I don't think I read anything suggesting foreign technological developments would not be considered in the process, hence my efforts to introduce a link to the Australian draft code documentation as a possible source. I am assuming here that in reading it, or any other documentation from a respected engineering source of any reputable national origin, standards and practices of interest, if mentioned without supporting data, would than be researched to assure the supporting data is compatable with our testing standards before consideration for inclusion.

Tross stay engineering might well - and should - be considered as a part of those deliberations. There are several ways to do any job right, and any "right way" ought to be included.

I think if I am reading correctly, some measured and repeatable method of testing under controlled conditions for any adaptation to be considered is required, rather than just "its common practice and has been for however long". The WHY it is common practice as well as the HOW of what other maintenance and inspection proceedures are part of any practice - what if, just as a fictitous example, fillet welded stays are X ray tested at annuals in Germany and must be done where ever used to assure continued safety, or if correct fillet welding procedure requires pre-and-post heating, or life span of each reduced section stay was limited to a maximum of 5000 service days, ALL this would also need to be considered as well as just the design specs as conditions for inclusion.

While I personally trust empirical evidence more than untested theory, I understand why it must be backed up with measurable test results to be considered as part of a national code.

I don't think it's personal or nationalistic here - otherwise, why ask for submission of possible standards and practices for inclusion in the first place?

I think Matt is doing a nice job of intruducing Tross stays, who else has documented standards and practices to contribute to the process?

dave

The A1 Tornado is certified under the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) and built to the German Technical Rules for Steam Boilers (TRD) code. Essentially, if a boiler is built which complies to the PED regulations, a member state has to accept it.

I am currently in contact with various parties involved with the certification process and will present this case as I believe it is very relevant in both its handling of regulations and an example of the global effort that occurred to pull the project off successfully.

Not that TRD code is used to build all types of boilers (not just locomotives) and if you are concerned about fillet-welded staybolts, you ought to stay out of EU member states as they are now everywhere.

Anyone know why I've been waiting 9 days for moderator approval to join steam_tech group??? Really, only interested in seeing a copy of the Australian Code postings, but have to await approval to do get into the files section to do so.

Hugh might be out in a submarine somewhere.......

dave

Dear Mr. Linn W. Moedinger and the rest of the ESC,

I am going to encourage you to read the current article in the magazine "Nissan Sport" about the search for the 240Z with Vin number HLS30-00013. In the history of the 240Z this car was the first one sold to the general public in the United States. It apparently has been a great study of where is it on chat forums and other places but in the end the car was found not because people where discussing the issues on the internet but because someone decided to say that they have the car. Apparently the owner of this 240Z does not use the internet and therefore does not visit chat rooms or other modern computer based communication. Many people like Corney Haulk have never use used the internet yet they offer a lot to the preservation world. I ask you to make sure you are hitting the truly knowledgeable people on the subject instead of getting into a time rush.

To that end, While in El Paso I brought up the issue of fillet welded staybolts to my Failure Analysis Professor. The response was classic. In tongue and check fashion he reminded me that Metallurgist make materials issues too hard. You can build things out of any steel, using any welding technique, without regard to heat treat. The last I heard GM refuses to hire metallurgist because "They can train a mechanical engineer to be a metallurgist." Yet 90% of their recalls are material failures. Materials are deceptively complicated and that is why the materials have their own specialty in the engineering world. In your staybolt attachment test a basic issue bothers me. All things being equal within a material your test should have had all of the materials break at the same pressure and with the reduction of the cross sectional area of the filet weld you should have seen it fail at a lower total force. Something was different that was not apparently obvious.

I also ask you to remember that an engineer is to apply technology for the benefit of man. In the Geo-political environment of Europe and China that has been a different set of standards than the US and has lead to different ways of approaching similar problems. After all a cold war played out over differences and there is still fall out on the European Continent.

Robby

Not me! While I've been a member of the group forever, I'm not a moderator. IIRC the list was started by a gentleman named Philippe Quiot from some place in Europe, and I haven't seen a post by him in forever.

What I can do is download the document from steam_tech and then host it on my site. I'll see if I can get that done over the next few days.

Regards,
Hugh

And I've downloaded it and will email it to anybody actually working on the process willing to consider it for useful inclusions in our evolving document. It is pretty comprehensive and useful, based in a large part on our NBIC stuff, so it isn't actually "foreign" in many respects.

dave

Idea to float: TRAIN as an online repository for a library of codes, papers, test results, and other technical documentation such as applies to our evolving technology. I'm a geek about this stuff, and the more I overhear (direct communication is rare) the more I'm made aware of my ignorance about sources I've never heard of. I know a lot of really smart guys in this business who might have a lot of real value to contribute if uncommon knowledge were made common and synthesis could occur.

dave

I just sent the Australian draft to New Zealand - turns out they are now working on the same project. I'm told NBIC will figure prominently. We might be light years behind in modern advances, but we seem to be light years ahead in an actual code. Even obsolete, a lot is borrowed from us.

I'd encourage anybody to check out the Australian draft appendix on thermic syphons (Andrew) - very practical and proven.

Fully appreciative of the closing window thing, but might it be time for an international consortium on steam locomotive practices?

dave

Part of this thread discussion was the use of fillet welded staybolts in Section 1 boilers. Have any of you reviwed Section 9 as to the welding procedure and welder qualifications. Not that simple. Are you planning on rewriting Section 1 AND Section 9???

IF fillet welded stays are safe and appropriate, and we have good specs for practices and procedures, it doesn't matter what amount of rewriting needs to be done to include it in any part of the code. Bureaucracy should not prevent technological evolution. Codes should be tools for encouraging all safe, proven and effective innovations.

dave

RE: Nathan's Post

ASME Section IX sets the qualification standards for welding, brazing, welders and welding operators. It does not deal with the design of a welded joint, that job belongs to designers and engineers. Section I is a construction code that Section IX and other Sections support. Section I does have a whole Part on welded construction that explains what is an acceptable weld joint and what is not, what level of inspection is required and whether or not some form of heat treating is required. Section IX would not need to be changed to allow fillet welded stays in Section I construction.

It is interesting to note that ASME Section VIII, Division 1, paragraph UW-19(a) and figure UW-19.1(b) do allow fillet welded stays with certain limitations. Section VIII, Div. 1 contains the rules for the construction of unfired pressure vessels.

-S.O.

Stan,
You are entirely correct. What I am about to say is what I percieve to be the undercurrent for this whole thread. If you are building a new boiler, in a code shop, a full penetration welded stay is not a problem. If your welder can not do it, hire one who can. Power plant welders are out there, and they can and will do it.
The A.S.M.E. Code is hardly a dinosaur. It is updated every three years, with annual addendums. It is a continual work in progress, keeping up with relevent changes in technology and best engineering practices.
As far as fillet welded stays in the U.S., I beleive there are at least four, probably five locomotives running/near running currently. Three QJ's, one JS, and possibly the "new" Valley RR 2-8-2. (J. David, please verify). Under current FRA form 4 rules, these boilers are not illegal due to fillet welded stays.

A full-penetration weld damages the staybolt in the area of highest bending stress on a plain-shaft staybolt.

Mr. Janssen

You stated, "A full-penetration weld damages the staybolt in the area of highest bending stress on a plain-shaft staybolt." In a previous thread you also stated, "You must have figured out I am not an engineer from my comments."

Now based on what knowledge base do you make your first statement?

For the record, I both fired and ran 4960 at GCR for several years and the locomotive had at that time full penetration staybolts without failures of any staybolts during my time on the locomotive due to welding. There were only two bolt failures and that was in year eight and they were outside any possible heat affected zone from welding.

At the other tourist RR I worked at there were a number of staybolts broken on a locomotive but only after they went to a banking procedure championed by someone on the ESC. After that person left the RR they went back to their previous banking of the fire procedure and the breakage was "significantly reduced" the last time I heard from my sources there. There are a lot of causes for staybolt failure and not all of them are related to the installation process.

Robby Peartree