Just off the Steam_Tech yahoo group - the Australians are doing pretty much just this now, but have already been at it long enough to get a draft published. It has been loaded onto the "files" section of the steam_tech site (in 3 parts). I don't think the laws of physics change when crossing the equator, so it might be a real time saver to have a look at these files and see what conclusions their engineers have reached.

dave

Fillet welded stays have been standard in heating boilers for quite some time in the US. ASME allows it in Section IV of the boiler code. I showed the ESC some examples of corrosion cracks which are not readily seen by normal inspection methods and were only revealed by sectioning the bolts after removing them from the boiler. In my opinion, very serious consideration should be taken before suggesting fillet welded bolts in high pressure service, especially in rough service such as a locomotive. I'll second M Austin's recommendation about testing, etc.

Matt,

I will try to track down the interpretation. I am not sure it was formal or informal. It was effective though.

Regarding fillet welded bolts, we actually tested three methods of attachment - fillet, full pen, and threaded. We made up three samples of each and I personally welded them under "field" conditions, ie. it's the end of the day and the welder is tired, hot, and ready for a beer. No fillet welds failed, two out of three full pen welds failed, and no threaded attachement failed and the unit stress at failure was 10% higher on all three threaded bolts.

Based on that, I am convinced that fillet welded bolts are better from a simple tension standpoint when considering the variables involved with the welder. Most full pen applications I have seen do not meet code standards. Wastage and crevice corrosion are two issues that I believe need to be studied. New steels seem to be more susceptible to corrosion and our industry typically expects a new boiler to last forever - not a good combination. Anyway, mechanical aspects must be considered in context with philosophical and cultural issues.

The Kreigsloks - which were the fillet welded stayed boilers knocked out in western Europe quick and dirty to rebuild the railroads after the war - were designed to have an intensive but short life, 5 hard-working years. Speaks well of the design and worksmanship that several have lasted far beyond that - but not without serious rebuilding.

Have we been able to trick our ancient riveted boilers into enduring far beyond their design life spans simply because we originally made them with really great steel? If such quality is now unobtainable, maybe we need to start working with the specialty steel industry and see if smaller batches just for intensive boiler use can be created.

Replacing boilers wholesale isn't uncommon in many other parts of the world - but usually power is much smaller and lighter, built by European engineers to tighter "medieval" loading gauges. Lots of size and logistical differences between a new boiler for the Ffestiniog, Puffing Billy or a UP 4-8-4.

I'm also very interested in - but have no sources of reliable information - for how well the new rack lokie boilers made by Sulzer (when they were DLM) have held out in service. Some have been in service for maybe 15 years now........ just right.

dave

From Mr. Austin:


The ESC Task Group on Fillet Welded Staybolts does in-fact include Richard Stone, a senior consultant for the Technical Services Division of Alstom Power, who holds a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering, as well as the complete body of work on the subject by Dr. Arnold Tross, which was previously presented by Dr. Greenslade, Director of Research of the Flannery Staybolt Company, to the Master Boiler Maker’s Association (MBMA) in 1952-1953, by a task group then called “Study and Recommendations on Methods of Staying Side Sheets and Crown Sheets With a View to Eliminate Threading of Holes.” The ESC Task group also includes individuals who have studied the subject to a high degree, including practical experience in applying this method among others over their careers.

Dr. Greenslade, made this comment to the MBMA Committee:
“The work of Dr. Tross which has been reported briefly [here] impressed me very much and I think that other men in the Association who have studied his paper have also been impressed by it.” – Dr. G.R. Greenslade

Dr. Tross summarized his work in the following way:
“Nearly all these suggested improvements will not require a large outlay, in fact savings can be achieved by lower maintenance cost. After completion of these improvements one can expect that the maintenance of the boiler will give no troublesome conditions, and steam pressure and loading can be increased. These are the measurements which according to American experiences have increased utility considerations. As a matter of fact, some of the economy is accomplished by removing the unnecessary work, and therefore have increased the value of the steam locomotive.” - Von Dr.-Ing. Arnold Tross

Unfortunately, due to economics of publication and lack of interest in steam locomotives at the time, Greenslade’s full translation was read by few and disappeared along with the Association itself. I have bared the full cost of re-translation and publication myself in the hope that history will not repeat itself. It is available free here:

http://files.wrrc.us/category.php?id=5

To summarize the documents, what Tross found is that staybolt failure was more a function of bending stress and not tension stress, and that traditional design methodology addresses bending stress through a large factor of design in tension stress. This results in the requirement of a very prominent attachment method in traditional design that is of great expense to apply and remove. In fact, damage to the parent material in the case of full-penetration welding weakens the assembly further at its most vulnerable zone (next to the sheets) to bending stress. Applying a very large diameter or high tensile strength staybolt also causes problems as the bending moment is moved to inside the sheet, causing cracks.

Tross’s solution was to redesign the staybolt body shape in such a way as to move the bending moment away from the sheet and distribute the stress across the staybolt length in the water space. He also developed a method of attachment which minimized damage to the staybolt from welding. As was noted in a previous post, the German boilers for the wartime locomotive classes were built very economically (lightly) using traditional methods (fillet welded staybolts we discovered during the war on a captured Russian Skoda locomotive and not studied or applied until after the War.) Almost all the wartime boilers were replaced in the 1950’s using Tross’s methods – very few of these having been replaced since despite 50-60 years of service - many being in very similar service conditions to our fleet.

I would like to conclude this little post by stating that the ESC closed the fillet-weld agenda item at the last meeting, having been provided the body of knowledge presently available on this subject. I think the attachment method is at least better understood. More importantly, a number of recent staybolt installations have been performed with a modified version of the Tross BTH staybolt profile, the cause of staybolt breakage now also being better understood. Few can argue that this design with a threaded and seal welded attachment is probably the best that can be presently applied with the blessing of all American jurisdictions. I will, however, be presenting recent code relevant to new locomotive boiler construction from other parts of the World and of course would appreciate any help from the RYPN community.

Regards,

Matt Janssen
Chapelonist, Portaist

Dear Mr. Janssen,

A couple of years ago you stated. "I urge you to attend the next ESC meeting or prepare a paper with your thoughts as I feel they are important for the committee’s consideration." In response I asked you this question, "Could you enlighten me and others on the value of bringing such a paper before the Engineering Standards Committee? While I know of its existence most of its actions are not apparent." There was no answer. I now hear from your post that there is a discussion about fillet welded stay bolts from you but in the mean time these "public" meetings have gone under the radar of many people without a way for the "public" to know of the ESC activities. I ask you again "Could you enlighten me and others on the value of bringing such a paper before the Engineering Standards Committee?" If this is intended for the public then this should not be a hard question to answer. I am beginning to become very concerned about how the ESC is now operating. I know I am not the only person to express such concern.

Robby

Mr. Peartree:

The Engineering Standards Committee's work is in a way a continuation of the Master Boilermakers Association. Each of its members spend a great deal of their time and effort to preserve the opportunity for the steam locomotive to continue to operate - from a regulatory standpoint; which is just as necessary as any other aspect of preserving operating equipment.

The meetings times often coordinate with TRAIN events and are advertised by them as well as the NBIC. A number of TRAIN attendees stayed for the last meeting at the Grand Canyon Railway.

In direct response to your question: "Know that what is not written down doesn't exist." - Livio Dante Porta. Writing a letter/paper is your vehicle to make a difference, should you choose to make the effort to do so. A historic opportunity has been presented to you, which has been advertised in a number of forums including this one. As before, I urge you to take it. Determining the value of putting forth effort is really up to you. Should you treat the rust, or wait to see if the hole grows and be angry if it does?

The throttle issue is not strictly a Section 1 issue. The problem is that no manufacturer makes a currently certified throttle valve. The way to deal with this is to have your un-certified regulator, either in the dome or on the header, with an accepted shut off valve downstream. The drawback to this is the expense of having two valves, along with finding room for the second one.
A similar issue is with the safety valves. Kelly, I will admit my ignorance at this point - do the valves the Strasburg makes have a 'V' stamp? If they don't, you need to have an additional stamped valve set higher than your working pops. Current practice is that a safety valve is replaced once it lifts.

ESC has made every effort to get the word out about this new code. We have a window of opportunity that will stay open for an unknown period of time. As we did with the FRA rules, we will act as quickly as we can. Windows never stay open. To that end it is best that people speak now regarding any and all issues they wish to see addressed. All comments will be considered based upon their technical merit.

Our meetings are and always have been open to the public. ESC meetings occur at the same time as NBIC meetings which are required to be public and are advertised on the NB website. We meet all over the country in the spring and fall, and we try to coordinate our fall meeting with the annual TRAIN convention to lessen the financial burden on people in our industry. The spring meeting this year will be at Strasburg and will occur immediately following the joint TRAIN/ARM/RPCA meetings. The meeting is scheduled for three days starting April 12th, 2010. The main topic of discussion will be the new code which we are currently working on a draft of in order to streamline the meeting and be as productive as possible.

.

Dear Mr. M Janssen

You wrote this
"It wrote a great deal of the FRA and NBIC code currently applicable to the steam locomotive today, and will likely be the prominent specialty influence for these regulatory bodies in the future." And to me it said it may or may not have a future. I would like for you to point out on this forum where meeting times have been announced or agendas posted? I do not read the other forums that this apparently is discussed so I do not know of other places to get such information.

Mr. Moedinger
April 12, 2010 is just 4 days before the Fundamentals of Engineering exam in Nevada which I need to take and therefore is very bad timing for me and by that time at work we should be at full speed for construction season. When the FRA codes were done, I heard squirts of supposed things but never any meeting dates or directions the committee was going beyond these squirts. In the early 1990s when I asked the FRA MP&E inspector out of El Paso about the possible new codes there was the same question back to me. I beg you to remember there was not the internet then that there is now and even today the internet is not many people news source. I also remember that there were people who were not happy that they had not been asked to be apart of that committee.

I would also like to remind the committee that for some of us this is not our profession but our hobby as we work for volunteer organizations and there may not be the time or money to attend such meetings and perhaps a way could be made to better accommodate these people.

Respectfully,
Robby Peartree

"To argue before the Main Committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers that "The Germans did it in the 1950's" and "A billion Chinese did it and didn't kill anybody we know of...." is..... is....... well...."

In the interest of fairness to those that read this board, such a response is based solely on arrogance and one's own desire to look intelligent by making others look something to the contrary. Time was not even taken to correctly read the statement regarding HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF SERVICE MILES being incurred with fillet welded bolts. Where was it stated "A billion Chinese did it and didn't kill anybody we know of"? That is simply a counterproductive attitude to take. But thank you for demonstrating how personalities in this industry prevent us as a whole from achieving that of british rail preservation. One wishing to contribute would have done so rather than...

Fillet welded bolts were used by by the Russians, Germans, Chinese, etc.. Even in the current world of steam preservation, the Tornado was built with a new boiler comprised of fillet welded staybolts and lateral stayrods (that may not be the correct term). It is easy to accurately convey the point that this method of installation has and is being used successfully, safely and at a greatly reduced cost.

Going with the arrogance factor of the above quoted comment, are we to believe that we in the united states know better from an engineering standpoint what is safe and what is not? Are we so egocentric as to think that the engineering work has not been done internationally proving that this method of installation is "safe and suitable" for service? Did the british government not have to approve the new german built boiler comprised of fillet welded bolts? Are we so far advanced that we can see flaw where our once parent nation cannot? Hmmmm....

The european rail preservation world is far beyond that of the U.S. in professionalism, comprehension and level of scrutiny. How bout we take a step back admit there is a better way and learn from those that are in a position to teach based upon their decades of experience.

I look forward to a spot at the head of the class!

Cheers All!

Quite beyond the specific pros and cons of fillet-welded staybolts, this comment is as hysterical as the "billions of Chinese" statement.

Let's stop the personal whining and apply ourselves to the committee work at hand.

Is there perhaps a schedule for running times of the meetings during those 3 days? I am a physics major at Kutztown University and if some times do not conflict with my class/work schedule I would like to sit in.

"Quite beyond the specific pros and cons of fillet-welded staybolts, this comment is as hysterical as the "billions of Chinese" statement.

Let's stop the personal whining and apply ourselves to the committee work at hand."

Again, you Mr weaver are furthering my point of the arrogant/egocentric attitude in this country that denies fact and refuses the concept of any potential for growth or education within the industry as it is in north america. Whining says you? Step up and show that we are further ahead than that of british preservation says I. By all means, make a case, prove me and what is seemingly factual perception incorrect.