Proceedings of PVP2002

2002 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

August 5-9, 2002, Vancouver, BC, Canada

PVP2002-1221
SHAKEDOWN AND RATCHETING DIRECTIVES
OF ASME B&PV CODE AND THEIR EXECUTION

Arturs Kalnins
Professor of Mechanics
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics
Lehigh University
Bethlehem PA 18015-3085 USA
Email: ak01 @Lehigh.edu

ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION
ASME B&PV Code directives for shakedown and Application of cyclic loading to pressure vessels may
ratcheting evaluation are reviewed. The objective is to result in fatigue failure and incremental growth in
assess their effectiveness when executed with plastic dimensions (ratcheting). Both are unacceptable physical
finite element analysis (FEA) and to propose procedures conditions from which a vessel must be protected.
when they are inadequate. At first, they are applied to Directives for protection against fatigue failure on
cases involving cyclic primary loading only, for which plastic basis are given in the ASME B&PV Code [1]
shakedown is evaluated. It is found that FEA is not (henceforth the Code). Two tasks are involved: (1)
suitable to determine whether plastic shakedown is calculation of the maximum strain range that is being
achieved for a given loading. An alternate approach based cycled, and (2) demonstration of plastic shakedown I at
on physical grounds leads to the conclusion that if only the location at which the strain range is maximum. The
primary loading is cycled, and if the loading does not shakedown requirement does not address failure but a
exceed the design limit load, plastic shakedown is always condition required for the use of strain-based fatigue
achieved. Then the directives are applied to cases in design curves.
which cyclic thermal or other displacement-controlled
Code directives for protection of vessels against
loading is superimposed on primary loading with a mean,
ratcheting failure by plastic analysis offer no guidance on
which may lead to ratcheting. Three ratcheting measures
how they are to be executed. The Code provides rules for
are applied to a thermal transient example. It is found that
the protection of vessels from thermal stress ratchet for
FEA is not suitable for establishing the absence of
loading that consists of a steady pressure on which cyclic
ratcheting of a vessel for a given loading by requiring
thermal bending stresses are superimposed. These rules
zero growth of its dimensions. The ratcheting check is
need not be satisfied if ratcheting is evaluated by plastic
modified by specifying an acceptable limit on the
analysis. The execution of this analysis forms the major
increments of the ratcheting measure that are predicted by
part of this paper.
plastic FEA within a specified number of cycles, which
makes it practical for design purposes. A decision is
required on an acceptable growth of the diameter of a t The term "plastic shakedown" describes cyclic behavior
vessel that would not endanger the serviceability of the at a point that results in alternating plasticity. This is to
vessel during its life. distinguish it from the classical definition of shakedown to
linearly elastic behavior.

1 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 2 CODE DIRECTIVES Elastic shakedown is the case in which the subsequent
Directives for shakedown and ratcheting evaluation response is elastic.
on plastic basis are given in the Code. The objective of 2.5 Ratcheting
the paper is to evaluate their effectiveness when executed
Ratcheting is a progressive incremental inelastic
with finite element analysis, and to propose alternatives to
deformation or strain that can occur in a component
those directives that are either not effective or not
that is subjected to variations of mechanical stress,
provided to reach the desired goal.
thermal stress, or both.
2.1 Section III, NB-3228.4 (b)
3 DISCUSSION OF CODE DIRECTIVES
In lieu of satisfying the specific requirements of NB-
3221.2 [PL limit], NB-3222.2 [3Sin limit], NB-3222.5 3.1 Loading
[thermal stress ratchet], and NB-3227.3 [progressive The Code directives place no restrictions on loading.
distortion of non-integral connections] at a specific It is assumed that the design specifications include
location, the structural action shall be calculated on a information from which a load histogram can be
plastic basis, and the design shall be considered constructed that specifies all loading components (e.g.,
acceptable if shakedown occurs (as opposed to pressure, temperature fields) at a number of time points
continuing deformation). However, this shakedown over a loading cycle. The scope of the paper includes
requirement need not be satisfied for materials having a loading that can be represented in this form. If more than
minimum specified yieM strength to specified minimum one transient is present with unknown sequencing, a
ultimate strength ratio of less than O.70, provided the specific sequence of the transients must be postulated, so
maximum accumulated local strain at any point, as a that the combined loading is known at all time points.
result of cyclic operation to which plastic analysis is 3.2 Material Model
applied, does not exceed 5%. In all cases, the
deformations shall not exceed specified limits. Sections III and VIII-Div. 2 of the Code offer no
guidance on the material model that is to be used in
2.2 Sect. VIII-Die. 2, App. 4, 4-136.2(b) shakedown evaluation. Since a number of cycles may
In lieu of satisfying the specific requirements of 4-132 have to be calculated, the material model used in the FEA
[PL limit], 4-134 [3Sin limit], AD-132.2 [pure shear should be able to predict the cyclic behavior with
limit], and 5-140 [progressive distortion of non-integral reasonable accuracy. But not many options are available.
connections] at a specific location, the structural action Since Section VIII-Die. 3, KD-241, specifies that elastic-
is calculated on a plastic basis, and the design shall be perfectly plastic model shall be used, and since the
considered acceptable if shakedown occurs, as opposed thermal stress ratchet check in the Code (Section III-NB-
to continuing deformation, and if the deformations that 3222.5 and VIII-Die. 2, Appendix 5, 5-130) is based on
occur prior to shakedown do not exceed specified limits. elastic-perfectly plastic material model, it is selected for
the ratcheting checks as the best option presently
2.3 Section VIII-Div. 3, KD-241(e)
available. This selection has the advantage that the only
Application of no more than two cycles of the maximum material parameter needed in the analysis, the yield
operating load, after application of the expected strength, is available for Code materials.
hydrotest or autofrettage load, shall result in
shakedown to elastic conditions, except in small areas 3.3 Design Criteria
associated with local stress (strain) concentrations. According to Code directives, two criteria are
These small areas shall exhibit a stable hysteresis loop involved in a shakedown check. Plastic shakedown shall
[see KD-210(e)(9)], with no indication of progressive occur after a few cycles and the deformations that occur
distortion. prior to shakedown shall not exceed specified limits. If
these criteria are met, the 3Sm limit placed on the
2.4 Shakedown
linearized stresses across the wall of a vessel need not be
Shakedown of a structure occurs if, after a few cycles of satisfied. Therefore, stress linearization need not be
load application, ratcheting ceases. The subsequent performed for the purpose of shakedown and ratcheting
structural response is elastic, or elastic-plastic, and evaluation if they are performed on plastic basis.
progressive incremental inelastic deformation is absent.

2 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 3.4 Shakedown Evaluation 4.2 Example of Primary Loading
Section VIII-Div. 3 provides guidance for high- Given is a square plate of 560×560 mm (22×22
pressure applications in KD-241(c) that an analysis of no inches), with the major axis of the 2:1 elliptic opening
more than two cycles has to be executed. The KD-241 (c) having the length of 50 mm (2 inches). The model is
rules address cases that contain small, plastically cycled shown in Figure 1. A yield stress of 262 MPa (38 ksi) is
areas in the proximity of stress raisers. They do not assumed, and, as per KD-241, elastic-perfectly plastic
address the thermal stress ratchet problem that is free material model is used. The edge traction is cycled
from stress raisers. between zero and the design limit traction of 146 MPa
(21.2 ksi). The model is executed with the Abaqus FE [2]
3.5 Deformation Limit
program.
The criterion on deformation limits lacks specifics on
what those limits are and to what measure of deformation
they are to be applied. This criterion will not be 0.000010
implemented in the paper.
0.000009
4 SHAKEDOWN CHECK
_m 0.000008
Two classes of loading are addressed: (1) primary
o
loading only and (2) thermal or other displacement- 0.000007
controlled cyclic loading superimposed on primary
loading with a mean. The first class is considered next. ~. 0.000006
c
4.1 Primary Loading Only '~ 0.000005

It is assumed that the magnitudes of all primary O~ 0.000004

loading at any time point (subsection 3.1) do not exceed
0.000003
the design limit load of the vessel. For such cases, if only
primary loads are cycled, plastic action per cycle occurs (;3 0.000002
only within small local regions in the proximity of stress
0.000001
raisers. This is the situation addressed by the directives of
Section VIII-Div. 3, KD-241(c). One such example is 0.000000
considered next. 50 100 150 200
Load Reversals (2xCycles)

Figure 2: Growth strain at root of notch

As expected, the solution shows that cyclic plastic

straining occurs at the notch root and extends over a small
region compared with the volume of the plate. A much
larger area that is cycled elastically surrounds it. The
question is whether the shakedown check of KD-241(c) is
met. The first part, that "shakedown to elastic conditions
[be achieved], except in small areas associated with local
stress (strain) concentrations" is clearly met.
The second part, that "small areas exhibit a stable
hysteresis loop, with no indication o f progressive
distortion" is evaluated from Figure 2, in which the
growth in the equivalent plastic strain per cycle at the
Figure 1: Plate with elliptic opening notch root is shown over 100 cycles (200 load reversals).

3 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 A literal reading of KD-241(c) leads to the conclusion any number of cycles. This conclusion can be generalized
that the shakedown check has failed because after the 2na as follows:
cycle the hysteresis loop is not stable but is being shifted lf only primary loading that does not exceed
by a growth strain of 0.0000058. It is concluded that the the design limit load is cycled, plastic
growth calculated after 100 cycles does not say anything
shakedown is assured with no ratcheting.
about whether the hysteresis loop will or will not
stabilize. If these arguments are accepted, a shakedown check is
unnecessary for design purposes. If only primary loading
Thus, if the requirement is to demonstrate that
is cycled, plastic shakedown is automatically assured.
plastically cycled areas exhibit a stable hysteresis loop,
with zero progression along the strain axis, the calculation 4.4 Effect of Displacement-Controlled Loading
of more than 100 cycles may be required. There is no When cyclic thermal or other displacement-controlled
other way to satisfy the requirement with FEA. Since the loading is present, the situation is different because their
calculation of 100 cycles is impractical, this approach has magnitudes are not limited by limit analysis and may be
come to a dead end. A way out is to turn to a physical as large as material and other Code requirements may
argument that was developed by Kalnins [3], which is permit.
described next. Therefore, plastic action per cycle may occur even in
4.3 Physical Interpretation the absence of stress raisers, and the regions in which it
As already stated in subsection 4.1, if only primary occurs may not be small in comparison with the
loading that does not exceed the design limit load is elastically cycled regions. In this situation, shakedown
cycled, plastic action per cycle occurs only within small may not occur and ratcheting may take place. This is
local regions in the proximity of stress raisers. Much considered next.
larger regions that are cycled elastically surround these 5 RATCHETING
small regions. Ratcheting is a global failure. It is not a failure at a
Under these conditions, common sense would dictate point. A typical ratcheting problem involves pressure
that the small plastically cycled region would have boundaries that suffer permanent incremental growth in
nowhere to go and the plate could not ratchet. If dimensions per cycle, which is usually caused by cyclic
ratcheting does not occur, then any growth strain that may temperature fields that produce bending stresses in
exist in the small region at the notch root at the beginning pressure-containing walls.
of the cycling process cannot be sustained over many
cycles. In other words, it is expected on physical grounds 5.1 Rateheting Measure
that the hysteresis loop at the notch root will stabilize For a ratcheting check, an appropriate deformation
without any progression along the strain axis. There is measure that is capable of indicating ratcheting must be
experimental evidence that supports this expectation. selected. For a typical ratcheting problem, for which a
Dowling and Wilson [4] performed experiments on cylindrical shell provides the pressure boundary, failure
fourteen specimens of a notched AISI 4340 steel plate, by ratcheting is signaled by an incremental increase in the
which were subjected to fully reversed, constant- shell diameter. So, an appropriate measure for this case is
amplitude loads, perpendicular to the notch axis. the radial displacement (or hoop strain) at some
(Somewhat like that in Figure 1.) They report that in the representative location of the shell.
beginning the strain amplitude at the notch root decreased Two other ratcheting measures will be considered in
by a relatively small amount but then remained this paper. One is the equivalent plastic strain proposed
approximately constant for most of the fatigue life. No by Okamoto et al [5], and the other is the elastic core
progressive distortion or ratcheting was reported. proposed by Kalnins [6]. (The ratcheting measure of the
The conclusion is that as long as the plastically Cyclic Yield Area proposed by Okamoto et al [7] also
cycled region is small and is surrounded by a large area deserves consideration but is not covered in this paper.)
that is cycled elastically, the design objective of having a 5.2 Thermal Transient Example
stable hysteresis loop without progressive distortion will An example presented in [6] is used for the purpose
be achieved, regardless of the growth strain that might be of illustrating the application of the three measures of
indicated by the plastic FEA at the end of two cycles or

4 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ratcheting. The example consists of a cylindrical shell The initial load step consists of the applied pressure
with a stiff flat head, as shown in Figure 3. The head and zero temperatures at all nodes. This starts the cycle at
provides the conditions in the shell that would exist far the time = 0 point in Figure 4. The following load steps
away from end closures. The inside radius of the shell is consist of steady pressure and 10 temperature fields at the
2290 mm (90 in.) and the wall thickness is 254 mm (10 time points of Figure 4 until time = 2. The cycle is
in.). The yield strength of 214 MPa (31 ksi) is assumed repeated 10 times. A number of steady pressures are
for the material. These are hypothetical dimensions and applied, which are shown in the headings of the tables.
may not represent a real vessel.
5.3 Rateheting Evaluation
The inside volume of the shell is subjected to steady
pressure and to the temperature-time history shown in 5.3.1 Radial-Displacement Ratcheting Check
Figure 4. The outside surface is insulated. A heat transfer The increments per cycle of the radial displacements
problem is solved by Abaqus [2], which calculates the near the midsurface (at radius of 2388 mm) of the shell,
temperature fields over the shell at the time points shown dividing by the radial distance from the axis (2388 mm)
by the markers in Figure 4. Plots of the temperature fields to give them a non-dimensional interpretation of hoop
at these time points are given in [6]. strain, are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Hoop strain increments per cycle

Cycle P=10.3 P=ll.0 P=ll.5 P=12.4 P=13.1
1 0.000296 0.000344 0.001548 0.000458 0.001766
2 0.000068 0.000099 0.000162 0.000319 0.000466
3 0.000035 0.000073 0.000130 0.000312 0.000460
4 0.000021 0.000062 0.000128 0.000310 0.000459
5 0.000013 0.000059 0.000128 0.000309 0.000457
6 0.000008 0.000059 0.000127 0.000309 0.000456
7 0.000006 0.000057 0.000126i0.000309 0.000456
8 0.000004 0.000057 0.000126 0.000307 0.000456
9 0.000003 0.000057 0.000124 0.000309 0.000457
Figure 3: FE Model for cylindrical shell
10 0.000002 0.000056 0.000126 0.000309 0.000456

One Cycle Cycle No. 1 contains the effect of the initial load up
starting with zero residuals. Complete cycling begins with
600 the second cycle. For pressures of 11 MPa and above, the
I.i.
400 results identify a stress redistribution phase that is
followed by a steady-state phase. For P=10.3 MPa, the
.~ 200 steady state is not apparent at the end of the 10th cycle. As
LLI
I'- ,~ the pressure is decremented from 13 MPa, the steady
o A A

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 values decrease. This trend suggests the following
Time scenario. If pressure were reduced from 11 MPa in small
decrements, the transition to the steady value would be
pushed to higher cycle numbers and the steady values will
continue to decrease. The scenario is illustrated by
Figure 4: Temperature-time history
plotting the hoop strain increments at the ends of the 2
3to, and 10th cycles in Figure 5.

5 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Has the ratcheting check that is required by the Code
0.0004 been met? If zero growth is expected, it is not possible to
answer that question with certainty. There is no way of
0.0003
knowing whether the pressure of 3.5 MPa is below the
zero-growth ratcheting limit, or, for that matter, whether
U
such a limit exists. It is concluded that the zero-growth
= 0.0002 ratcheting check, just as the zero-growth shakedown
check in subsection 4.2, leads to a dead end. A way out
g o.oool J appears obvious. Set a limit on the non-dimensionalized
0 IP" radial displacement at which its increments are
acceptable. This is discussed next.
0.0000
10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 5.3.2 Practical Ratcheting Check
Pressure, MPa A ratcheting check is proposed that is based on an
agreed-upon limit on the increments in the ratcheting
[~ 2 cyc .--e-- 10 cyc ~ 3 cyc I measure obtained after an agreed-upon number of cycles
is calculated. If for a given loading the increment is below
the limit, then the ratcheting check passes.
Figure 5: Hoop strain increments versus cycles In other words, the borderline between pass/fail on
ratcheting would no longer be set on the basis of the
Even though the increments appear to approach zero requirement that, "after a few cycles of load application,
at 10.3 MPa after 10 cycles, there is no way of confirming ratcheting ceases" but rather on the magnitude of the
with FEA whether a zero will be actually reached after increment that is predicted after a specified number of
more cycles are calculated. The situation is similar to that cycles. The new borderline would be set by agreement on
encountered in shakedown analysis in subsection 4.2. It is the magnitude of the increments that would be judged to
illustrated by considering the pressure of P=3.5 MPa, for be below the condition in which the serviceability of the
which the hoop strain increments per cycle are listed in vessel would be in danger during its life.
Table 2. The numbers are given to 5 significant digits An acceptable limit and the number of cycles that has
because that is all that was written on the Abaqus output to be calculated for the radial-displacement ratcheting
file. check could be worked out on the following basis. For
example, the limit on the radial displacement increments,
Table 2: Hoop strain increments at P=3.5 MPa divided by the radial distance from axis, could be set at
0.0001. It is seen from Table 1 that this limit would let
Cycle No. Displacement Increment the predicted growth strain per cycle of 0.000057 pass,
0 0.00013294 which for a 1.5-meter (59 in.) diameter shell would
amount to a growth of its diameter at the rate of 0.09 mm
1 0.00020717 0.00007423 (0.0034 in.) per cycle. If such growth were judged to be
2 0.00020927 0.00000210 either too little or too much, the limit could be adjusted to
make it acceptable.
3 0.00020998 0.00000071
The increments in the proximity of the 0.0001 limit
4 0.00021031 0.00000033 are shown in Figure 5. It shows that the pass/fail answers
5 0.00021048 0.00000017 would change little between three and ten cycles. So, the
number of required cycles could be three. This choice
6 0.00021056 0.00000009
would set the borderline for the thermal transient example
7 0.00021062 0.00000005 between the pressures of 11.0 and 11.5 MPa. The
8 0.00021065 0.00000003 pressures below the borderline would pass and those
above would fail.
9 0.00021066 0.00000001
The application of a ratcheting check using a different
10 0.00021067 0.00000001 ratcheting measure is discussed next.

6 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 5.3.3 JPVRC Ratcheting Check ratcheting. Kalnins [6] proposed the use of the elastic
The approach developed under the direction of the core as a ratcheting measure for any geometry and
TDF Committee of the Japan Pressure Vessel Council loading. The motivation for it was that the answer to the
(JPVRC) and summarized by Okamoto et al [5] uses the ratcheting check could be obtained fi'om postprocessor
ratcheting measure of equivalent plastic strain. The plots without any search of the solution database for an
ratcheting check passes if the equivalent plastic strain appropriate ratcheting measure and its critical location. It
increments at all plastically cycled points in the model provides a more robust design procedure in comparison
exhibit a decreasing trend with cycles and the maximum with the other two ratcheting measures. O'Donnell and
value of the increments is less than 0.0001. The number Porowski [9] have also applied it successfully to the
of cycles to reach this value is not specified but 5 to 10 calculation of the upper bounds for accumulated creep
cycles are suggested for practical purposes. strains due to creep ratcheting.
Examination of the solution of the thermal ratchet One difference between Bree's solution and that of
example reveals that the maximum equivalent plastic the transient example is that in the former the core size
strain increments occur at the inside radius. Their values remains constant after the |st cycle while in the latter it
at the ends of cycles are listed in Table 3. may not. This can be seen by plotting the accumulated
plastic hoop strain distribution across the shell wall over
ten cycles at P=10.3 MPa, as shown in Figure 6.
Table 3: Equivalent plastic strain increments at I.D.
Cycle P=10.3 P=ll.0 P=ll.5 P=12.4 P=I3.1
1 0.002245 0.002348 0.0024203 0.002569 0.002699 0.0018
.= 0.0016
2 i0.000111 0.000164 0.0002344 0.000424 0.000657
o.oo14
3 0.000054 0.000111 0.0001916 0.000467 0.000688 ¢n 0.0012
~" 0.0010 h,
4 0.000033 0.000091 0.0001903 0.000465 0.000687 =o 0.0008
5 0.000021 0.000087 0.0001901 0.000464 0.000686 0.0006
0.0004
6 0.000013 0.000087 0.0001895 0.000464 0.000687 E 0.0002
7 0.000009 0.000086 0.0001888 0.000464 0.000687 0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
8 0.000006 0.000086 0.0001883 0.000464 0.000687
Points A c r o s s Wall
9 0.000005 0.000086 0.0001879 0.000464 0.000687
10 0.000003 0.000085 0.0001876 0.000465 0.000687
Figure 6: Plastic hoop strain at P = 10.3 MPa
According to the JPVRC approach, the P=10.3 and
11.0 MPa cases clearly pass and the other cases clearly Each line represents the distribution at the end of one
fail. These answers are the same as those obtained for the cycle. The cycles are counted from bottom up, starting
radial displacement ratcheting measure, if the limit of with the strains at the end of the 1st cycle. There are 10
0.0001 on its non-dimensionalized increment at the end of elements across the wall and two integration points per
three cycles is invoked element, giving the total of 20 output points. Figure 6
A third ratcheting measure is considered next. shows an elastic core of six points (7 to 12) at the end of
the I st cycle, which amounts to 30% of the wall thickness,
5.3.4 Elastic-Core Ratcheting Check but then it shrinks, until only two points (8 to 9) or 10%
Bree [8] solved the problem of a thin cylindrical shell remain in •
the core at the end of the 10l h cycle. Table 4
subjected to steady pressure and cyclic temperature drop
lists the elastic core percentages of wall thickness for the
across the wall. Bree's solution shows that an elastic core five pressure levels at the ends of cycles.
in the cross section of the shell at the end of the 1st cycle
means plastic shakedown and no elastic core means

7 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 4: Percentage of elastic core of wall thickness cycles. As seen from Table 4, in order to bring the answer
to the ratcheting check in line with that obtained by the
CycleNo P=10.3 P=ll.0 P=ll.5 P=12.4 P=13.1
displacement ratcheting measure in Table 1, the number
1 30 20 15 10 0 of cycles required for the elastic core c'heck is two. Then
2 20 15 0 0 0 the P=10.3 and 11.0 MPa cases would pass and the others
would fail. These are the same answers as those for the
3 15 5 0 0 0 displacement ratcheting measure using a limit of 0.0001
4 15 0 0 0 0 after three cycles.
5 15 0 0 0 0 5.4 Discussion
6 15 0 0 0 0 The radial displacement is the ratcheting measure that
addresses the failure mode of incremental growth in the
7 10 0 0 0 0 dimensions of a vessel more directly than the others,
8 10 0 0 0 0 simply because permanent changes in dimensions are
measured by permanent changes in displacement. The
9 10 0 0 0 0
selection of the radial displacement near the midsurface
10 10 0 0 0 0 of the shell provides an overall measure of the permanent
increases in the diameter of the shell as a whole.
When the elastic core idea was presented in [6], it The ratcheting measure of the equivalent plastic
was suggested that, in analogy to Bree's solution, only strain at the location at which the magnitudes of its
one cycle had to be calculated to judge whether or not the increments are greatest addresses the failure mode less
ratcheting check passes. In this recommendation, the directly, but as seen in subsection 5.3.3, its results, at
stress redistribution phase identified in subsection 5.3.1 least for the thermal transient example, are in agreement
and shown in Figure 6 was not taken into account. The with those of the radial displacement measure.
ratcheting check based on the elastic core is now The ratcheting measure of the elastic core is perhaps
reconsidered in light of the results of subsection 5.3.2, more robust than the other two because it relies on
The results of Table 4 can be interpreted in the same postprocessor plots rather than calculated numbers.
way as those of Table 1, as described in subsection 5.3.1. However, the idea of calculating two cycles and
The transition point between the stress redistribution and examining postprocessor plots to decide on ratcheting
steady-state phases corresponds to the disappearance of might make an appealing design procedure.
the elastic core, so that the zeros in Table 4 correspond 5.5 Proposed Action
approximately to the steady increments in Table 1.
The basis for the action that is required to make the
The same problem arises as that in subsection 5.3.1, ratcheting check by plastic FEA a practical proposition is
when pressure is reduced from 11 MPa in small described in subsection 5.3.2. The decision has to be
decrements. The disappearance of the elastic core will be made regarding the magnitude of the incremental growth
pushed to higher cycle numbers. Thus, if an elastic core is of the diameter of a cylindrical shell that is acceptable,
indicated in the beginning, one will not know whether or taking into account that this growth value is calculated by
not it will remain as more and more cycles are executed. assuming an elastic-perfectly plastic material model.
It is concluded that requiring a zero elastic core during Examining a number of typical ratcheting problems could
the entire cycling process for the ratcheting check also then set the increment limit for the selected ratcheting
leads to a dead end. But, just as before, the way out is to measure and the required number of cycles. With a
turn to a practical ratcheting check. specified limit and number of cycles, a practical
5.3.5 Practical Ratcheting Check by Elastic Core ratcheting check can be implemented. After that is
The ratcheting check that was employed in subsection accomplished, it is proposed that the ratcheting check
5.3.2 can also be applied to the elastic core approach. based on the elastic core be adjusted to meet the same
Instead of basing it on a fixed limit on the selected requirement.
ratcheting measure, it is based on the existence of the
elastic core at the end of an agreed-upon number of

8 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 6 CONCLUSIONS [5] Okamoto, A., Nishiguchi, I., and Aoki, M.,
1. A physical argument leads to the conclusion that "Recent Advancement on the Draft of Alternate Stress
plastic shakedown without ratcheting is automatically Evaluation Criteria in Japan Based on Partial Inelastic
assured for cases for which only cyclic primary loading Analyses", ASME PVP Vol. 419, pp. 17-24, Pressure
is applied and the combined magnitudes of the loading at Vessel and Piping Codes Standards, edited by M. D.
every time point of the cycle do not exceed the design Rana, 2001.
limit load. [6] Kalnins, A., "Shakedown Check for Pressure
2. Three different ratcheting measures, radial Vessels Using Plastic FEA", ASME Bound Vol. 419, pp.
displacement, equivalent plastic strain, and elastic core, 9-16, Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes Standards, edited
are found to be suitable ratcheting measures when by M. D. Rana, 2001.
applied to an example in which a cylindrical shell is [7] Okamoto, A., Nishiguchi, I. and Aoki, M., "New
subjected to steady pressure and cyclic temperature Secondary Stress Evaluation Criteria Suitable for Finite
distributions across the wall. Element Analyses," ICPVT-9, Sidney, Vol. 2, pp. 613-
3. Requiring zero incremental growth in protection 620, 2000.
against ratcheting is impractical for design purposes. The [8] Bree, J., "Elastic-Plastic Behaviour of Thin Tubes
use of a ratcheting check that does not require the Subjected to Internal Pressure and Intermittent High-Heat
demonstration of zero growth is recommended for design Fluxes with Application to Fast-Nuclear-Reactor Fuel
purposes. Elements", Journal of Strain Analysis, vol. 2, No. 3,
4. Decision is required on acceptable incremental 1967, pp. 226-238.
growth of the diameter of a cylindrical vessel from [9] O'Donnell, W. J., and Porowski, J., "Upper
which a ratcheting check for design purposes can be Bounds for Accumulated Strains Due to Creep
developed. Ratcheting", ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, vol. 96, 1974, pp. 150-154.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Dr. Wolf Reinhardt of
Babcock & Wilcox, Canada, and the members of the
Subgroup for Design and Analysis of the ASME B&PV
Code committees and to the members of various Pressure
Vessel Research Council committees for the help in
developing the ideas that led to this paper.
8 REFERENCES
[1] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2001,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
[2] ABAQUS FE Code, Version 6.1, Hibbitt,
Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, R.I., by
Educational License to Lehigh University.
[3] Kalnins, A., "Plastic Analysis in Pressure Vessel
Design - Part 2: Cyclic Loading", tutorial PVPD-32 at
2000 ASME PVP Conference in Seattle. Available from
ASME PVP Professional Development Committee.
[4] Dowling, N. E., and Wilson, W. K., "Analysis of
Notch Strain for Cyclic Loading", Fifth International
Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Technology, vol. L, paper L13/4.

9 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use