4 ms·
It does seem "stupid" to require testing of steel at one hundred degrees below zero when the steel is going to be used in a submarine. How will the steel ever e
by todd8 4y ago
It does seem "stupid" to require testing of steel at one hundred degrees below zero when the steel is going to be used in a submarine. How will the steel ever end up at a temperature of -100F?
I'm not a metallurgist, but I did take a class at MIT on the subject and worked in a metallurgy lab for a couple of summers. The temperature of steel has an effect on the nature of fractures that can occur. Ductile fractures start at a crack and the steel deforms as the crack widens. This is the way most everyday metals under everyday circumstances act. The deformation absorbs energy and dissipates the forces acting on the metal. If this occurred in a beam, it might be observed to be deformed before a catastrophic failure happens.
Brittle fracture is different. A crack forms and it travels rapidly like breaking glass. Such fractures travel through the metal at the speed of sound through the metal (over 2000 ft/sec for steel). Pipelines in Alaska can experience such fractures. Such a fracture could travel thousands of feet because at the point of fracture there is no pressure drop at all (since that drop in pressure would travel at the slower speed of sound though natural gas).
This is a concern in Alaska because a piece of steel can exhibit ductile fracture behavior at ordinary temperature but transition to brittle fracture at lower temperatures. This transition point depends on the steel composition and its history. The history of the steel includes heat and mechanical treatments during it's production, but also the stresses put on it during its use such as welding, shaping and forming, vibration, and even exposure to radiation (which will occur in some parts of a submarine since they contain nuclear reactors). I have no idea
how the steel was intended to be used, but conceivably there could be good reasons for the -100F requirement even if the steel was never going to come close to this temperature. (For example, I know nothing of the relationship of radiation embrittlement and the ductile-brittle fracture temperature transition.) So while the testing requirement sounds "stupid" it is perhaps even stupider to ignore it.
- albrewer 4y agoBackground: I worked in the pressure vessel manufacturing industry as a design engineer and have pretty deep experience with designing around brittle fracture. 1) Just because the testing requirements say -100 °F but the temperatures will "never" get there is false. 2) There is a direct correlation between fracture toughness at various temperatures and impact testing, but testing may need to be at a different temperature than operation conditions to successfully validate the material. Regarding 1, rapid release of a compressed gas can reach cryogenic temperatures shockingly fast, even if the surrounding environment will never reach those temperatures. This principle is widely used[0] and the correct conditions can occur in everyday situations. For example, vessels meant for operation on the Texas coast are routinely designed to withstand -20°F temperatures despite the fact that the lowest temperature ever recorded in the area is 10°F. Regarding 2, there has been nearly a century of intense research into fracture toughness and how it correlates with low temperatures. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and American Petroleum Institute (API) have published gobs of (paywalled) articles about correlating minimum design metal temperatures and fracture toughness, although here's[1] an older U.S. DOD document from 1981 outlining their findings in guns, specifically. [0]: https://www.nexflow.com/blog/vortex-tubes-use-compressed-air-generate-cold-hot-air-simultaneously/ https://www.nexflow.com/blog/vortex-tubes-use-compressed-air... [1]: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA099736 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA099736