<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Stainless Steel on MechCalc how-to Guide</title>
    <link>https://mechcalc.net/blog/en/tags/stainless-steel/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Stainless Steel on MechCalc how-to Guide</description>
    
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://mechcalc.net/blog/en/tags/stainless-steel/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Re-running FITNET SSTP10 with MechCalc: FAD Assessment of a Through-Thickness Crack and an L_r Cross-Check</title>
      <link>https://mechcalc.net/blog/en/posts/bs7910-sstp10-fad-walkthrough/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:00:00 +0800</pubDate>
      <guid>https://mechcalc.net/blog/en/posts/bs7910-sstp10-fad-walkthrough/</guid>
      <description>FITNET&amp;#39;s second FAD worked example, SSTP10 — a welded stainless-steel wide plate with a through-thickness crack failing by ductile tearing. This post runs it in mechCalc&amp;#39;s BS 7910 Clause 7 fracture assessment calculator, watches where the assessment point lands on the Failure Assessment Diagram, and cross-checks point by point against FITNET: the horizontal coordinate L_r matches almost digit-for-digit (0.511 vs 0.51), while the vertical coordinate K_r is cross-method (the source includes unquantified welding residual stress), so only L_r can be compared.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
