Proceedings of the ASME 2022

Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

PVP2022
July 17-22, 2022, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

PVP2022-XXXXX

DEMYSTIFYING THE 1.1 FACTOR FOR TENSILE STRENGTH ABOVE ROOM

TEMPERATURE IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOILER CODE STRESS TABLES

Weiju Ren

Materials Science and Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA

ABSTRACT YS Yield Strength

As the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code continues to gain UTS Ultimate Tensile Strength or Tensile Strength
popularity worldwide, it is not uncommon that many users are
mystified by the 1.1 factor used to establish the ultimate tensile 1. INTRODUCTION
strength above room temperature in developing the related The Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) was initially
design stresses of Section II Part D Stress Tables. Questions created in response to public outcry after several boiler
often arise about the origin and purpose of the factor, the reason explosions in the state of Massachusetts that killed and injured
for it not being applied to the yield strength, its due hundreds of people in the early 1900s [1, 2]. Since its first
considerations regarding the tested tensile strength value of an edition, a simple 114-page document entitled “ASME Boiler
alloy batch when accepting the batch for construction use, and Code - Rules for the Construction of Stationary Boilers and for
more. Not having historic background or reliable sources for the Allowable Working Pressures” published in 1914, the BPVC
explicit explanations, some users tend to misinterpret the factor, has gone through continued development in content with
abuse its application, incorrectly define alloy acceptance or tremendous growth in volume over the past more than a century
qualification criteria, and mistakenly manipulate the safety of time [3]. Today, the BPVC 2021 edition consists of thirteen
margin in component design. sections covering a wide breadth of topics in pressure technology
To help the Code users who struggle with these frequent and that significantly impact vast domestic and international
confusing issues, particularly those in the nuclear industry businesses including, but not limited to, the fossil energy, nuclear
where rigorous criteria are required for component design and energy, and petrochemical industries. Currently the BPVC is
alloy acceptance or qualification, this paper is intended to adopted, in part or in its entirety, by all fifty states of the United
demystify the 1.1 factor and facilitate knowledgeable States, all the provinces of Canada, and over a hundred other
interpretation and use of the Section II Part D Stress Tables as countries and regions worldwide.
well as relevant Mandatory Appendices. The initial approach of the BPVC to ensuring safety of
A brief review is first given on the background of the 1.1 boilers was through determination of the Maximum Allowable
factor, followed by a summary of its application in the Stress Working Pressure (MAWP) based on the minimum tensile
Tables. The provenance and purpose of the factor are then strength of the structural steels, specifically by the following
discussed in detail with graphic examples. Finally, current equation [4]:
applicability and necessity of the factor are considered through
a demonstration using example alloys.
Keywords: ultimate tensile strength, 1.1 factor, trend curve. 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 =
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇×𝑡𝑡×𝐸𝐸
(1)
𝑅𝑅×𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
NOMENCLATURE where
II-D BPVC Section II Part D TS = minimum tensile strength of the shell plate
BPVC Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code t = thickness of the plate
FS Factor of Safety R = inside radius of the boiler cylinder
MAWP Maximum Allowable Working Pressure E = nondimensional efficiency factor
RT Room Temperature FS = factor of safety 1

1
The term “Design Factor” is nowadays preferred to “Factor of Safety.”

1
 Despite tremendous development and growth throughout its understanding of the topic and have confidence when dealing
history, the BPVC has essentially maintained this approach, and with relevant issues. First, the required application of the 1.1
the TS/FS stress as shown in Equation (1) has evolved into factor in BPVC is briefly reviewed. The origin of the factor is
various design stresses including the Maximum Allowable Stress then explored with a little “detective reasoning” based on
and the Design Stress Intensity with material-specific values historical accounts provided by a few prominent BPVC
listed in 6 sets of Stress Tables in Section II Part D (II-D). In the developers. To facilitate discussion, historical data are employed
time-independent temperature regime, these design stresses are to conduct a series of graphic demonstrations and analyses. With
derived from the tensile strength, a.k.a., ultimate tensile strength a good understanding of the factor’s provenance and purpose, the
(UTS) and the Yield Strength (YS). It follows that UTS and YS current method for determining design stresses using the trend
explicitly and implicitly dominate the considerations for curve ratio and effect of the factor on the determination process
component design throughout the BPVC where time- are reviewed. Finally, continued necessity of the factor is briefly
independent behavior of a structural system is concerned. The discussed.
II-D appendices stipulate that the UTS above room temperature,
a.k.a., UTS at temperature, that are used for establishing the 2. APPLICATION OF THE 1.1 FACTOR
design stresses is considered to be 1.1 x the tensile strength at To establish design stresses from alloy time-independent
temperature as determined by the trend curve method (see properties, II-D provides the “design-use UTS and YS” in the
subsequent sections). This 1.1 factor, however, is not applied for notations of Su in Table U and Sy in Table Y-1, respectively.
the YS at temperature that are used for establishing the design These Su and Sy values tabulated over the temperature range of
stresses. interest are the UTS and YS values the Code Committees
To avoid confusion, the UTS and YS that are used for believes to be suitable for use in design calculations [5].
establishing the design stresses will be called “design-use UTS However, in II-D appendices for establishing design
and YS,” the UTS and YS determined by the trend curve method stresses, the Su and Sy are not called out but simply referred to as
will be named “trend-curve UTS and YS,” and the UTS and YS “tensile strength” and “yield strength” expressed in terms
generated from laboratory testing will be dubbed “lab-test UTS containing the notations of ST, RT, SY and RY (see definitions
and YS” wherever distinguishing is needed in the present later), and it is stated that the tensile strength at temperature is
discussion. considered to be 1.1 x the tensile strength at temperature
The influential ubiquity of UTS and YS inevitably engages determined by the trend curve method. This often begs
extensive attention of the BPVC users as well as the developers, questions: Do the tabulated values of Su and Sy represent the
and meanwhile often bewilders many by inescapable questions “tensile strength” and “yield strength” referred to in II-D
associated with the 1.1 factor for the UTS. Why does the appendices? Is the 1.1 factor included in the tabulated values of
“design-use UTS” at temperature include the 1.1 factor to induce Su at temperature? The answer to both questions is yes. The
a 10% increase while being decreased to 1/3 ~ 1/5 by a FS to “tensile strength” and “yield strength” discussed in II-D
establish the design stresses in the Stress Tables? Why is the 1.1 appendices are Su in Table U (the “design-use UTS”) and YS in
factor applied for the tensile strength but not for the yield Table Y-1 (the “design-use YS”), respectively. The 1.1 factor is
strength? Where did the 1.1 factor come from? What are the included in the tabulated Su values at temperature.
relationships among the “lab-test UTS and YS,” the 1.1 factor, For component construction, the design stresses including
and the “design-use UTS and YS”? How should one treat the 1.1 the Maximum Allowable Stress and the Design Stress Intensity
factor in the “design-use UTS” when evaluating the “lab-test values are provided in 6 sets of the II-D Stress Tables. Five sets
UTS” values generated from a given batch of an alloy for of these Stress Tables (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) utilize the 1.1 factor,
acceptance or qualification of the alloy batch? as stipulated in Mandatory Appendices 1, 2 and 6. The set of
Without knowledge of the historic background and explicit Tables 5A and 5B do not involve UTS at temperature and hence
explanations, some users tend to misinterpret the 1.1 factor, do not employ the 1.1 factor, as specified in Mandatory
abuse its application, incorrectly define their alloy acceptance or Appendix 10.
qualification criteria, and mistakenly manipulate the safety For the Stress Tables utilizing the 1.1 factor, the UTS
margin in structural component design. Such confusion can also tabulation of Su values (the “design-use UTS”) is established by
shake users’ confidence in engineering development where use a) the Specified Minimum Tensile Strength at Room
of the BPVC is concerned. Some users seek consultation with Temperature, ST, for values at and below room
their BPVC developer acquaintances but often receive a variety temperature (RT), and
of explanations offered with uncertainties. This is not surprising, b) the UTS at temperature, RTST (the “trend-curve UTS”),
given the breadth of the BPVC today, and given that most multiplied by the 1.1 factor for values above RT,
developers typically can only afford acquiring their knowledge where RT is the tensile strength trend curve ratio, which will be
on limited Code Sections closely relevant to their employment. explained later in Section 4 of this paper, and RTST represents the
Instigated by constant inquiries from confused users, the UTS at temperature derived from a trend curve ratio adjusted to
present paper is intended to provide a public document that the Specified Minimum Tensile Strength at Room Temperature.
demystifies the 1.1 factor and discusses some closely related In effect per the adjustment, RT = 1.0 at RT, so RTST (the “trend-
issues so that those who need help can develop a good curve UTS”) at and below RT reduces to ST. With the 1.1 factor,

2
the 1.1∙RTST above RT reflects a 10% add-on to the “trend-curve privilege knowledgebase supporting the development of ASME
UTS.” In other words, to establish the UTS tabulation (the Codes and Standards [7 - 9]. According to their accounts, it is
“design-use UTS”), Su comprising the 1.1 factor must be used understood that the 1.1 factor originated from an early day
above room temperature (T > RT) while Su without the 1.1 factor discovery in the process of determining the stress for MAWP
is used at and below room temperature (T ≤ RT). 2 (hereafter, the design stresses, for consistency and convenience
It is worth noting that a user attempting to calculate the in discussion) of carbon steels and low alloy steels that were
design stress using the tabulated Su and Sy values may find the popularly used for construction of boilers and pressure vessels
results to be not in precise agreement with the corresponding before the mid 1940’s.
design stress in II-D Stress Tables, because the Su and Sy To facilitate understanding of the events, data from 4 early
tabulations present rounded values, whereas the Stress Table day steels are extracted from Reference [10] for demonstration.
values are, at least for the Customary values (most Metric Chemical compositions of these steels are presented in Table 2.
tabulations are from metrication of the Customary values),
computed from Su and Sy values before rounding. TABLE 2: COMPOSITIONS (WT.%) OF FOUR STEELS USED
A summary of the 1.1 factor application in II-D Mandatory MORE THAN 100 YEARS AGO [10]
Appendices 1, 2, and 6 for developing the 5 sets of Stress Tables Steel C Mn P S Si Ni Cr V
is provided in Table 1. A 0.38 0.56 0.014 0.013 0.14 - - -
B 0.37 0.67 0.021 0.010 0.20 3.43 - -
TABLE 1: A SUMMARY OF CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING C 0.39 0.59 0.019 0.009 0.23 3.05 0.93 -
BPVC STRESS TABLES INVOLVING THE 1.1 FACTOR D 0.37 0.74 0.020 0.023 0.21 - 1.04 0.17
Stress Design Stress from Su Alloy
Table T ≤ RT T > RT Condition In order to establish the design stresses in those early days,
Wrought or cast steels were tested only for UTS at room temperature and the
1A intended service temperature, which was mostly in the range of
ST/3.5 1.1∙RTST/3.5 (Welded pipe or
1B 260 to 425°C (500 to 800°F). Thus, if these 4 steels were
tube x 0.85)
Wrought or cast considered for an intended operation at 407°C (765°F), their
2A tensile test results would be generated as shown in Figures 1 and
ST/3 1.1∙RTST/3 (Welded pipe or
2B 2, in which the data points are named by their respective steel
tube x 0.85)
3 ST/4 1.1∙RTST/4 Bolting, annealed followed by testing temperature in Celsius to facilitate
Bolting, strength discussion. The respective design stress was then determined
3 ST/5 1.1∙RTST/4 based on the tensile test data at the intended service temperature,
enhanced
i.e., A407, B407, C407, and D407. From the decreasing
Bolting, not strength
4 ST/4 1.1∙RTST/4 tendency in strength with increasing temperature exhibited by
enhanced
such data, as indicated by the dashed line, a rule of monotonic
Wrought or cast
decreasing behavior of design stresses was established, by which
6A ST/5 1.1∙RTST/5 (Welded pipe or
the design stress at a higher temperature cannot exceed that at a
tube x 0.85)
lower temperature.
Bolting, wrought
6A ST/4 1.1∙RTST/4 Despite considerable efforts in garnering historical
ferrous
information, certain ambiguity still exists. For example, when
Wrought or cast
Steel A was considered for another application requiring service
6B ST/5 1.1∙RTST/5 (Welded pipe or
temperature at 200°C (392°F), how its design stress was
tube x 0.85)
determined without testing for new data is unclear. As shown in
Bolting, wrought Figure 3, one possibility is that the strength of A407 was adopted,
6B ST/4 1.1∙RTST/4
ferrous which means the designer would consider the tensile strength
Wrought or cast stayed essentially constant between RT and the expected service
6C
ST/4 1.1∙RTST/4 (Welded pipe or temperature. However, this is obviously against the instinct of
6D
tube x 0.85) engineers to leverage available strength of the steel for an
effective design. Furthermore, such practice contradicts the
3. ORIGIN OF THE 1.1 FACTOR Code Committees’ acknowledgement of monotonic decreasing
The origin of the 1.1 factor is discussed in this section by behavior of design stresses. Another possibility is that the
certain “detective reasoning” based on a conversation with R. W. strength value of A200 was derived from a decreasing tendency
Swindeman and the historical accounts garnered and line (shown as linear here for illustration) and used as the design
summarized by J. Grubb et al. in a short article [6] now archived stress. Although both scenarios are possible, the author inclines
in the ASME Materials Properties Database, a user access

2
In Section VIII Part ULT-23 there are increased strengths below RT but
these are not related to the 1.1 factor. Per the Code tabulations, RT represents
temperatures up to and including 100°F in Customary and 40°C in Metric units.

3
to the latter for its pragmatism and technical defensibility. The surprise, as a strength valley (data points A92, B155, C155, and
following discussion will be based on this scenario. D241), and then a strength peak (data points A293, B293, C241,
and D293) were observed in each steel prior to the then
o
F commonly expected monotonic decrease. As we now know, the
200 400 600 800 1000 peak strength can be attributed to dynamic strain aging of carbon
800 steels and low alloy steels. With certain combinations of high
BRT
110 temperature and strain rate, the solute atoms in the tensile
specimen of these steels are able to diffuse at a rate (mainly
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

700 100
temperature dependent) faster than the speed of the dislocations
ART 90 (mainly strain rate dependent) so as to catch and lock the
600 B407
dislocations, resulting in an increase in strength [11].
80
o
A407 F

ksi
500
70
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
650
Steel A 60
400
Steel B 90
50

Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

300 600
Steel AB UTS Pt 40 ART 85
20220108
ORNL/W. Ren

200 30 80
550 A200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ksi
Temperature, C
o 75
500
FIGURE 1: THE TENSILE STRENGTH TEST DATA AND A407 A407
70
TENDENCY LINE OF STEELS A AND B TESTED FOR INTENDED
SERVICE TEMPERATURE AT 407°C (765°F).
450 65
Steel AB UTS Pt
o 20220404
F ORNL/W. Ren 60
200 400 600 800 1000 400
0 100 200 300 400

CRT 180 Temperature, C

o
1200
FIGURE 3: TWO POSSIBLE DESIGN STRESSES OF STEEL A
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

160
FOR A SERVICE APPLICATION AT 200°C (392°F) WITHOUT
DRT
1000
TESTING FOR NEW DATA
C407
140
o
F
ksi

D407 120
800 200 400 600 800 1000
800
100 B293
Steel C B241 110
BRT
600 Steel D B92
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

700 B155
100
80 A293
Steel CD UTS Pt A241
20220108
ORNL/W. Ren ART A155 90
600 B407
400 60 A92
80
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
ksi

500
Temperature, C
o 70
B463
A407
FIGURE 2: THE TENSILE STRENGTH TEST DATA AND Steel A 60
400
TENDENCY LINE OF STEELS C AND D TESTED FOR INTENDED Steel B A463
SERVICE TEMPERATURE AT 407°C (765°F). 50
A550
300
Steel AB UTS 40
As more and more applications at different service 20211221
ORNL/W. Ren B550
temperatures were developed, tests were conducted not only at 200 30
the intended service temperature but also at the intermediate and 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
higher temperatures. As a result, the undulation of the tensile o
strength above room temperature began to emerge, as shown in Temperature, C
Figures 4 and 5. Understandably, this revelation presented a FIGURE 4: TENSILE STRENGTH AS A FUNCTION OF
TEMPERATURE OF STEELS A AND B.

4
 o
F
Tendency” line shows the problem the Committees were faced
with. While the design stress derived from the “Prior-Discovery
200 400 600 800 1000
Tendency” line was already in use, the “After-Discovery
CRT C92 C155
C241
180 Tendency” line suggested that it should be lowered to catch the
C293
1200 valley strength A92. Meanwhile there were higher strengths
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

160 available beyond A92 through A155 to the peak of A293. The
DRT D155 D293
“1.1 Factored Tendency” curve represents the strength as a
1000 D92
D241
140
function of temperature developed with the 1.1 factor as the
C407
solution of the Committees to avoid lowering the design stress
already in use to result in excessive conservatism. The “1.1

ksi
120
800 Factored Allowable” curve represents the design stress
C463
Steel C D407 established with the 1.1/5 factor after the discovery. Obviously,
100
Steel D D463 with the 1.1 factor, sufficient safety margin, symbolically shown
D550
600 as the distance between the “Test Data” curve and the “1.1
80
Steel CD UTS Factored Allowable” curve, was still well maintained.
20211221
ORNL/W. Ren C550 o
F
400 60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 200 400 600 800 1000

o
Temperature, C 700
Steel A 1.1 Apply
100
A293 20220301
ORNL/W. Ren
FIGURE 5: TENSILE STRENGTH AS A FUNCTION OF A241

Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

ART A155
TEMPERATURE OF STEELS C AND D. 600
80
A92
As strength valleys that were deep enough to raise concerns 500
A407
were discovered in some steels, it brought forth a serious 60
problem. Because the rule of monotonic decreasing behavior of 400 Test Data

ksi
A463
design stresses was already in effect for all the steels then in use, Prior-Discovery Tendency
300 After-Discovery Tendency
the discovery would have required the lowering of all of the 40
1.1 Factored Tendency A550
design stresses for those steels. Members of the Code
200 1.1 Factored Allowable
Committees viewed such a change as being excessively
20
conservative. At that time, the design stresses at intended service 100
temperatures were all controlled by a FS of 5 on tensile strength.
To avoid the necessity of reducing the design stresses in the 260 0 0
to 425°C (500 to 800°F) range, the Committees decided that the 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
factor would be changed to 1.1/5, and they called this value o
Temperature, C
“tensile strength at temperature” in the criteria documents, but
never stated the 1.1 factor explicitly. It wasn’t until documents FIGURE 6: DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STRESSES FROM
such as Appendix 1 of II-D were published more recently, that STEEL A TENSILE TEST DATA WITH APPLICATION OF THE 1.1
the 1.1 factor was stated for all to see, but the history of its FACTOR.
inception was never explained [6].
To observe the effect of the 1.1 factor, tensile data of Steel To provide a good understanding of the result from
A are employed to reproduce the situation. Because the garnered introduction of the 1.1 factor, a comparison of the following 3
historical information only indicates that the “tensile strength at design stress curves is presented in Figure 7.
temperature” was calculated by applying the 1.1 factor to the a) 1.1 Factored Allowable - design stress derived with the 1.1
tensile stress above room temperature without more details, it is factor
unclear how the factor was applied when there was more than b) Prior-Discovery Tendency Allowable - design stress
one test datum at a given temperature. For illustration to already in use before the discovery
facilitate discussion, the arithmetic mean value for data at each c) After-Discovery Tendency Allowable - design stress that
temperature is used for drawing the strength-temperature curve. would have been resulted with A92 after the discovery
Based on the discussion above, Figure 6 is created to It is clear from the figure that introduction of the 1.1 factor
demonstrate the result of the 1.1 factor application. In this figure, would indeed avoid the lowering of all of the design stresses for
Steel A test data remain the same as shown in Figure 4. The those steels then already in use, which was the matter of
“Prior-Discovery Tendency” line is the same Steel A line in importance for the Code Committees at the time. Furthermore,
Figure 1, representing the basis for design stress of Steel A that as observable in Figure 6, the factor also enabled leveraging the
was already in use before the discovery of the tensile strength higher strength in the uphill range towards the peak (A155 ~
valley and peak. In comparison, the “After-Discovery A293). As a pragmatic solution, the introduction of the 1.1 factor
was a success.

5
 o
F
monotonic decreasing rule be established? Without any
historical records found, the following two hypotheses are
200 400 600 800 1000
considered reasonable. First, because at that time tensile testes
140
Steel A Allowable
20 were only conducted at room temperature and the intended
20220107
ORNL/W. Ren service temperature, the chances for the intended service
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

18 temperature coincided with the temperatures at which the tensile

120
strength was higher than that at room temperature were limited.
16 Secondly, even if there was a coincidence, the higher values
could well be regarded as normal data scatter, providing little
100
14 incentive to look further particularly when the deviation would

ksi
not raise a safety concern after applying the FS of 5 for design
12
stress determination. In practice, the monotonic decreasing
80 mindset allowed designers to only need to do their calculations
1.1 Factored Allowable
at the design conditions and all lower temperatures would
Prior-Discovery Tendency Allowable 10
automatically be safe.
After-Discovery Tendency Allowable
60 o
F
8
200 400 600 800 1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Hyper 1.1 Demo
o 700 20220107 100
Temperature, C ORNL/W. Ren

Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

FIGURE 7: COMPARISION OF DESIGN STRESSES FOR STEEL 600
A DERIVED WITH AND WITHOUT THE 1.1 FACTOR 80
ADJUSTMENT. 500

As the BPVC continued to develop, the “1.1 Factored 400

60

ksi
Tendency” curve as shown in Figure 6 has evolved to 1.1∙RTST
Test Data
that is used nowadays for establishing tensile Maximum 300
40
Allowable Stress and tensile Design Stress Intensity values in 1.1 Applied
most of the II-D Stress Tables, as summarized in TABLE 1. 200
Because no explanation is given when 1.1∙RTST is listed in 1.1 Applied Monotonic 20
BPVC II-D Mandatory Appendices 1, 2, and 6, the “1.1 Factored 100

Tendency” curve as shown in Figure 6 often causes confusion.

0 0
Some wonder why such a curve cannot simply be achieved by
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
leveling all the tensile strength test values in the intermediate
temperatures to the strength at room temperature without the Temperature, C
o

need for the 1.1 factor. FIGURE 8: APPLICATION OF THE 1.1 FACTOR IN
Figure 8 is created to help clarify this confusion through DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STRESSES FOR STEEL A.
demonstrating the 1.1 factor application process using a set of
example tensile test data. In this figure, the data points are
similar to those of Steel A but are slightly lower in magnitude 4. CURRENT APPLICABILITY AND NECESSITY
above room temperature, particularly at the valley point. The The discovered significance of the valley and peak in tensile
“1.1 Applied” curve represents the result after applying the 1.1 strength above room temperature has necessitated more testing
factor to all the test data above room temperature. Because in to provide a full data coverage of the material behavior for design
this case the 1.1 x Valley Strength is lower than the strength at stress determination. It follows that the data processing
room temperature, to comply with the monotonic decreasing technique has also been advanced accordingly. Then the
rule, all following “1.1 Applied” strengths higher than the following questions become inevitable:
strength at room temperature are reduced to the 1.1 x Valley 1) What is the effect of the 1.1 factor on the current design
Strength instead of the level of the strength at room temperature. stress determination?
The resulting curve is designated as “1.1 Applied Monotonic” in 2) Is the 1.1 factor still necessary for design stress
Figure 8, whereas in Figure 6 the similar curve is named “1.1 determination?
Factored Tendency” that includes both the 1.1 factor The answers are sought in this section by going through the
multiplication and monotonic decreasing rule compliance. design stress determination process using the current data
With all the demystification discussions above, there is still analysis technique and example alloys.
one question remaining. When the steels actually had tensile To ensure a full data coverage from room temperature to the
strength in a range of temperatures higher than that at room intended service temperature, BVPC now requires that for steels,
temperature, as observed in Figures 4 and 5, how could the nickel alloys, cobalt alloys, and aluminum alloys, at least three

6
heats of the material must be tested at room temperature and with the 1.1 factor applied above room temperature, as
50°C intervals, beginning at 100°C to 50°C above the maximum represented by the Su = 1.1 x RTST curve (the “design-use UTS”)
intended use temperature, unless the maximum intended use in Figure 11.
temperature does not exceed 40°C; or at room temperature and o
F
100°F intervals, beginning at 200°F to 100°F above the
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
maximum intended use temperature, unless the maximum
1.2
intended use temperature does not exceed 100°F [5]. It should Demo UTS Normal

Normalized Ultimate Tensile Strength

be noted that in this requirement the counterpart temperatures in 20220103
ORNL/W. Ren

Celsius and Fahrenheit are not exact conversions but 1.0

approximations from rounding, in order to facilitate testing
temperature setting and data recording, without hampering the 0.8
data processing and analysis for design stress determination.
To process a large quantity of test data thus generated for
design stress determination, a trend curve method has since been 0.6
developed based on statistical treatment of the data. In this
review, a homogeneous set of test data on ultimate tensile 0.4 Heat 10148
strength (the “lab-test UTS) of three heats of 9Cr-1Mo-V steel, Heat 14361
as shown in Figure 9, is employed to facilitate discussion. Heat 30182
0.2
Obviously in the figure, the valley and peak in the strength- Trend Curve Ratio R
T
temperature curves of this steel happens to be barely discernable.
o
F 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
o
800 Temperature, C
3 Heats Demo
20220103
ORNL/W. Ren FIGURE 10: TREND CURVE RATIO DERIVED FROM THE
700 100
NORMALIZED TEST DATA OF THE ULTIMATE TENSILE
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

600
STRENGTH
80
500 o
F
60 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
ksi

400
800
Demo UTS Anchor
20220104
300
40 700
ORNL/W. Ren
100
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

Heat 10148
200
Heat 14361 600
20
Heat 30182 80
100
500
0 0
60

ksi
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 400

o Heat 10148
Temperature, C 300
Heat 14361 40
FIGURE 9: ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENTH DATA FROM Heat 30182
200
THREE HEATS OF 9Cr-1Mo-V STEEL S = 1.1 x R S
u T T 20
100 R S
To derive the representative tensile behavior of the steel, a T T

tensile trend curve ratio, RT, is developed from normalized 0 0

tensile test data, in which each test datum of a given heat above 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
room temperature is first divided by the arithmetic room Temperature, C
o

temperature mean strength of the heat (normalization), and then

the normalized data are curve fit to derive the trend curve ratio, FIGURE 11: TREND CURVE RATIO ADJUSTED TO THE
MINIMUM SPECIFIED ROOM TEMPERATURE TENSILE
as shown in Figure 10. It is noted that the normalized strength STRENGTH
at room temperature is constrained to be 1.0. Usually, 4th or 5th
order polynomial curves are found to best describe the behavior With sufficient data that are qualified by the Code
over the temperature range of interest. Committees, the process above would produce the tensile
The statistically representative tensile behavior of the steel strength value, Su, as tabulated in II-D Table U (the “design-use
is developed by anchoring the trend curve ratio, RT, to the UTS”) that the Code Committees believe to be suitable for use
Specified Minimum Tensile Strength at Room Temperature, ST, in structural component design calculations. From this process,

7
it should be understood that the Su value in Table U does not design stresses determined from time-dependent properties are
correspond to an average, or arithmetic mean, of the tensile considered for component design.
strength test data (the “lab-test UTS), since it is derived from a o
F
statistical treatment of the test data with an “anchor” to the
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Specified Minimum Tensile Strength at Room Temperature.
800
Furthermore, the Su value is not intended to be compared with
Heat 10148
tensile test data of a candidate alloy as a criterion for 700 Heat 14361 100

Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

accepting/rejecting the alloy for BPVC component construction Heat 30182
use [5]. Readers who need further clarification should consult 600
II-D Table U General Notes (b) for more details. For candidate 80

alloy considerations, Section II Parts A and B provide base 500

material specifications for BPVC component construction in 60

ksi
400
general, and Section III Division 5 stipulates permissible alloys 1.1 x R S / 3.5
T T
for nuclear facility component construction in particular. 300 R S / 3.5
T T
40
In addition to the advancement in data processing
techniques, changes in the design stress criteria have also taken 200
place over time. The FS has been varied from 5 (established in 20
the 1936-1937 Code), to 4 (in response to the “national 100 Demo UTS Allow
20220110
emergency” of WW II) in 1943, to 3.5 in Tables 1A and 1B, and ORNL/W. Ren
0
0
to 3 in Tables 2A and 2B [6]. And in the 2019 edition of BPVC, 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Stress Tables 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D representing Section IV o
content have been added for the first time, with FS values of 4 Temperature, C
and 5. Through all these advancements and changes, the 1.1 FIGURE 12: DESIGN STRESS DEMONSTRATION FOR STRESS
factor on tensile strength above room temperature has persisted. TABLES 1A AND 1B
Another advancement that must be mentioned is that design
stresses based on yield strength was later introduced in BPVC. It must be emphasized that the figures presented and stresses
However, because they came with the knowledge of the calculated above are all for illustration only. Determination of
continuous strength variation from room temperature to the the Maximum Allowable Stress and Design Stress Intensity from
intended service temperature, the issue of how to handle a large quantity of test data is a sophisticated process that
undulations in strength-temperature behavior as for the tensile requires extensive experience and sound technical judgement.
strength in the early days did not arise. Consequently the 1.1 For the sake of brevity in this paper, many details of that process
factor was neither needed nor invoked in the procedure for are not discussed. The Maximum Allowable Stress and Design
determination of SY (the “design-use YS”) in Table Y-1 and Stress Intensity values for BPVC component design and
related design stresses. It is noted that for pressure vessel construction use are only determined by the BPVC Committees
components of Section VIII Division 2, the Maximum Allowable and reviewed and approved through its rigorous and multiple
Stresses in Tables 5A and 5B are all controlled by yield strength levels balloting process.
and the room temperature tensile strength (not the tensile With the information and discussion above, particularly the
strength at temperature) and therefore the 1.1 factor does not design stresses for yield strength without the 1.1 factor, is the
exist in these two Stress Tables. factor still necessary for tensile strength today? To answer this
To review the effect of the 1.1 factor on current data question, we can consider what happens if the 1.1 factor is
processing, Figure 12 is created to demonstrate the tensile design removed in the design stress determination process. An
stress development for 9Cr-1Mo-V steel as for Stress Table 1A immediate effect that can be observed from Figure 12 is a gain
with a FS of 3.5. It can be noted in the figure that sufficient in conservatism as the 1.1 x RTST/3.5 curve lowers to the
safety margin is maintain after application of the 1.1 factor. It RTST/3.5 curve. However, the benefit from the factor in
should also be noted that by applying the FS, the safety margin, leveraging the higher strength in the uphill range towards the
symbolically represented by the distance between the 1.1 x peak (if exists), will be lost. Many steels popularly used
RTST/3.5 curve and the test data, is proportional to the Su = 1.1 x nowadays also exhibit this peaking feature, as shown by an
RTST magnitude and therefore becomes less conservative as example of 2.25Cr-1Mo in Figure 13 [12]. Furthermore,
temperature increases into the high temperature regime, which eliminating the factor now would require lowering of all of the
may become a consideration when designing against seismic design stresses already established with the 1.1 factor for
loading, particularly in nuclear applications. BPVC stipulates consistency, which is not only an enormous and virtually
the maximum temperature limits for application of the time- impossible task in the absence of raw data, but also an action that
independent design stresses. For example, the application of would severely impact a wide swath of industry.
9Cr-1Mo-V Maximum Allowable Stress values in Stress Table
1A is limited below 649ºC (1200ºF) for Sections I and VIII and
371ºC (700ºF) for Section III. At and above these limits, lower

8
 o
F
Jude Foulds for helping the author in his initial efforts to seek
historical records and track down potential sources, and
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
600
particularly for Jude Foulds’ extensive discussion and erudite
Cr Steel Tensile
20220404
insights into the Code during his review of this paper.
550
ORNL/W. Ren
80 This paper is presented to the 2022 PVP Conference in
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

memory of Mike Gold.

500
This work is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,
70 Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology under contract
450
DE-AC05-00OR22725 with Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
managed by UT-Battelle, LLC.

ksi
60
400
NOTICE
350
2.25Cr-1Mo This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC,
50
under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department
300 of Energy. The United States Government retains, and by
40 accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges
250 that the United States Government retains, a non-exclusive, paid-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the
o published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United
Temperature, C
States Government purposes.
FIGURE 13: STRENGTH VALLEY AND PEAK EXHIBITED IN
2.25Cr-1Mo STEEL ABOVE ROOM TEMPERATURE
REFERENCES
[1] Balmer, Robert T., “Modern Engineering
Thermodynamics, 13.10 Modern Steam Power Plants,”
5. SUMMARY
Academic Press. p. 864. ISBN 978-0-12-374996-3, 2010.
The 1.1 factor for the ultimate tensile strength in II- D Table
[2] Varrasi, John, “To Protect and Serve - Celebrating 125
U was initially introduced by the members of the Code
Years of ASME Codes & Standards,” Mechanical
Committees in the early days of Code development as a
Engineer Magazine, June 2009.
pragmatic measure to avoid lowering all of the tensile design
[3] Canonico, Domenic A., “The Origins of ASME's Boiler
stresses for the carbon and low alloy steels then already in use
and Pressure Vessel Code,” Mechanical Engineer
when a valley and a peak in the ultimate tensile strength above
Magazine, February 2000.
room temperature were discovered. Application of the 1.1 factor
[4] Canonico, Domenic A.; Upitis, Elmar; Moen, Richard A.;
must be coupled with the compliance of the monotonic
Rahoi, Dennis; and Carpenter, Marvin L.; Chapter 3, “Part
decreasing rule. Because the yield design stress was developed
2, Section II – Materials and Specifications,” Companion
after the discovery, it did not have the problem of lowering
Guide to the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,
existing values and therefore it had no need for the 1.1 factor.
Volume 1, Second Edition, Edited by Rao, K. R., ASME
Since the introduction of the 1.1 factor, the requirements and
Press, 2006.
techniques for determination of design stresses have advanced.
[5] ASME, “2021 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code -
The UTS value, Su, in Table U and YS value, Sy, in Table Y-1 are
Section II Materials – Part D Properties,” ASME Boiler
now derived from data of at least 3 heats of an alloy on a
and Pressure Vessel Committee on Materials, the
statistical basis using a trend curve method. The Su and Sy values
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Two Park
are not the averages of the test data or minimum strength
Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 USA, July 1, 2021.
requirements for an alloy and should not be compared with
[6] Grubb, John; Gold, Mike; Roberts, Blaine, “Tensile
tensile test data of a candidate alloy for accepting/rejecting the
Properties of Some Structural Alloy Steels at High
alloy for BPVC component construction use. For candidate
Temperatures,” ASME Materials Properties Database,
alloy considerations, Section II Parts A and B provide base
ASMEDB Record ID: “Table U Factor 1.1
material specifications for BPVC component construction in
Origin_GRUBB_20190823,” edited by Weiju Ren, August
general, and Section III Division 5 stipulates permissible alloys
23, 2019.
for nuclear facility component construction in particular.
[7] Ren, Weiju and Ramirez, James, “ASME Materials
Database Development Plan - A Database to Support
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and
The author would like to thank John Grubb, Mike Gold, and
Standards”, ORNL/TM-2011/160, American Society of
Blaine Roberts for providing invaluable historical accounts
Mechanical Engineers and the U.S. Department of Energy,
about the origin of the 1.1 factor at his request for perpetual
June 30, 2011
documentation of its technical rationale in the ASME Materials
Properties Database. Thanks also go to Bob Swindeman and

9
[8] Ren, Weiju and Lin, Lianshan, “Materials Property
Database Development for ASME Codes and Standards,”
Mechanical Engineering Magazine, No. 05, May 2013.
[9] Ren, Weiju and Lin, Lianshan, “Phase I Materials Property
Database Development for ASME Codes and Standards,”
Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels & Piping
Division Conference, Paris, France, July 14-18, 2013.
[10] French, Herbert J., “Tensile Properties of Some Structural
Alloy Steels at High Temperatures,” Technologic Papers
of the Bureau of Standards, Vol. 16, 1921.
[11] Dieter, George E., “Mechanical Metallurgy,” ISBN 0-07-
016893-8, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986.
[12] Yang, Hyuntae and Kim, Sangtae, “A Study on the
Mechanical Strength Change of 2.25Cr-1Mo Steel by
Thermal Aging,” Materials Science and Engineering
A319–321 (2001) 316–320, 2001.

10