As Published in the PV Newsletter. Vol 4, Issue 1. (June 20, 2011) : 1-9. By Alejandro Vega, P.E.

ABSTRACT: This paper reviews the continued use of ASTM A-212 steel pressure vessels. It
provides a discussion of the embrittlement phenomena, methodology behind Minimum Design
Metal Temperature, issues with continued use of A-212 pressure vessels, and limitations on use
imposed on post-1988 ASME design rules.

ASTM A-212 Pressure Vessel Steel – A Case Against Continued Use

ASTM A-212 was a specification for a high tensile strength, Carbon-Silicon steel plate for use in
boilers and pressure vessels. The standard was withdrawn in 1967. In the case of pressure
vessel manufacture it was specified as a Fire Box Quality steel and specified to be processed per
ASTM A-300, Specification for Notch Toughness Requirements for Normalized Steel Plates for
Pressure Vessels (withdrawn in 1975)1, if specified for service at low temperatures. Today it is
widely recognized that the older carbon steels, such as A-212, have reduced low temperature
toughness, meaning that these types of steels have a low resistance to low temperature brittle
fracture. Because some pressure vessels constructed with A-212 are still found in service, or are
considered for service, it is not considered good engineering practice to use original editions
ASME Code that was in effect at the time of construction to determine minimum design
temperatures when performing Fitness-for-Service (FFS) evaluations.

Review of older ASME Code material specifications reveal that it was common for such older
steels to have been exempted from impact testing to temperatures of -20F, but these same steels
evaluated to the current ASME Codes would actually have minimum design metal temperature
(MDMT) near 100F. Up until the late 80s most carbon steels less than 4-inch thick were
considered good for use at temperatures down to -20F. With the 1988 ASME Pressure Vessel
Code changes, a re-evaluation of pressure vessels under FFS methods identifies carbon steels,
such as A-212, as not adequate for service at ambient temperatures. Since the withdrawal of the
A-212 Specification and the introduction of Specifications for ASTM A-516 (fine grain) and A-
517 (course grain), it has become a common practice, though not recommended, to compare
these metals to A-212 in MDMT evaluations.

One problem with the continued use of pressure vessels made from A-212 is that some have been
in operation for an extremely long amount of time and may have both a high pedigree and
documented history and show no signs of temperature embrittlement. Every so often a vessel
constructed with A-212 will be evaluated for continued use and the pressure vessel blog sphere
will abound with questions as to how to approach the MDMT evaluation process. All of these
types of vessels’ construction pre-date the revised 1988 Code requirement for MDMT and as
stated previously, were designed with a default minimum temperature of -20ºF. The nameplate
information on the vessels may even list a minimum temperature of -20ºF. For example, a case
Page 1 of 11
of a 1960’s vessel investigated by the author calculated an MDMT 114ºF for the shell and 102ºF
for the heads. To rerate such a vessel would drastically reduce its operating pressure and thus
make it inapplicable for use.

The concern for A-212 steel is the onset of brittle fracture and subsequent catastrophic failure
which can cause injury to personnel or effect damage to infrastructure; therefore operation above
the MDMT is instrumental to avoiding brittle fracture. Compounding operational issues
associated with MDMT are unforeseen events during operation, such as isentropic freeze up or
other upset conditions occurring that may introduce temperatures less than MDMT, which if not
planned for may precipitate brittle fracture. There are generally three conditions that contribute
to brittle fracture2: 1) the presence of a flaw, 2) stress at great enough levels to induce flaw
growth, and 3) the presence of temperature below the Nil-Ductility Transition temperature
(NDTT); the temperature at which the material will transition from being ductile to becoming
brittle.

The onset of brittle behavior need not have visible flaws, and any presence of flaws may be the
result of upset conditions, construction, corrosion, or service fatigue, such as micro-cracking.
This type of scenario combined with normal stress at operating conditions or elevated stress at
upset conditions, in combination with temperature below the NDTT, can lead to catastrophic
failure. Therefore, one of the goals of the MDMT Code changes is to control and monitor the
low temperature operation within the ductile operating region of the metal. In other words, the
rationale for MDMT is to gear pressure vessel design toward avoiding brittle fracture and
restricting operating temperatures within a ductile material regime of the Impact Energy
Transition Curve (Reference Fig 1).

Figure 1. Charpy Ductile-to-Brittle Temperature Transition Curve for A-212B

Page 2 of 11
To address the impacts that changes in Code requirements have had on regulating agencies, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has specifically addressed MDMT with
the following example, within one of its mechanical integrity, pressure systems guidelines3:

Code PV/S [Pressure Vessel/Systems] for which current Code requirements have
changed from the original fabrication Code shall be reassessed and re-rated as
necessary to assure an acceptable risk level.

Note: For example, the 1988 changes to fracture toughness rules for prevention of brittle
fracture could significantly increase the assessed risk of continued operation at the
original design limits. Thus, a 4 inch thick vessel fabricated from A-212 Grade B
(Firebox) material is now known to have an allowable minimum design material
temperature (MDMT) of 118 degrees F. The vessel nameplate likely shows an MDMT of
–20 degrees F. If the vessel normally receives ambient compressed gas at 60 degrees F,
the vessel would require risk reassessment and likely additional hazard mitigation to
assure continued safe operation.

Origin of MDMT Code Changes

In the 1988 Code revisions, ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Section UG-20 requires the
establishment of an MDMT based on the lowest temperature experienced during operation, upset
conditions, auto-refrigeration, ambient conditions, and any other ancillary sources of cooling4.
Sections UCS-66, 67, and 68 grant exemptions for impact testing based on operating conditions.

Service failures due to brittle fracture in pressure vessels are the result of tri-axial states of stress
and temperature acting at the notch tip. It has been empirically determined that steels having near
identical properties when tested in tension or torsion at slow rates of strain will show marked
variances in their propensity for brittle fracture during notched-impact testing. From this it can
be understood why attempting to use the MDMT of replacement steels, such as A-516 and A-
517, for A-212 would be strongly discouraged.

MDMT criteria is indirectly derived from Impact Energy Transition Curves. The Charpy V-
Notch curves have been used in engineering for the purpose of identifying materials that are
resistant to brittle fracture over a large range of temperatures by determining the amount of
energy a material absorbs during fracture. The results of the Charpy test plots provide the
material temperature curve to identify the Ductile-to-Brittle Transition. This locus defines the
Ductile-to-Brittle Transition-Temperature curve (DBTT). This high strain-rate test correlates
the absorbed energy to the material’s toughness and trends the material’s temperature dependent
brittle-to-ductile transition. One specific example of a Charpy DBTT curve for A-2125 is shown

Page 3 of 11
in Figure 1, above. In this particular example published in 1960s, the results of the data locus
appear to show ductile behavior down to the 20F, with the NDTT below this temperature.

Standard engineering design approach is to identify materials for use that can be subjected to
severe in-service loading conditions, as determined through strength of materials methods,
without considering stress concentrations due to cracks or the use of fracture mechanics. Notch
toughness is then defined as the material’s ability to absorb energy in the presence of a flaw,
usually under dynamic loading6.

Figure 2 shows a typical Impact Energy Transition Curve with its associated NDTT. The
material selection process would use this curve and NDTT to identify the operating temperature
where all service related failure will be through purely plastic deformation, within the purely
ductile region of the curve. This area corresponds to the upper section of the graph shown and
denoted as the Plastic region.

Figure 2. Impact Toughness-Temperature and Brittle to Ductile Transition

Ductile failure will occur in metals which can sustain substantial plastic deformation before
exhibiting fracture, usually at their breaking strength. Ductile failure will require the material to
plastically deform, requiring more strain energy and slowing the process of fracture, thereby
providing time and visible indicators to allow for the correction of the problem6. Brittle fracture
on the other hand, results from material cleavage through slip planes, grain boundaries, and more
specifically in regions of flaws or cracks; usually occurring at much lower stresses levels than
those associated with ductile failure (well below the material’s yield strength). Brittle fracture in
Page 4 of 11
materials with near-ambient NDTT, such as A-212, are even more susceptible to failure if drivers
such as fatigue micro-cracking or surface damage, such as grinding or machining marks are
induced over time.

Brittle fracture failure modes suggest that the changes in the Code were driven to require the
MDMT to correspond at, or above the yield criterion (YC), the point beyond which only ductile
failure of steel is possible, usually taken as a temperature 60ºF higher than the NDT
temperature2,7. This is the rational as used in ASME’s Fracture Toughness Requirements for
Materials, NB-23007,8, for identifying the Reference Temperature, RTNDT = TNDT + 60F.

To better understand the dynamics associated with brittle to ductile transitions and the
temperature effects promoting brittle fracture, a correlation between changes in tensile stress and
yield strength as a function of temperature is shown in Figure 3. The plot is used for the purpose
of illustration and does not represent an actual curve for A-212, but is based on the result of
study of Pellini, et al2, for carbon steels. The Fracture Transition Plastic (FTP) point in Figure 3
corresponds to the temperature where the mechanism of fracture changes from strictly ductile to
brittle and where the probability of fracture below this point is no longer negligible. At
temperatures above the FTP, only fully ductile tearing will occur. The Fracture Transition Elastic
(FTE) point is the temperature where elastic fracture no longer propagates, or the highest
temperature of fracture propagation by purely elastic stresses7. The Crack Arrest Curve shown is
the plotted relationship between the stresses required at an associated temperature for a crack to
propagate7. This Stress-Temperature Diagram is the basis for Pellini’s Fracture Assessment
Diagram and fracture initiation curves. Based on Pellini’s work allowable minimum service
temperatures have been defined for structures containing sharp cracks9 as limited by an
allowable stress () as a function of the yield stress (ys) and the NDTT:

1. Tmin ≥ NDT: Permissible when applied stress s is less than 5-8 ksi.
2. Tmin ≥ NDT + 30F: Permissible when  ≤ ys/2
3. Tmin ≥ NDT + 60F: Permissible when  ≤ ys
4. Tmin ≥ NDT + 120F: Permissible since failure will not occur below the ultimate tensile
strength of the material

One specific characteristic that should be noted from Figure 3 is the relative change in NDTT for
an un-cracked specimen versus a specimen with a small flaw, which is rather drastic with respect
to changes in temperatures. In this example it is a 50F higher temperature shift for a specimen
with a small flaw.

Page 5 of 11
 Figure 3. Stress-Temperature Diagram for Crack Initiation and Arrest7

The yield strength in the figure is the stress corresponding to the transition from elastic to plastic
behavior (provided certain conditions are maintained: presence of cracks, high stresses in the
presence of flaws, or low temperatures below the NDTT). The diagram correlates stress,
temperature, material strength, and crack arrest properties. It can be noted that as temperature is
decreased the relative material strength increases (both tensile and yield). The rate of increase in
the tensile strength is less than the rate of increase in the yield strength, ultimately leading to a
convergence.

In carbon steels this convergence temperature may be in the order of 10F7, meaning that below
this temperature there is no initiation of yielding prior to failure, causing the failure mechanisms
to be entirely brittle. This point is at the NDTT. For A-212 the NDTT is listed as 20F and
40F, depending on the study results referenced10,11.

Based on this relationship, the crack arrest curve shows that crack propagation will favor smaller
flaw size, higher stresses, and lower temperature. For A-212 carbon steel pressure vessels that
have been in service for a long period of time and operating near the NDT temperature, this can
be especially critical. Further, the total energy absorbed during a standard V-notch test at a given
temperature, may not be representative of the energy required to re-initiate growth in a sharp
Page 6 of 11
crack already present in the material, which can be quite low. Therefore, the initiation energy for
a fatigue pre-cracked specimen may be much smaller than the total energy of a standard V-notch
test result.

More important to pressure vessel design is the fact that the results of Charpy impact testing have
an inherent deficiency due to the relatively small size of the specimen used in testing. A
standard Charpy test taken at a given temperature may show a high shelf energy, but the same
material in service and with a thick section structure may exhibit a low toughness at the same test
temperature6; therefore the Charpy Impact Test is not always a realistic model of actual in-
service situations. It can be stated that in cases where very thick sections are exposed to large
through-thickness stresses, the triaxial state-of-stress occurring ahead of a crack will reduce the
apparent ductility and notch toughness11. An example of this is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Impact Toughness-Temperature Curve for Thick and Thin Specimens.

ASME MDMT Impact Testing Exemption Curves

The ASME Impact Test Exemption Curves used to determine MDMT without the need for
impact testing have been simplified in such a way as to allow for material identification to a
specific curve in UCS-66 (reproduced as Figure 5), whereby MDMT can be determined as a
function of material section thickness. For ASTM A-212, a Curve A material, the MDMT is
18F for material sections slightly greater than 3/8-inch, and up to 120F for a 6-inch thick
section. It should also be noted that the nominal thickness is limited to 4-inch for welded
construction. What this means is that for pressure vessels with section thickness greater than 1-
inch the MDMT reaches 70F.

Page 7 of 11
Figure 5. ASME MDMT Impact Test Exemption Curves13

MDMT Impacts and Subsequent Studies on A-212

The changes in the Code as they relate to the impacts for use of A-212 steel have generated
various studies ranging from railroad tank cars to ship hull designs employing this type of steel.
One particular study10 of interest focused on A-212 Grade B due to it being identified as a fast
fracture steel plate. In this study, plates of ¾-inch thickness were tested for fracture at
temperatures between -100ºF and 75ºF. The results of testing indicated that at sufficiently low
temperatures, fast fracture could be initiated in A-212 steel, if sufficiently sharp initiation areas
were located within the field of relatively high applied and/or residual stresses. Of particular
interest are the statements listed below:

“The results may be summarized by noting that a very sharp ended defect was found to
be a prime requirement for the occurrence of a brittle fracture. For instance, fracture
did not result from a 12-inch central slot with ends sharpened by a jeweler’s saw nor
from a test in which a specimen was subjected to arc strikes, gouges, slag, inclusions or
porosity. Fatigue cracks, however, were a successful means of triggering fracture
especially when a high residual tension stress was also present. Although the data
showed a great deal of scatter in most cases, an applied stress of 90 percent of yield or
greater was required. This means, of course, that the material could not be classed as
Page 8 of 11
 particularly notch sensitive. Also, a reduction in temperature had the expected effect of
tending to lower fracture stresses for a given defect length.

The study then goes on to state that there was

“...not a sufficient number [of test specimens] to constitute a statistical sampling.

…repeatability does exist to the extent that fracture at a temperature near the NDT
consistently be induced if an attempt is made to provide a sharp initiation site (such as a
fatigue crack) located in the presence of a high residual strain field. Conversely, if either
of the above requirements is purposely minimized, fracture at a temperature near the
NDT consistently does not occur.”

The results of these findings show the correlation that brittle fracture at temperatures near NDT
is dependent on the existence of an initiation site, such as a flaw or service fatigue to initiate a
micro-crack. Though based on the statements above, it would lead the responsible engineer to
conclude that the continued use of a pressure vessel made out of A-212 is warranted if no
initiation site is identified, the limitations of the study to subjecting the test specimens to only
tensile loading would introduce concern that these results could not be readily correlated to
pressure vessel induced tri-axial stress conditions, or that the presence of fatigue micro-cracking
may not be readily identifiable through standard radiographic or other non-destructive testing
techniques.

This latter concern is what is at the core of continued use of A-212 pressure vessels, steel fatigue
and the possibility of induced initiation sites. The goal of pressure vessel design is the
dependence on conservative fatigue life for the purpose of avoiding fatigue fracture growth, due
to micro-cracking under high tri-axial stress distributions12.

Results of Stress vs. Flaw Studies for A-212

In another material properties study for A-212 steel performed by Irwin, et al, published in
Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures11, the calculation of nominal design stress was derived
to satisfy a leak-before-break (LBB) criterion. Where,

[T]he leak-before-break criterion was … a means of estimating the necessary toughness

of pressure vessel steels so that a surface crack could grow though the wall and the
vessel “leak” before fracturing. That is, the critical crack size at the design stress level
of a material meeting this criterion would be greater than the wall thickness of the vessel
so that the mode of failure would be leaking (which would be relatively easy to detect and
repair) rather than catastrophic fractures.

Page 9 of 11
The results from this study are shown in Table 1, taken at two test temperatures, which are at
60F and 120F above the NDTT for the material. (Reference Pellini and Puzak NDTT
temperature correlations above.) Note that in this study the NDTT is defined as 20F. What is
evident from the results is that as the test temperature nears the NDTT and the sample thickness
increases, the allowable design stress greatly decreases, in order to meet the LBB criterion. As
expected, KID, the critical-stress intensity factor, increases with temperature. KID represents the
material’s inherent ability to withstand a given stress-field intensity at the crack tip under plain-
strain conditions.

Temp y KID B 
1/2
°F ksi ksi-in in ksi
1.0 36
80 55.9 51.1 2.5 19
5.0 13
1.0 55*
140 50.1 57 2.5 23
5.0 15
* - greater than the yield stress.
KID - material toughness for dynamic loading.
B - Steel sample thickness.
Table 1. Allowable Design Stresses to Satisfy LBB Criterion for A-212 Steel Having
Cracks Equal to Wall Thickness.

Conclusion

ASME post-1988 rules for construction imposed new impact testing exemption rules for
determining MDMT. These new rules were based on the results of material research that better
defined correlations between material embrittlement, service temperatures, section thickness, and
the presence of flaws, with the overall goal to place pressure vessel design and any subsequent
in-service failure to occur within the materials ductile range; where the damage could then be
noticed and mitigated, instead of reaching a state of catastrophic and brittle fracture. Pressure
vessels manufactured from ASTM A-212 are still in use and the re-assessment for use under
Fitness-for-Service rules requires that MDMT be calculated under the newer ASME Code rules.
Such evaluations will render the vessels, in all likelihood, not suitable for service under their
original design specifications. The use of A-212 vessels under these temperature conditions is
therefore not recommended and should only be pursued through the use of extensive risk
assessment and additional hazard mitigation practices, such as employing operational controls
(engineering and administrative) by limiting personnel exposure to the area of probable hazard
and containing the effects of such a hazard if it were to occur. The question of continued use
should not be considered on the basis of need, but rather personnel safety and liability.

Page 10 of 11
References:

1. ASTM Designation: A 212-64, Standard Specification for High Tensile Strength Carbon-Silicon Steel
Plates for Boilers and Other Pressure Vessels.
2. Pellini and Puzak. “Fracture Analysis Diagram Procedures for the Fracture-Safe Engineering Design of
Steel Structures”. U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. March 15, 1963.
3. NASA-STD-8719.17, NASA Requirements for Ground-Based Pressure Vessels and Pressurize
Systems (PV/S). 09/22/06.
4. ASME Section IX Welding Qualifications, CASTI Guidebook Series Vol 2. M.J. Houle. CASTI
Publishing. 1999
5. R.G. Gerggren. “Typical Impact Energy Transition Curve for Carbon Steel ASTM A-212B, Radiation
Effects in Ferritic Steels”, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report, Office TID-7588, 1960.
6. Bhat, C.P. “Seminar on Brittle and Ductile Fracture”, Department of Mechanical Engineering Manipal
Institute of Technology. 2008.
7. DOE-HDBK-1017/2-93, DOE Fundamentals Handbook – Material Science. January 1994.
8. ASME Section III, NB-2300, Fracture Toughness Requirements for Materials. 1974.
9. Hertzberg. Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials. 4th Ed. R.W. Wiley &
Sons. 1996.
10. SSC-204, Simulated Performance Testing for Ship Structure Components. Southwest Research
Institute, 1970
11. Rolfe and Barsom. Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Applications of Fracture Mechanics.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1977
12. SSC-170, Studies of Some Brittle Fracture Concepts, University of Illinois, September 1965.
13. ASME Section VIII, Div 1. Figure UCS-66.

Copyright Notice: Figures used in this publication are included under the “Fair Use” clause of
the Copyright Act of 1976 as amended in 1992, within the context of non-profit, educational
purpose use only.

Page 11 of 11