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
ASME B&PV Code directives for shakedown and
ratcheting evaluation are reviewed. The objective is to
assess their effectiveness when executed with plastic
finite element analysis (FEA) and to propose procedures
when they are inadequate. At first, they are applied to
cases involving cyclic primary loading only, for which
shakedown is evaluated. It is found that FEA is not
suitable to determine whether plastic shakedown is
achieved for a given loading. An alternate approach based
on physical grounds leads to the conclusion that if only
primary loading is cycled, and if the loading does not
exceed the design limit load, plastic shakedown is always
achieved. Then the directives are applied to cases in
which cyclic thermal or other displacement-controlled
loading is superimposed on primary loading with a mean,
which may lead to ratcheting. Three ratcheting measures
are applied to a thermal transient example. It is found that
FEA is not suitable for establishing the absence of
ratcheting of a vessel for a given loading by requiring
zero growth of its dimensions. The ratcheting check is
modified by specifying an acceptable limit on the
increments of the ratcheting measure that are predicted by
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
vessel that would not endanger the serviceability of the
vessel during its life.
1 INTRODUCTION
Application of cyclic loading to pressure vessels may
result in fatigue failure and incremental growth in
dimensions (ratcheting). Both are unacceptable physical
conditions from which a vessel must be protected.
Directives for protection against fatigue failure on
plastic basis are given in the ASME B&PV Code [1]
(henceforth the Code). Two tasks are involved: (1)
calculation of the maximum strain range that is being
cycled, and (2) demonstration of plastic shakedown I at
the location at which the strain range is maximum. The
shakedown requirement does not address failure but a
condition required for the use of strain-based fatigue
design curves.
Code directives for protection of vessels against
ratcheting failure by plastic analysis offer no guidance on
how they are to be executed. The Code provides rules for
the protection of vessels from thermal stress ratchet for
loading that consists of a steady pressure on which cyclic
thermal bending stresses are superimposed. These rules
need not be satisfied if ratcheting is evaluated by plastic
analysis. The execution of this analysis forms the major
part of this paper.
t The term "plastic shakedown" describes cyclic behavior
at a point that results in alternating plasticity. This is to
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
Directives for shakedown and ratcheting evaluation
on plastic basis are given in the Code. The objective of
the paper is to evaluate their effectiveness when executed
with finite element analysis, and to propose alternatives to
those directives that are either not effective or not
provided to reach the desired goal.
2.1 Section III, NB-3228.4 (b)
In lieu of satisfying the specific requirements of NB-
3221.2 [PL limit], NB-3222.2 [3Sin limit], NB-3222.5
[thermal stress ratchet], and NB-3227.3 [progressive
distortion of non-integral connections] at a specific
location, the structural action shall be calculated on a
plastic basis, and the design shall be considered
acceptable if shakedown occurs (as opposed to
continuing deformation). However, this shakedown
requirement need not be satisfied for materials having a
minimum specified yieM strength to specified minimum
ultimate strength ratio of less than O.70, provided the
maximum accumulated local strain at any point, as a
result of cyclic operation to which plastic analysis is
applied, does not exceed 5%. In all cases, the
deformations shall not exceed specified limits.
2.2 Sect. VIII-Die. 2, App. 4, 4-136.2(b)
In lieu of satisfying the specific requirements of 4-132
[PL limit], 4-134 [3Sin limit], AD-132.2 [pure shear
limit], and 5-140 [progressive distortion of non-integral
connections] at a specific location, the structural action
is calculated on a plastic basis, and the design shall be
considered acceptable if shakedown occurs, as opposed
to continuing deformation, and if the deformations that
occur prior to shakedown do not exceed specified limits.
2.3 Section VIII-Div. 3, KD-241(e)
Application of no more than two cycles of the maximum
operating load, after application of the expected
hydrotest or autofrettage load, shall result in
shakedown to elastic conditions, except in small areas
associated with local stress (strain) concentrations.
These small areas shall exhibit a stable hysteresis loop
[see KD-210(e)(9)], with no indication of progressive
distortion.
2.4 Shakedown
Shakedown of a structure occurs if, after a few cycles of
load application, ratcheting ceases. The subsequent
structural response is elastic, or elastic-plastic, and
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
Elastic shakedown is the case in which the subsequent
response is elastic.
2.5 Ratcheting
Ratcheting is a progressive incremental inelastic
deformation or strain that can occur in a component
that is subjected to variations of mechanical stress,
thermal stress, or both.
3 DISCUSSION OF CODE DIRECTIVES
3.1 Loading
The Code directives place no restrictions on loading.
It is assumed that the design specifications include
information from which a load histogram can be
constructed that specifies all loading components (e.g.,
pressure, temperature fields) at a number of time points
over a loading cycle. The scope of the paper includes
loading that can be represented in this form. If more than
one transient is present with unknown sequencing, a
specific sequence of the transients must be postulated, so
that the combined loading is known at all time points.
3.2 Material Model
Sections III and VIII-Div. 2 of the Code offer no
guidance on the material model that is to be used in
shakedown evaluation. Since a number of cycles may
have to be calculated, the material model used in the FEA
should be able to predict the cyclic behavior with
reasonable accuracy. But not many options are available.
Since Section VIII-Die. 3, KD-241, specifies that elastic-
perfectly plastic model shall be used, and since the
thermal stress ratchet check in the Code (Section III-NB-
3222.5 and VIII-Die. 2, Appendix 5, 5-130) is based on
elastic-perfectly plastic material model, it is selected for
the ratcheting checks as the best option presently
available. This selection has the advantage that the only
material parameter needed in the analysis, the yield
strength, is available for Code materials.
3.3 Design Criteria
According to Code directives, two criteria are
involved in a shakedown check. Plastic shakedown shall
occur after a few cycles and the deformations that occur
prior to shakedown shall not exceed specified limits. If
these criteria are met, the 3Sm limit placed on the
linearized stresses across the wall of a vessel need not be
satisfied. Therefore, stress linearization need not be
performed for the purpose of shakedown and ratcheting
evaluation if they are performed on plastic basis.
 3.4 Shakedown Evaluation
Section VIII-Div. 3 provides guidance for high-
pressure applications in KD-241(c) that an analysis of no
more than two cycles has to be executed. The KD-241 (c)
rules address cases that contain small, plastically cycled
areas in the proximity of stress raisers. They do not
address the thermal stress ratchet problem that is free
from stress raisers.
3.5 Deformation Limit
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
implemented in the paper.
4 SHAKEDOWN CHECK
Two classes of loading are addressed: (1) primary
loading only and (2) thermal or other displacement-
controlled cyclic loading superimposed on primary
loading with a mean. The first class is considered next.
4.1 Primary Loading Only
It is assumed that the magnitudes of all primary
loading at any time point (subsection 3.1) do not exceed
the design limit load of the vessel. For such cases, if only
primary loads are cycled, plastic action per cycle occurs
only within small local regions in the proximity of stress
raisers. This is the situation addressed by the directives of
Section VIII-Div. 3, KD-241(c). One such example is
considered next.
Figure 1: Plate with elliptic opening
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
4.2 Example of Primary Loading
Given is a square plate of 560×560 mm (22×22
inches), with the major axis of the 2:1 elliptic opening
having the length of 50 mm (2 inches). The model is
shown in Figure 1. A yield stress of 262 MPa (38 ksi) is
assumed, and, as per KD-241, elastic-perfectly plastic
material model is used. The edge traction is cycled
between zero and the design limit traction of 146 MPa
(21.2 ksi). The model is executed with the Abaqus FE [2]
program.
0.000010
0.000009
_m 0.000008
o
0.000007
~. 0.000006
c
'~ 0.000005
O~ 0.000004
0.000003
(;3 0.000002
0.000001
0.000000
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
notch root is shown over 100 cycles (200 load reversals).
 A literal reading of KD-241(c) leads to the conclusion
that the shakedown check has failed because after the 2na
cycle the hysteresis loop is not stable but is being shifted
by a growth strain of 0.0000058. It is concluded that the
growth calculated after 100 cycles does not say anything
about whether the hysteresis loop will or will not
stabilize.
Thus, if the requirement is to demonstrate that
plastically cycled areas exhibit a stable hysteresis loop,
with zero progression along the strain axis, the calculation
of more than 100 cycles may be required. There is no
other way to satisfy the requirement with FEA. Since the
calculation of 100 cycles is impractical, this approach has
come to a dead end. A way out is to turn to a physical
argument that was developed by Kalnins [3], which is
described next.
4.3 Physical Interpretation
As already stated in subsection 4.1, if only primary
loading that does not exceed the design limit load is
cycled, plastic action per cycle occurs only within small
local regions in the proximity of stress raisers. Much
larger regions that are cycled elastically surround these
small regions.
Under these conditions, common sense would dictate
that the small plastically cycled region would have
nowhere to go and the plate could not ratchet. If
ratcheting does not occur, then any growth strain that may
exist in the small region at the notch root at the beginning
of the cycling process cannot be sustained over many
cycles. In other words, it is expected on physical grounds
that the hysteresis loop at the notch root will stabilize
without any progression along the strain axis. There is
experimental evidence that supports this expectation.
Dowling and Wilson [4] performed experiments on
fourteen specimens of a notched AISI 4340 steel plate,
which were subjected to fully reversed, constant-
amplitude loads, perpendicular to the notch axis.
(Somewhat like that in Figure 1.) They report that in the
beginning the strain amplitude at the notch root decreased
by a relatively small amount but then remained
approximately constant for most of the fatigue life. No
progressive distortion or ratcheting was reported.
The conclusion is that as long as the plastically
cycled region is small and is surrounded by a large area
that is cycled elastically, the design objective of having a
stable hysteresis loop without progressive distortion will
be achieved, regardless of the growth strain that might be
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
any number of cycles. This conclusion can be generalized
as follows:
lf only primary loading that does not exceed
the design limit load is cycled, plastic
shakedown is assured with no ratcheting.
If these arguments are accepted, a shakedown check is
unnecessary for design purposes. If only primary loading
is cycled, plastic shakedown is automatically assured.
4.4 Effect of Displacement-Controlled Loading
When cyclic thermal or other displacement-controlled
loading is present, the situation is different because their
magnitudes are not limited by limit analysis and may be
as large as material and other Code requirements may
permit.
Therefore, plastic action per cycle may occur even in
the absence of stress raisers, and the regions in which it
occurs may not be small in comparison with the
elastically cycled regions. In this situation, shakedown
may not occur and ratcheting may take place. This is
considered next.
5 RATCHETING
Ratcheting is a global failure. It is not a failure at a
point. A typical ratcheting problem involves pressure
boundaries that suffer permanent incremental growth in
dimensions per cycle, which is usually caused by cyclic
temperature fields that produce bending stresses in
pressure-containing walls.
5.1 Rateheting Measure
For a ratcheting check, an appropriate deformation
measure that is capable of indicating ratcheting must be
selected. For a typical ratcheting problem, for which a
cylindrical shell provides the pressure boundary, failure
by ratcheting is signaled by an incremental increase in the
shell diameter. So, an appropriate measure for this case is
the radial displacement (or hoop strain) at some
representative location of the shell.
Two other ratcheting measures will be considered in
this paper. One is the equivalent plastic strain proposed
by Okamoto et al [5], and the other is the elastic core
proposed by Kalnins [6]. (The ratcheting measure of the
Cyclic Yield Area proposed by Okamoto et al [7] also
deserves consideration but is not covered in this paper.)
5.2 Thermal Transient Example
An example presented in [6] is used for the purpose
of illustrating the application of the three measures of
 ratcheting. The example consists of a cylindrical shell
with a stiff flat head, as shown in Figure 3. The head
provides the conditions in the shell that would exist far
away from end closures. The inside radius of the shell is
2290 mm (90 in.) and the wall thickness is 254 mm (10
in.). The yield strength of 214 MPa (31 ksi) is assumed
for the material. These are hypothetical dimensions and
may not represent a real vessel.
The inside volume of the shell is subjected to steady
pressure and to the temperature-time history shown in
Figure 4. The outside surface is insulated. A heat transfer
problem is solved by Abaqus [2], which calculates the
temperature fields over the shell at the time points shown
by the markers in Figure 4. Plots of the temperature fields
at these time points are given in [6].
Figure 3: FE Model for cylindrical shell
One Cycle
600
I.i.
400
.~ 200
LLI
I'-
o A A
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time
Figure 4: Temperature-time history
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The initial load step consists of the applied pressure
and zero temperatures at all nodes. This starts the cycle at
the time = 0 point in Figure 4. The following load steps
consist of steady pressure and 10 temperature fields at the
time points of Figure 4 until time = 2. The cycle is
repeated 10 times. A number of steady pressures are
applied, which are shown in the headings of the tables.
5.3 Rateheting Evaluation
5.3.1 Radial-Displacement Ratcheting Check
The increments per cycle of the radial displacements
near the midsurface (at radius of 2388 mm) of the shell,
dividing by the radial distance from the axis (2388 mm)
to give them a non-dimensional interpretation of hoop
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
10 0.000002 0.000056 0.000126 0.000309 0.000456
Cycle No. 1 contains the effect of the initial load up
starting with zero residuals. Complete cycling begins with
the second cycle. For pressures of 11 MPa and above, the
results identify a stress redistribution phase that is
followed by a steady-state phase. For P=10.3 MPa, the
steady state is not apparent at the end of the 10th cycle. As
,~ the pressure is decremented from 13 MPa, the steady
values decrease. This trend suggests the following
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
plotting the hoop strain increments at the ends of the 2
3to, and 10th cycles in Figure 5.
5 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 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
The approach developed under the direction of the
TDF Committee of the Japan Pressure Vessel Council
(JPVRC) and summarized by Okamoto et al [5] uses the
ratcheting measure of equivalent plastic strain. The
ratcheting check passes if the equivalent plastic strain
increments at all plastically cycled points in the model
exhibit a decreasing trend with cycles and the maximum
value of the increments is less than 0.0001. The number
of cycles to reach this value is not specified but 5 to 10
cycles are suggested for practical purposes.
Examination of the solution of the thermal ratchet
example reveals that the maximum equivalent plastic
strain increments occur at the inside radius. Their values
at the ends of cycles are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Equivalent plastic strain increments at I.D.
Cycle P=10.3 P=ll.0 P=ll.5 P=12.4
1 0.002245 0.002348 0.0024203 0.002569 0.002699
2 i0.000111 0.000164 0.0002344 0.000424 0.000657
3 0.000054 0.000111 0.0001916 0.000467 0.000688
4 0.000033 0.000091 0.0001903 0.000465 0.000687
5 0.000021 0.000087 0.0001901 0.000464 0.000686
6 0.000013 0.000087 0.0001895 0.000464 0.000687
7 0.000009 0.000086 0.0001888 0.000464 0.000687
8 0.000006 0.000086 0.0001883 0.000464 0.000687
9 0.000005 0.000086 0.0001879 0.000464 0.000687
10 0.000003 0.000085 0.0001876 0.000465 0.000687
According to the JPVRC approach, the P=10.3 and
11.0 MPa cases clearly pass and the other cases clearly
fail. These answers are the same as those obtained for the
radial displacement ratcheting measure, if the limit of
0.0001 on its non-dimensionalized increment at the end of
three cycles is invoked
A third ratcheting measure is considered next.
5.3.4 Elastic-Core Ratcheting Check
Bree [8] solved the problem of a thin cylindrical shell
subjected to steady pressure and cyclic temperature drop
across the wall. Bree's solution shows that an elastic core
in the cross section of the shell at the end of the 1st cycle
means plastic shakedown and no elastic core means
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
ratcheting. Kalnins [6] proposed the use of the elastic
core as a ratcheting measure for any geometry and
loading. The motivation for it was that the answer to the
ratcheting check could be obtained fi'om postprocessor
plots without any search of the solution database for an
appropriate ratcheting measure and its critical location. It
provides a more robust design procedure in comparison
with the other two ratcheting measures. O'Donnell and
Porowski [9] have also applied it successfully to the
calculation of the upper bounds for accumulated creep
strains due to creep ratcheting.
One difference between Bree's solution and that of
the transient example is that in the former the core size
remains constant after the |st cycle while in the latter it
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.
P=I3.1
0.0018
.= 0.0016
o.oo14
¢n 0.0012
~" 0.0010 h,
=o 0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
E 0.0002
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
Points A c r o s s Wall
Figure 6: Plastic hoop strain at P = 10.3 MPa
Each line represents the distribution at the end of one
cycle. The cycles are counted from bottom up, starting
with the strains at the end of the 1st cycle. There are 10
elements across the wall and two integration points per
element, giving the total of 20 output points. Figure 6
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,
but then it shrinks, until only two points (8 to 9) or 10%
remain in •
the core at the end of the 10l h cycle. Table 4
lists the elastic core percentages of wall thickness for the
five pressure levels at the ends of cycles.
7 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 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