Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
ASME STP-PT-028-2009 — Impact Testing Exemption Curves for Low Temperature Operation of Pressure Piping
🧊 ASME STP-PT-028-2009 is a Pressure Technology research report prepared by Martin Prager of the Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC) under project 07-04 (B31#2). Pressure piping operating at low temperature must be protected against brittle fracture. The impact-test exemption curves of ASME Section VIII, UCS-66, were originally developed for pressure vessels. This report applies a fracture-mechanics (FAD, Failure Assessment Diagram) approach to extend the exemption curves to thicknesses representative of piping components, deriving Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact test requirements and minimum design metal temperature (MDMT) reduction curves for low-temperature pressure piping, including corrections for thin-wall piping whose wall is thinner than the standard Charpy specimen width.
💡 Core idea: instead of hard-coding a temperature/thickness threshold for impact testing, first back-calculate the required material fracture toughness with FAD fracture mechanics, then convert toughness requirements into CVN impact energy requirements — producing scientifically consistent exemption curves.
1. Background and Objectives 📌
The report notes:
- The ASME Section VIII UCS-66 exemption curves cover material groups (A/B/C/D, etc.) but were mainly developed for vessel thickness ranges; piping — especially thin-wall piping — needs exemption criteria at lower temperatures and thinner walls.
- Materials produced by modern means may deserve more credit for toughness, possibly being reassigned to different traditional curves or to new curves.
- Where impact toughness data exist, the mean temperature in the transition region can be estimated and new exemption curves developed.
2. FAD-Based Fracture Mechanics Approach 🔧
| Element | Content | Engineering Significance |
|---|---|---|
| FAD (Figure 6) | Assessment diagram combining fracture ratio and load ratio | Unifies linear-elastic and elastic-plastic fracture treatment |
| Reference flaw size | Assumed initial flaw size (related to NDE capability) | Input for the required toughness level |
| Required material fracture toughness | Toughness back-calculated by FAD for specified load/flaw | Converts a structural assessment into a material acceptance requirement |
| Hyperbolic tangent toughness curve | Describes toughness transition versus temperature (Figure 2) | Converts toughness requirements into a minimum service temperature |
⚠️ The report notes that loading rate significantly affects the Charpy energy needed: Figure 5, for a material with 38 ksi specified minimum yield strength, shows that the CVN energy needed to meet the same toughness requirement rises with loading rate from static (1E-05/sec) to impact (1E+01/sec). The dynamic toughness curve is conservatively calibrated for impact loading rates.
3. Derivation of Charpy V-Notch Requirements 🧪
Chapter 5 systematically derives the CVN requirements:
- Lower shelf: a uniform lower-shelf energy basis is set (e.g., the 20 ft-lb minimum example in Figure 8).
- Upper shelf: determined by upper-shelf toughness satisfying the fracture requirement.
- Transition region: described with a modified hyperbolic tangent equation normalized to a relative temperature T₀ (Figure 7); CVN energy is back-read from the toughness requirement.
- Thin-wall piping curves: exemption curves are adjusted by thickness for pipe walls thinner than the standard Charpy specimen (Figure 9, Section VIII Division 2 example without PWHT).
- MDMT reduction curves: permit lowering the minimum design metal temperature without impact testing when CVN energy requirements are met (Figure 15 gives temperature-reduction plots for various yield strengths).
Figures 10–14 give exemption-curve families for material types A/B/C/D at various yield strengths; Figure 16 compares fracture-toughness expectations calculated from the Charpy requirements of ASTM 333 steels for low-temperature service, validating the self-consistency of the method.
4. Engineering Practice Essentials 🛠️
- 🔍 Check exemption first: in design, first use the exemption curve for the material type to judge whether the temperature-thickness combination is exempt from impact testing, then decide whether Charpy verification is needed.
- 🔧 Material grouping: exemption curves are divided into types A/B/C/D; classify materials correctly by strength level and toughness characteristics (Figures 10–13) — misclassification overstates exemption capability.
- 📊 PWHT effects: post-weld heat treatment improves toughness; Figure 14 gives the exemption curve for type C after PWHT. The PWHT decision must match the fabrication procedure.
- 📋 Data-driven curves: with actual impact data (mean transition temperature), a more favorable alloy-specific exemption curve can be built; the report gives the steps.
🚨 The most dangerous engineering error for low-temperature piping is interpreting “exempt from impact testing” as “no need to consider toughness.” Exemption curves assume the fracture-mechanics premise of a reference flaw plus specified toughness; in the presence of out-of-spec flaws, weld repairs, severe stress concentration, or low-toughness weld microstructures, the exemption does not hold and CVN testing (and fracture-mechanics evaluation when needed) per the code is mandatory.
5. Frequently Asked Questions ❓
❓ Q: What is an impact test exemption curve?
A: A code-defined “minimum design metal temperature vs. wall thickness” curve; material combinations falling within the covered region are exempt from Charpy impact testing because their fracture-toughness margin is deemed sufficient.
A: A code-defined “minimum design metal temperature vs. wall thickness” curve; material combinations falling within the covered region are exempt from Charpy impact testing because their fracture-toughness margin is deemed sufficient.
❓ Q: How does this report relate to the UCS-66 curves?
A: UCS-66 curves address pressure vessels; the report applies the same fracture-mechanics derivation consistently and extends it to piping thicknesses, especially thin walls below 0.39 in., for the B31 piping codes.
A: UCS-66 curves address pressure vessels; the report applies the same fracture-mechanics derivation consistently and extends it to piping thicknesses, especially thin walls below 0.39 in., for the B31 piping codes.
❓ Q: Can modern materials earn more “toughness credit”?
A: Yes. Modern steelmaking generally gives better toughness; with impact data the mean transition temperature can be re-estimated and new curves built (or materials reassigned among A/B/C/D), expanding the exemption range — but data must support it.
A: Yes. Modern steelmaking generally gives better toughness; with impact data the mean transition temperature can be re-estimated and new curves built (or materials reassigned among A/B/C/D), expanding the exemption range — but data must support it.
🔍 Q: What is the MDMT reduction about?
A: When measured CVN energy exceeds the exemption-curve requirement, the temperature-reduction curves (Figure 15) allow the permitted minimum design metal temperature to be lowered below the specification test temperature — i.e., no impact testing is needed at even lower temperatures, provided the specified energy margin is met.
A: When measured CVN energy exceeds the exemption-curve requirement, the temperature-reduction curves (Figure 15) allow the permitted minimum design metal temperature to be lowered below the specification test temperature — i.e., no impact testing is needed at even lower temperatures, provided the specified energy margin is met.
