(1400)

205
131
125
121

117
117
115
113
108
102
96

(29 .7)
(19..0)
(18, 1 )
(17,.5)
(17..0)
(17.,0)
(16. 7)
(16. 4)
(15. 7)
(14. 8)

(13. 9)

207
130
125
122
122
123
125
127
127
126
122

(30 .0)

(18 .8)
(18 .1)

(17 .7)
(17.7)
(17.8)
(18 .1)
(18 4)
(18 .4)
(IS,.3)
(17,.7)

207
130
125
122

122
123
125
127
127
1.26
122

Average

Minimum^

MPn

(ksi)

MPa

(ksi)

205
14 3
139
136
134
132

(29. 7)
(20. 7)
(20. 2)
(19. 7)
(19. '0
(19. 1)
(18. 7)
(18. 1)
(17. 2)
(16. 1)
(14. 6)

207
144
140
13?
135
JJ3

(30,.0)
(20,.9)
(20 .3)
(19,.9)
(19,.6)
(19,,3)
(18..8)
(18,.3)
(17..'0
(In.,2)
(14..)

Minimum 0
ML'a
(kai)

Data
(30.0)
(18.8)
(13.1)
(17.7)
(17.7)
(17.8)
(18.1)
(18.4)
(18.4)
(18.3)
(17.7)

129

125
119
111
IU1

130
120
120
.112

102

150
1.05
102

Ml

(21. 8)
(15. 2)
(14. 8)
(14. 5)
(14. 2)
(14. 1)
(13. H)
(13. 3)
(12. 6)
ill. 7)

i'.

; IO7)
.

lnu
'JH
y'>
92
6I

NRIM Data

RT
260
316
371

(500)
(600)
(700)

427
432
538
593

(aoo)

649

704
760

(900)
(1000)
(1000)
(1200)
(1300)
(1400)

251
201
194
188
182

178
173
169
165
161
156

(36..4)
(29. 2)
(28. 1)
(27. 3)
(26. 4)
(25. 8)
(25. 1)

(24. 5)
(23. 9)
(23. 4)
(22. 6)

207
166
160
155
150

147
143
140
136
132
123

(30.0)
(24.1)
(23.2)
(22.5)
(21.8)
(21.3)
(20.7)
(20.3)
(19.7)
(19.1)
(13.6)

234
203
19 7
190
134
178
172
166
161
156
150

(33. 9)
(29. 4)
(28. 6/
(27. 6)
(26. 7)
(25. 3)

(24. 9)
(24. 1)
(23. 4)
(22. 6)
(21. 8)

20,

179
1 7 j.

168

162
157
152
147
142 '

137
133

0)
(26. 0)
(25. 1)
(24. 4)
(23. 5)
(22. 8)
(22. 0)
(21. 3)
(20. 6)
(H. 9)
(19. 3)

168
146
141
136
132
127
12 3
119
115
111
108

(24. 4)
(21. 2)
(20. 4)
(19. 7)
(19. 1)
(18. 4)
(17. 3)
(17. 2)
(16. 7)
(16. 1)
(15. 7)

"Predictions reportes by Smith, AST>I Publication DS5S2. A l l other results were obtained from present
< analysis.
^Minimum values obtained based on room temperature specified minimum strength.
^'Minimum values obtained by subcontracting two standard errors in log strength from the predicted
average log strength.

Table 4 .

Predicted V;llueS o f

U l t i m a t e Tensile Strength

1!cat-Centered Re greus ion

Ratio Technique
perature

(K)

Average^
(ksi)

Ml'a

Avt.>r;j;;e

MPa

(ksi)

Minimi):'?
Ml'a
(ks i)

Average
Ml1 a
(ks 1)

Mini nun
Us i)

Ml'a

Minimuw(ks i)
XI'a

IKi_t,-|

260
316
371
427
482
538
59 3

649
704
760

RT
(500)
(600)
(700)
(300)
(900)
(1000)
(1100)
(1200)
(1300)
(14U0)

564
44 6

462
4 74
4 79

468
446
499
344
276
209

(81.8)
(64.7)
(67.0)
(68.7)
(09.5)
(67.9)
(64.7)
(58.0)
(49.9)
(40.0)
(30.3)

544
449
45U
452
453
448
435
410
369
310
228

(78.9)
(hi,.
(65.
(05.
105.
(65.
( 0 3 .

1)
3)
6)
7)
0)
1 )

C9.5)
(5 3,5)
(45.0)
(33.J)

317
427
42 8
4 30
4 31

427
414
390
351
2'i 5

217
NKIM

260
316
371
427
482
538
59 3

649
704
760
a

RT
(500)
(600)
(700)
(800)
(9U0)
(1000)
(1100)
(1200)
(1300)
(1400)

575
4 43
44 2

445
448
447
438
417
379
324
241

(83.4)
("4.2)
(04.1)
(04.5)
(05.0)
(04.8)
(63.5)
(.00.5)
( '> 5 L ) )

(4 7.0)
(35.0)

517
39 8
39 7
4 00

403
402
39 4

3/5
341
291
217

(75 .0)
.9)
("2 .1)
(62 .4)
(02 5)
(01 .9)
(00 .0)
(50 6)
(50 .9)
(42 ,8)
(31 .5;
(<'l

537

(77 .y)
(00 3)

4 16
4 25
4 37
4 40

(04 .7)

*47

( ( , 4 8)

4 34

(62 .9)
(58 ')
(51 i)
(42 2)
(31 -y)

4U3
354
29 1

220

(0 1
( 0 3 .4)

'>)

517
401
409
421
4 29
4 30
4 IB

3dB
341
280
212

(75 .0)
O S .2)
'. 5 -'.3)
(0 1.0)
U'2 .2)
(02 .4)
(60 .0)
(5d .3)
149 .4)
(40 .6)
(30 .7)

303
249

(60 .7)
(51 .0)
(52
(54 .2)
(55 .4)
155 . '))
(54 .0)
150 .u)
(43 .'*)
(3d .1)

lti

12 7 3)

4 60
35t.

3n4
3 7-'<

Ibl
MM
372
(4 5

Data
(75..0)
(57. "7(
(57.,6)
(58. 0)
(58. 4)
(58. 3)
(57. 1)
(54. 4)
(49. 4)
(42. 2)
(3L. 5)

573
44 2

446
451
4 55

453
4 40
4 14

JM.
318
254

(83, i)
(04..1)
(64,, 7)
(6 5. <<)
(60. 0)
,'>.7)
(0 3. 8)
(.60. o)
(JJ. 8)

(40. 1)
(30. 8)

517
399
402
40 7

410
409
39 7

373
JJ5
287

(75 .0)
(57 .9)
158 .3)
(VJ..0)
(59,. 5)
(59,,3)
(57. 0)
154. , 1 )
(>'. 8 . d )

(41. 6)
133. 2)

524
404
4ua
412
41 6

414
'i i) 2

(7(3 0)

15b, 0)
1V,.2)
('.',
lt)0, ,3)

(00.O )
155. 3)

3 7">

(5'i. D)

JJ9

('.').

29 1

232

2)
(42. 2)
(33. 6)

l ' r e d i c t l o n s r e p o r t e d by S m i t h , ASMT L ' u b l l c u . i o n US5S2.

A l l o t h e r r r s u l t s w e r e obt.uiueil from t h e
present analysis.
^Minimum values obtained based on room temperature specified minimum strength.
e
Mliiitnum values obtained by aubcontracting two standard errors in log strength from tlie predicted
average log strength.

'^;-;-._'

"_

Table 5.

Graphically Estimated 10 5 -h Rupture Strengths (MPa) from

Treatment of Individual Heat Data

He:at
Temperature
Of

600
650
700
750

/ 0 C\

ACA

ACB

ACC

ACG

ACH

ACJ

ACL

ACM

ACN

41

(1112)
(1202)
(1292)
(1382)

135

135
89
52
30

128
77
49
24

84
54
30
16

86
53
29
18

92
60
42

100
64
44
26

96
62
41
24

120
70
45
29

170^
75^

iZ
50
28

21

?Heat 41 from MPC data. All others from NRIH data.

H/alue at 566C (1050F)
^Value at 649C (1200F)
Value at 732C (1350F)
Note:

1 ksi = 6.395 MPa

28^

Table 6. Estimated 10--h Rupture Strengths (MPa]

from Isothermal Fits-: to Multiheat Data
as a Single Population
Temperature
C (F)
649
600
650
700
750

(1200)
(1112)
(1202)
(1292)
(1382)

MPC
NRIM
NRIM
NRIM
NRIM

65
98
61
43
22

52
73
45
33
15

All data sets were fit by logt = a + a, loga.

^Estimated from average minus two standard errors
in log time.
Note:

1 ksi = 6.895 MPa

Table 7.

Estimated 10 5 -h Rupture Strengths (MPa) from Parametric F i t s

to Individual Heat Data

Heata
Temperature
C (F)

ACA

ACB

ACC

ACG

ACH

ACJ

ACL

ACM

ACN

41

600 (1112)

140

138

127

88

89

95

106

102

120

1636

650 (1202)

84

85

76

51

51

60

67

64

74

700 (1292)

48

48

43

28

27

37

42

40

46

70c

750 (1382)

26

21

15

22

27

25

29

^
41 from MPC d a t a . All others from NRIM d a t a .
^Value a t 566CC (1050F)
^Value a t 649C (1200F)
"Value a t 732C (1350F)
e
Model ill-conditioned - does not yield reasonable predictions in
this case.
Note:

1 ksi = 6.895 MPa

Table 8. Statistics Determined from Fits of Standard

Parameters to Data as a Single Population
MPC Data
Parameter

R2

SEE*

NRIM Data
R2 (%)a

SEE3

Orr-Sherby-Oorn

77 .4

0.310

83.2

O.?93

Larson-Miller

76 .1

0.319

83.0

0.296

Manson-Succop

76 .0

0.319

83.3

0.293

a 2

R , the coefficient of determination, gives the

percentage of data variations described by the model.
^SEE, the standard error of estimate, is the square
root of the variance from the equation fit.

Estimated 105-h Rupture Strengths (MPa) from

Table 9.
Fits of Standard Parameters to Multiheat Data
as a Single Population
Temperature
C (F)

566
593
621
649
677
704
732

600
650
700
750

(1050)
(1100)
(1150)
(1200)
(1250)
(1300)
(1350)

(1112)
(1202)
(1292)
(1382)

Parameter
Orr-Sherby-Dorn

151
117
89
66
43
b
b

(121)
( 92)
( 67)
( 42)
b
b
b

98 ( 72)
60 ( 40)
34 ( 18)
b
b

Larson-Miller
HPC Data
' 153 (123)
120 ( 97)
94 ( 72)
70 ( 50)
49 ( 29)
29
b
b
b
NRIM
100
63
37
20

Data
( 76)
( 45)
( 25)

Manson-Succop

145
115
92
70
51
32
b

013)
( 91)
( 68)
( 49)
( 31)
b
b

98 ( 72)
63 ( 44)
37 ( 23)
b
b

Predictions in parenthesis determined from average minus two

standard errors in log time.
^Parameter does not yield reasonable predictions due to
inflection in "master curve."
Note:

1 ksi = 6.895 MPa

3T

Ll-.i

Or

"

Table 10. Terms Used for Generalized Model Selection2

Term Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a

Term
o
logo
l/o
(logo) 2
(logo) 3
1/T
o/T
(loga)/T
'./(oT)
(loga)2/T
(loga)3/T

All models considered were composed of terms

taken from this list.

Table 1 1 . Values of R2 for the Ten Leading Models with

2, 3, and 4 Terms (Heat-Centered Regression)
Two Terms
Terms'3

RH%)b

Three Terms
Tennsa

RH%)b

Four Terms
Terms

RH%)

MPC Data
1,6
2,6
5,8
6,11
6,8
5,10
4,6
4,3
6,10
5,6

88.1
89.7
90.0
92.8
92.8
92.9
93.4
93.7
94.0
94.1

4,5,6
5,6,7
1,5,6
3,6,8
2,4,6
6,8,9
2,3,6
2,6,9
4,6,9
3,4,6

94.1
94.2
94.2
94.2
94.2
94.2
94.3
94.3
94.3
94.3

2,6,9,10
2,3,6,11
2,6,9,11
1,2,6,9
1,2,3,6
2,6,7,9
2,3,6,7
1,8,10,11
1,5,7,10
7,8,10,11

94.3
94.3
94.3
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4

2,3,6,7
5,6,8,10
5,6,8,11
5,6,10,11
3,4,6,9
1,6,7,10
1,6,7,8
1,8,10,11
3,4,8,9
3,5,9,10

97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.8
97.8
97.8
97.8
97.8
97.8

NRIM Data
5,8
2,8
5,10
6,11
2,6
4,8
5,6
6,10
6,8
4,6

92.1
92.9
94.3
96.0
96.8
97.1
97.3
97.4
97.5
97.7
&Terms

2,3,6
2,5,6
4,6,9
1,4,6
4,6,7
4,5,6
2,4,6
3,4,6
4,6,11
4,6,10

97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.7

as l i s t e d in Table 10; -?
Coefficient of determination.

-ST

-_I^

>'

"

Table 12.

Termsa

Final Candidate Rupture Models Chosen for Detailed Study.

a
V
w

R U)D

"a"

:
I

MPC Data
4,5,6
6,8,10,11
2,4,5,6
5,6

94.1
94.2
94.3
94.1

0. 0158
0. 0158
0. 0156
0. 0158

0.0559
0.0560
0.0555
0.0550

0. 0118
0. 0118
0. 0124
0. 0119
0.,0116
0. 0116
0.,0128

0.0374
0.0375
0.0833
0.0874
0.0876
0.0874
0.0834

NRIM Data
4,5,6
2,5,6
6,8,10,11
2,4,5,6
3,4,8,9
3,5,",10
6,8

97.7
97.7
97.6
97.8
97.8
97.8
97.5

?Terms as l i s t e d in Table 13.

^Coefficient of determination.
^Within-heat variance.
Between-neat variance.

'

_ Table l". Individual Heat Constants from Heat-Centered Regression Fits

"
of Creep Data

HEAT
i 17
1 16
115
I 14
113
112
11 1
110
109
10?
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99
9b
97
96
95
94
93

CON STAN T

HA

CONSTANT

HEAT

- 11 . 4 4 1
-11.441
- 11 . 730
- 11.553
- ) 1.387
- 1 I.4^3
- 1 1 . 3fte
- 11 . 0 7 7
-11.30?
- J 1 . ?.? 9
- li .43 1
- 1 ! .4 a 3
- 11 . 4 2 5
- 1 I . E32
-11.464
-11.51?
- 11 . 4O 7
- 11 . 3 9 f
- 11 . 2 2
- 11.474
-11.350
- 1 1.384
- 1 1 . 122
-11.531
- 1 I .65?

92
86*3

- 1 1 . 635
-11.519
-11.421
- 1 I . 1 66
-1 I .348
- 1 I . 7 09
- 1 0.951
- I I .270
- I I.324
- 1 I . 054
- 1 1.0 65
-1 I.357
- 1 1 . 1 16
- 1 1.031
- 1 1 . I 36
-11.121
- 1 1.4^4

24C-Q
-11.
1 1 2
24 53-9
106 !
-11.
2 3"?
- 1 1 . 20 0
23 A
-I I. 45 I
22C
-1 1. 3 9 5
22C
-11. 5 6 ?
37 D
-11. 24 3
81
-11. 3 27
72
-I I. 040 ;
79R
-I I. 3 6 5
24 A - 2 A -1 >.. 4 9 6
2
-12. 0 4 0
91 E
-I 1 . 6 4 9
91 A
-1 I . 6 5 0
91 O
-1 1 . S 9 9
41
-1 I . 1 7 6
ACA
- 3 . 7d6
357
Acn
-<}.
ACC
- H . 9 37
-O. 600
ACG
ACH
- 9 . 564
AC J
- 9 . 325
ACL
- 9 . 20 J
ACM
-9, 327
ACN
-9. 046

S5T

82

7 8-1
761
7CC

7 0"!
7C.X
69
:
:S
.,7

66
65

6 45
64-\
6 33
6 3-\
54

53
52
51
50
4 OP
4 4P

- 1 1 .4H6
- 1 1 . 7 35
-13.713
- 1 I . IHR
- I 0 . 775
-10.826
- I I.325
-11.433

C0N3 T ANT

Table 14. Estimated 105-h Rupture Strengths (MPa) from

Heat-Centered Regression Approach
MlPC Data
Temperature
C (F)
566
593
621
649
677
704
732

Average

Min i mum'

Heat 41

145
110
81
59
42
29
19

116
85
62
42
29
18
9

155
120
89
65
47
34
22

(1050)
(1100)
(1150)
(1200)
(1250)
(1300)
(1350)

NRIH Data

600
650
700
750

(1112)
(1202)
(1292)
(1382)

Avg

Min a

ACA

ACB

ACC

ACG

ACH

ACJ

ACL

ACM

ACM

110
67
40
23

81
47
27
14

130
82
51
30

127
79
49
29

121
75
46
27

90
53
31

92

103
62
37
21

109
66
40
23

103
62
37
21

117
72
44
26

17

55
32
18

"Minimum" predictions determined from average minus two standard errors

in log time.
Note:

1 ksi = 6.895 MPa

Table i s .

Comparison of Predicted Average Values of 105-h Rupture Strength

Values from Table

9b
MPC 649C
NRIM 600C
NRIM 650C
NRIM 700C
NRIM 750C

65
98
61
43
22

66
98
60
34
/

14G

Sd

59
110
67
40
23

108
68
42
24

112
68
40
24

^Isothermal f i t s to multiheat data as single population.

OSD parametric f i t s to multiheat data as single population.
c
-Heat-centered regression.
Average of single heat graphical extrapolations.
^Average of single heat parametric f i t s .
'Parameter does not yield reasonable predictions due to inflection
in "master curve."
Note:

1 ksi = 6.395 MPa

Table 16. Comparison of Methods for Rupture Data Analysis Based on Several Criteria
Criloria

Ranking

Overall
Usefulness
a

1
2
3
4
5

Statistics

Least
Judgment
Required

Least
Affected
by Bad Data

Engineering
Interaction

Data
Description

Letters r e f e r t o the f o l l o w i n g techniques:

A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
NOTE:

I n d i v i d u a l heat g r a p h i c a l e x t r a p o l a t i o n
Isothermal scatterband f i t s
I n d i v i d u a l heat parametric f i t s
Scatterband parametric f i t s
Heat-centered r e g r e s s i o n

On the basis o f 5 p o i n t s f o r f i r s t , 4 f o r second, e t c . , t h e o v e r a l l

are:
1 . E ( 2 6 ) ; 2. A ( 1 8 ) ; 3. C(17); 4. D ( 1 5 ) ; 5. B(14).

rankings

Table 17.

Comparison of Different Estimates of Average and Minimum Behavior

from Multi-Heat Analyses
Rupl'jre

Tecperature
(*F)
*C

Stri-rtr,th,

"T.I

(ksl)

Heat-C e n t e r e d R c ^ r t-.s i. n
Av er a,,c

Strength Trend Curve

Avg 2 :,[,,;:

A- g - I . u 5 S'_t."

Average

Avg - 1 . 6 5 SFFP

AvB - 2 SEt*

SrC P.il.i - i 0 ! !i

31 1 (45.4)

(10O0)

360

(53.1)

)2O

<'">.-)

311

(4j.l)

3S2

(55.4)

324

(4/.U)

593

(1100)

237

(34.4)

:o4

,:.*.)

Hi

(2S.4)

2 3H ( 3 4 . 5 )

202

(2'.1)

l'5

649

(1200)

152

(22.0)

12!>

(1.H.3)

122

(17.7)

143

i21.5)

126

VIS.3)

121 (17.5)

704

(1300)

95.5(13.3)

77

(11.2)

92

(13.3)

78 (11.3)

75 (10.9)

533

73.5(10.b)

(23.3)

MPC Data - 101* h

533

(1UO0)

268

(38.9)

232

(33.6)

224

(32.5)

290

(42.0)

238 (34.5)

228 (33.1)

593

(1100)

166

(24.1)

140

(20.3)

134

(19.4)

16 7 ( 2 4 . 2 )

137 (19.9)

V31 (19.0)

649

(1200)

93.5(14.3)

704

(1300)

538

(1000)

190

593

(1100)

110 (16.0)

56.5(8.2)

79. 5 ( 1 1 . 5 )

7t> (IV.0)

43 (..2)

40 .r> 1.3 .9)

79 ( U . 4 )

75.5(10.9)

45 ( 6 . 5 )

43 ( 6 . 2 )

223 (32.3)

173 (25.1)

163 (23.6)

113 (16.4)

87 (12.b)

83 (12.0)

9b

(13.4)

55 ( 8 . 0 )

J|pr _fnta_-_ l.\ji

649 (1200)
704

(1300)

(27.6)

162

156 (27.6)

(23.i)

39.5 ( 1 3 . 0 )

85.5 112.4)

5V ( 8 . 6 )

45 ( 6 . 5 )

42.5(6.2)

56.5(5.2)

44 ( 6 . 4 )

41 ( 5 . 9 )

29 ( 4 . 2 )

19.5(2.B)

17.5(2.5)

28.5(4.1)

22 ( 3 . 2 )

21 ( 3 . 0 )

Nit LN U.ir.i - I D 3 h

(1112)
(1202)

24o

(35.7)

202

(29.3)

194 ( 2 3 . 1 ;

251 (3*.. 4)

2US

(30.2)

200 (29.0)

650

164

(23.a)

132

(19.1)

126 ( I S . 3 )

168 (24.4)

134

(20.2)

134 (19.4)

700

(2192)

110

(16.0)

87

(12.f>>

93 (13.5)

89 (12.9)

750

(13:52)

62 ( 9 . U )

60 (5.7)

600

(1112)

167

(24.2)

650

(1202)

103

(15.7)

700

(1292)

750

(1382)

600

57 ( 6 . 3 )

74.5(in.Si

S2.5 (12.0)

112 U h . 2 )

54 ( 7 . 8 )

75 (10.9)

SKIM Data - l u " h

135 (19.6)

128 (18.6)

170 (24.6)

13a (20.0)

132 (19.1)

34.5 U 2 . 2 )

30 (11.b)

109 (15.8)

59 (12.9)

85 (12.3)

69 (10.0)

52.5(7.6)

49.5 ( 7 . 2 )

70 (10.2)

57 (8.3)

54.5(7.9)

43.5(^.3)

32 ( 4 . 6 )

29.5(4.3)

45 ( b . 5 )

36.5 (5.3)

35 (5.L)

KKIM Iiatu - lo'

600

(1U2)

650
700

(1202)
(1292.)

750

(1382)

110

(lb.O)

86 (12.5)

bl.5(11.S)

111 (16.1)

88 (12.8)

83.5(12.1)

66.5 C>.6)
40 (5.8)

50.5 ( 7 . 3 )
29 ( 4 . 2 )

47.5(6.9)
27 ( 3 . 9 )

67.5(9.8)

53.5(7.8)

5O.a(7.4)

41 ( 5 . 9 )

32.5(4.7)

31 (4.5)

23 ( 3 . 3 )

15.5(2.2)

14 ( 2 . 0 )

25 ( 3 . 6 )

20 (2.9)

19 (2.8)

SEE = standard error or estimate

in

UTHS

of

lo tr

from heat-center t'ti regression f i t s

SHE standard error of estir-ite in t e r m s of lot! a from strength trpnd rurvp F i r .

t o data.

MPC 321IISS

91E

Hf at3

MPC 3d niv-s

Heats

"

9LE

91A

91A

91D

91D

<"

*t
a.

41
26
31C

ib~c
M

2G

21C
213

*
*

219

x:

V
*

O.I]

5?
A

fe

V.

C
L,

V.

--*
*

5'i

*'

~~~~~~

300
300

00

000

Heata

NRIM 321SS

450

0d

Temperature (*C)

Temperature ("C)

ACA
ACB
ACC
ACC
ACH
ACJ
ACL
ACM
ACN

Heats

NRIM 321SS

D
O

ACA
ACB
ACC
ACC
ACH
ACJ
ACL
ACM

o
4"
D
E)
B

AC.N

c
*_5

^ * *

m
<
coo
Temperature (*C)

* * a

300

00

SOO

Temperature (*C)

Fig. 1. Comparison of Data with Predictions from Ratio Technique.

Solid lines represent predicted average; dashed lines are keyed to room
temperature specification minima.

O
0
7
*
t*
&

HP.1t 3

MFC 3:HISS

t9

MFC 321HSS

I.

DIE
9!A

H'F

41

V
*

ZIC

im

oA

41

25
SIC

HI

a
\

fa
in

m
uo
ra
Temperature ('C)

ffl

mi

fleats

NRIM 321SS

ACA
ACB
ACC
ACG
ACIt
ACJ
ACL
ACM
ACN

NRIM 321S3

LJ

o
g.
FB

or
C

fr 2

.
T.

-^

;: " S

SJ
j;

f ,

if
3r---.j^

o
_

*'

S fiT G

LJ

I I|
i: 5

fc

fa
P
3U0

730

Temperature (*C)

600

Tcrr.pnrature (*C)

Temperature (*C)

Fig. 2. Comparison of Data with Predictions from Heat-Centered

Regression. Solid lines represent predicted average; dashed lines are
keyed to room temperature specification minima.

Feats
u

ACA

ACB

ACC
ACC
ACH
ACJ
ACL
ACM
ACN

fl
O
"
<
&

Heat a

32HISS

MPC

OtK
91A

Cl

41
26
2IC
2tB

MFC 321HSS

o
o

a
o

91L
0!D

^j

0
7

2S

-_

gi.

' '=

* . .*,

i*

o
v

-.

~~~&-
" " * - .

o o

i" e"~

*
IT.
*...'*

"5

fa
300

13CJ

GOO

"a

Temperature (*C)

(*C)

AC A.
ACB
ACC
ACG
ACH
ACJ
ACL
ACM
ACN

Heats

NRIM 321SS

Henta
D

NRIM 321SS

O
A
C-

ACA
ACB
ACC
ACC
ACH
ACJ
ACL
ACM

D
O

AOT

V
<.
&

-1

ilva

i|_ I

fi
3b.
fa-

300

OG

eoo

Tempei-attLre ("C)

Temperature ("C)

Fig. 3. Comparison of Data with Predictions from Heat-Centered

Regression. Solid lines represent predicted average; dashed lines
represent minimum predictions based on average minus two total standard
errors in log strength.

eoo

MPC 3211ISS
Heat
41

Q.Ta .
t

Mr

e
a:

12'
130

300

isa

roa

7S0

*so

900

coo

Temperature ("C)

Temperature (*C)

NRIM 321SS
Heat ACA

NRIM 321SS
Heat ACA

750

900

.730

900

a,

-.Brrrr

B--

'

GOO

T-mporature ("C)

730

9O0

150

300

Temperature ("C)

Fig. 4. Comparison of Data with Predictions for Individual Heatr

from Heat-Centered Regression. Solid lines represent predicted average;
dashed lines represent average minus two within-heat standard errors.

MPC 321HS5
Heat
41
IB

a.
C
a

u
* -

en

c
o
E-

t l 150

300

AX

600

750

900

130

Temperature (*C)

300

*50

600

Temperature ("C)

NRIM 321SS
Heat ACA

NRIM 321SS
Heat ACA
a.
S

si

"^^

&

n n

+* '

O D D

"to-

-fa
'

130

300

450

600

730

Temperature (*C)

900

130

Temperature ("C)

Fig. 5.
Comparison of Data with Predictions for Individual Heats
from the Ratio Technique.

730

900

MFC 321HSS

n
a,
a.

Heats
50
23A
91A
108

10*

101
10*
Rupture Life (Hr)

10'

10*

ID"

101
10*
Rupture Life (Hr)

MPC 321HSS
649C

MPC 321IISS
Heat 41

o_

r. 2"

en
U

LEGEND
c =~566.C
732.C

101

-ii

10*

10s
R u p t u r e Life (Hr)

10*

10'

10"

ii i i 11 ii|

riii

icr

io

io'

Rupture Life (HR)

F i g . 6. Comparison of Stress-Rupture Data from UPC w i t h P r e d i c t i o n s

from Heat-Centered Regression, Showing I n d i v i d u a l Heat and Multiple Heat
P r e d i c t i o n s . Solid l i n e s r e p r e s e n t p r e d i c t e d average; dashed l i n e s
r e p r e s e n t average minus two w i t h i n - h e a t ( a - c ) or t o t a l (d) standard
errors.

1iii

- "

""!

NRIM 321SS

NRIM 321SS

Heat ACA

Heat ACC

7;

o.L

LEGEND
o = 600 C
^ = 650.C
+ =700C
> = 750 C

LEGEND
o = 600.C
a 650.C
+ <= 700.C
x -- 750.C

10'

10*

101
R u p t u r e Life (Hr)

10*

10*

10

10J
R u p t u r e Life (Hr)

10*

NRIM 321SS
NRIM 321SS

Heat ACH

Heat ACN
-. a
**.

OJ

". 1

<n
&>
*-
V.

- ~-- _-i. -4. '"

--T
^
* -
x
"--. ^

LEGEND
o = 600.C
fi = 650.C
+ = 700.C
* = 750.C
10

LEGEND
J - GOO.C
t =- 650.C
* =* 700.C
- - 750 C

10

10s
R u p t u r e Life (Hr)

10*

10 s

10"

10e

10'
R u p t u r e Lifp (Hr)

Fig. 7. Comparison of Stress-Rupture Data from NRIM with Predictions

from Heat-Centered Regression for Individual Heats. Solid lines represent
predicted average; dashed lines represent average minus two within-heat
standard errors.

10'

10

101

o'

ioa

i.o4

LO3

102
103
10*
Rupture Life (HR)

Rapture Life

10'

NRIM 321SS
7D0C
ri

o
CT.

1Q3

10*

R u p t u r e Life (HR)

103

; t : , 11

I ! I i M i |

' 1 I " I I I 1111

1Q2
10 3
10*
Rupture Life (HR)

Fig. 8. Comparison of Stress-Rupture Data from NRIM with Predictions

from Heat-Centered Regression for Multiple Heats. Solid lines represent
predicted average; dashed lines represent average minus two total standard
errors.

'I'l

10

/..

rig. 9.
i . -

H I ,

l'J

.......,-.,,,

i ; , - . ,-..,

t
....It

t*'

- - I I

' I " ' t *! '

* * J*(*>',

-**

\
\

I
soo

L'urr.-nc Anjlyr*^-. anil lfoa

I D , [ | I 111 - >S.', H . [ , r r n n - 4) .

aw

U___

[_