International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434

On the shakedown analysis of nozzles using elasto-plastic FEA

R. Preiss*
Institute for Pressure Vessel and Plant Technology, Vienna University of Technology, Gusshausstraße 30, A-1040 Vienna, Austria
Received 19 January 1999; accepted 4 February 1999

Abstract
The performed shakedown calculations of a dished end with a nozzle in the knuckle region with varying internal pressure load, and two
cylinder–cylinder intersections with constant moment load and varying internal pressure load are example cases for the application of the
check against progressive plastic deformation as stated in the new European UFPV standard, Annex 5.B: “Direct route for design by
analysis” (DBA). To calculate the shakedown limits, Melan’s (lower bound) shakedown theorem is used. In this context, the usage of the
deviatoric maps of stress states to obtain proper self-equilibrating stress fields is shown. Furthermore, some problems and corresponding
possible solutions for performing the shakedown check using a finite element model with shell elements are stated and shown in the
examples. q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Progressive plastic deformation; Nozzle; Cylinder–cylinder intersection; Elasto-plastic FEA; Design by analysis; Direct route

1. Introduction repeated application of an action cycle progressive plastic

The performed shakedown calculations which are
described in this article are example cases for the applica-
tion of the new European UFPV standard, Annex 5.B:
Direct route for design by analysis (DBA) [1], and some
of them are part of the work of the European research
project “Guidelines for the use of the results of elasto-plastic
FEM” [2].
The direct route DBA section of the new standard deals
more clearly with the critical failure modes of pressure
equipment than the stress categorisation approach, whereby
the following design checks are incorporated: global plastic
deformation (GPD), progressive plastic deformation (PD),
instability (I), fatigue (F) and static equilibrium (SE). In the
following, the check against PD will be examined in detail.
Like in the Eurocode for steel structures, the notions of
principles and application rules [3] are used. Principles
comprise general statements, definitions and requirements
for which there is no alternative, and requirements and
analytical models for which no alternative is permitted
(unless specifically stated). Application rules are generally
recognised rules which follow the principles and satisfy
their requirements; alternatives are allowed provided it is
shown that they accord with the relevant principle.
For the check against PD, the principle states that on
* Tel.: 1 43-1-58801-4060; fax: 1 43-1-504-1588.
E-mail address: sekretariet 1 e329@tuwien.ac.at (R. Preiss)
0308-0161/99/$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0308-016 1(99)00019-8
deformation shall not occur for:
• first order theory;
• a linear-elastic ideal-plastic material;
• Mises’ yield criterion and associated flow rule;
• specified design strength parameters RM (determined
with the 0.2% proof strength for ferritic steels and 1%
proof strength for austenitic steels at the relevant
temperatures, respectively).
The corresponding application rules for action cycles
with constant principal stress directions states that the
diameter of the deviatoric mapping [4] of each path of the
stress states, determined for every point of the stress-
concentration-free structure using linear elasticity theory
for the action cycle, shall not be greater than 2 RM. In
cases where the stress path under investigation corresponds
to a cyclic action superposed on a non-negligible permanent
action, the assessment shall also be made using the zero
stress point (0, 0, 0) of the deviatoric map.
In this context, the stress-concentration-free structure
is an idealised structure without local structural discon-
tinuities; a local structural discontinuity is a geometric
or material discontinuity which affects the stress or
strain distribution through a fractional part of the wall
thickness. The stress distribution associated with a local
discontinuity causes only very localised types of defor-
mation or strain and has no significant effect on the
gross structural deformations.
422 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
Fig. 1. (a) Fillets according to the weld influence zone. (b) Fillet completely
inside the weld.
Principally, this application rule is equal to the well-
known criterion for the sum of the primary and secondary
stresses in stress categorisation—the (often) so-called “3
f—criterion” (where f stands for the allowable stress).
This criterion is an upper bound criterion for shakedown,
and therefore, the requirement given in this application is
only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for the fulfil-
ment of the principle [5,6]. The use of this application rule is
often the easiest way of applying the check against PD, but
because of its uncertainty another possibility of fulfilling the
principle—Melan’s lower bound shakedown theorem—is
employed.
Melan’s lower bound shakedown theorem states [5,6]: for
a given cyclic action the structure will shake down if a time-
invariant self-equilibrating stress field can be found such
that the sum of this stress field and the cyclically varying
stress field determined with the (unbounded) linear-elastic
constitutive law for the given cyclic action is compatible
with the yield condition—the equivalent stress nowhere and
at no time exceeds the (yield) material parameter.
Using this theorem the principle is fulfilled, since PD and
Alternating Plasticity are the two possible inadaption modes
if a structure does not shake down under a cyclic load set.
A problem arises if the maximum allowable action given
by the shakedown limit is lower than the one resulting from
the check against GPD. In this case, detailed examination of
the structure’s behaviour under a cyclic loading with the
maximum allowable action according to the check against
GPD, i.e. determination of the structures inadaption mode,
would be necessary. Unfortunately, the possibility of such
examinations are restricted, on one hand because of the
hardware and time limits for performing cyclic calculations
and on the other hand due to lack of generally applicable
theorems. Determining generally applicable theorems in
this field is a present topic of research and, therefore, they
should be available in the future.
Performing linear-elastic FE calculations—as necessary
for a shakedown check—, stress singularities [7] can arise at
specific points of a weld modelled without a fillet. As it is
stated in the standard that the check against PD can be
performed for a stress-concentration-free structure, possibi-
lities of avoiding stress singularities can be:
• Modelling the weld with fillets corresponding to the weld
influence zone (see Fig. 1(a)).
• Modelling the weld with one fillet, which is completely
inside of the weld (see Fig. 1(b)).
2. Problems in performing a shakedown analysis using
shell elements
Using generalised stresses to verify that PD does not
occur is often not an adequate possibility, because:
• the validity of the corresponding theorem [8] seems to be
restricted to passive (unloading) processes [6,9–11];
• (local) interaction surfaces [12] are available for rota-
tional-symmetric shells under rotational-symmetric load-
ing only.
Therefore, a shakedown check using stresses has to be
carried out frequently. But if shell elements are used, the
only stress results available via the postprocessor are surface
stresses (top/bottom of the shell, i.e. outer/inner surface).
Using Melan’s shakedown theorem and corresponding
self-equilibrating stress states to ensure that a structure
shakes down under a given cyclic load path could be non-
conservative, because the fulfilment of the theorem can only
be proven at the surface but not in the interior of the shell
model.
In fact, when the absolute maximum of the self-equili-
brating stress distribution in a cross-section is located in the
interior, the above stated non-conservatism is possible.
In the elasto-plastic simulation of the structures
 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
Fig. 2. Geometry of dished end with nozzle.
behaviour during the loading or unloading half cycle, three
phenomena can occur:
1. if the surface equivalent stress in at least one point of the
structure remains, or becomes equal to the material
strength parameter, yielding occurs during the half
cycle, yielding on the surface and/or in the interior;
2. if the surface equivalent stress in all points of the struc-
ture is less than the material strength parameter, no yield-
ing occurs on the surfaces during the half cycle, but
yielding inside of cross-sections cannot be excluded;
3. only if the stress state on the surface after the half cycle is
identical to the one resulting from purely elastic loading
or unloading of the structure, no stress redistribution due
to plastic deformation occurs, neither at the beginning
nor at the end of the half cycle. Therefore, it is assured,
that the half cycle is purely elastic and the structure has
shaken down.
There follows, to verify in a strict manner that a structure
modelled by shell elements shakes down, one has to show
that condition (3) is fulfilled.
If computation of the half cycle shows that condition (1)
is fulfilled, further cyclic calculations are necessary until
condition (2) is fulfilled—if actually possible. Afterwards,
to verify that the structure shakes down, one has to show that
condition (3) is fulfilled. However, this procedure could be
difficult if some considerable numerical errors, for example
due to extrapolations and averaging, are present in the stress
plots.
Additionally, the practical relevance of the results in
points (nodes) on the intersection curve of two shells depend
on the kind of geometry of the structure, and, therefore care
must be taken by using these results. For example, if compu-
tation of load cycles of a structure like a cylinder–cylinder
intersection show that plastification occurs only in nodes of
the intersection curve, no conclusions about the structure’s
behaviour can be made, since the considered nodes do not
correspond to points of the real structure.
423
Alternatively, if the FE-software confirms directly that no
further plastic strains occur during a half cycle (after some
initial load cycles)—requiring a suitable parameter in the
computation output—, it is proven that the structure has
shaken down, independently of possible numerical errors
in the postprocessor.
A possibility to show that Melan’s theorem is fulfilled by
performing the shakedown check with the shell model, i.e.
only at the surface but not at the interior of the structure, is
to use submodeling [13]. Submodeling is a finite element
technique to get more accurate results in a region, i.e. in the
case under consideration by performing an analysis of a
coarse model (shell model), interpolating the results to the
(cut -) boundaries of the fine model (solid element model),
which only represents the critical part of the structure, and
compute the stress distribution in the fine model. If this
stress distribution confirms that the maximum stresses at
the critical parts of the structure are on the surface of the
model, the shakedown check using the shell model fulfils
the theorem.
3. Exemplary shakedown analysis of nozzles
3.1. Nozzle in dished end—single varying action (internal
pressure)
In the following procedure, it is assumed that the only
action acting at the structure under consideration is internal
pressure, and that it varies between 0 and the maximum
admissible pressure for shakedown PSmax SD.
The problem in using Melan’s theorem is to find an opti-
mal self-equilibrating stress field. Often, the optimal, or a
near optimal, stress field can be found from the stress fields
at the limit load:
The difference of the linear-elastic stress field at (or near)
the limit pressure of the structure …sij †le;l and the elasto-
plastic stress field at (or near) the limit pressure …sij †ep;l is
424 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434

Fig. 3. Mises’ equivalent stress plots.

 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
a self-equilibrating stress field …sij †res :
…sij †res ˆ …sij †ep;l 2 …sij †le;l : …
Since one endpoint of the considered linear-elastic load
cycle is the point PS ˆ 0, the self-equilibrating stress field
used in Melan’s theorem must not violate the yield condi-
tion itself. Therefore, the self-equilibrating stress field
…sij †res has to be scaled with a factor b such that it does
not violate the yield condition:
…sij †res;co ˆ b…sij †res : …
If the uncorrected self-equilibrating field according to the
limit load …sij †res does not violate the yield condition, the
shakedown load is not smaller than the limit load.
After this correction of the self-equilibrating stress field,
the linear-elastic stress field with the possible greatest value
of internal pressure has to be determined, such that the
superposition with the corrected self-equilibrating stress
field does not violate the yield condition. The stress field
at a lower bound shakedown limit …sij †SD is found as
…sij †SD ˆ …sij †res;co 1 a…sij †le;l : …
The scaling factors a and b can be determined easily
using the equivalent stress plots (or the listings).
The geometry of the considered dished end with a nozzle
in the knuckle region is shown in Fig. 2. The material of the
structure is X6CrNiMoTi 17-12-2 (1.4571) according to
prEN 10028-7, and the service temperature is specified
with 1808C.
Since a flat end is used at the end of the nozzle, no warp-
ing and ovalization of the nozzle occurs (linear-elastic
calculations showed that these phenomena occur due to
the internal pressure load if no flat end is used).
Because of the symmetry of the structure and the locally
limited influence of the nozzle, only a quarter of the struc-
ture was modelled.
Due to the large diameter-to-wall thickness ratio of the
structure (a total number of 1187) 8-node shell elements
shell93 (in ansysw5.4) have been used for the FE
model. To model the whole structure with solid elements
using an appropriate number of elements in wall thickness
direction would result in a FE model with too many
elements and nodes, and, therefore, in an unacceptable
long computation time. Further, a submodel was used, to
ensure that the maxima of the used self-equilibrating stress
state were located on the surface of the structure. The
submodel consisted of 19526 10-node tetrahedral solid
elements solid87. To get proper stress results, the used
elements had midside-nodes and a maximum global element
size of 5 mm was used in the free meshing of the structure.
The submodel was bounded by a cylinder with radius
186.5 mm and by a horizontal plane, which is located
85 mm below the flat end. In the plane of symmetry a
symmetry boundary condition was applied to all nodes,
the boundary conditions of the cut-boundaries were
interpolated by the software from the corresponding
425
displacements of the coarse (shell) model. At the coarse
model, symmetry boundary conditions were applied in the
1†
nodes in the symmetry plane of the structure and in the
nodes in the vertical plane perpendicular to the symmetry
plane. Furthermore, the vertical displacement in the nodes at
the lower end of the structure was constrained to 0.
In the elasto-plastic FE analysis Mises’ yield criterion and
associated flow rule, an linear-elastic ideal-plastic law with
material strength parameters of 200 MPa for the shell, the
flat end and the nozzle, and first order theory was used.
2†
Defining and using load cases in ansysw, the superposi-
tion of stress fields can be carried out easily; therefore the
first load step of the analysis was defined at a very low load
level (0.1 MPa), so that there was linear-elastic response of
the structure. All other linear-elastic stress fields can then be
found easily by multiplication with a suitable scale-up
factor.
The analysis was carried out using the Newton–Raphson
method; a pressure close to the (unknown) limit pressure
was found to be 1.13 MPa after a computation time of 3 h on
a compaqw Professional Workstation 5000 with two
3†
Pentium Prow processors and 256 MB RAM.
Fig. 3(a) shows the elasto-plastic Mises’ equivalent stress
distribution for the pressure of 1.13 MPa.
Fig. 3(b) shows the linear-elastic Mises’ equivalent stress
distribution for the pressure of 1.13 MPa—the stress maxi-
mum is located in the symmetry plane of the structure, on
the inside of the nozzle, slightly above the intersection
curve. The second region with large linear-elastic stresses
is a part of the intersection curve.
Fig. 3(c) shows the Mises’ equivalent stress distribution
of the self-equilibrating stress field, the stress maxima are
located like in the linear-elastic solution. Fig. 3(d) shows the
Mises’ equivalent stress distribution of this self-equilibrat-
ing stress field in the submodel—a check verified, that the
maxima are on the surface of the structure. The values of the
submodel differ by about 10% from the values of the shell
model, which is an acceptable difference for the submodel
interpolation procedures in an elasto-plastic calculation.
Therefore, the scaling factor of the self-equilibrating stress
field is calculated, using the shell model, to b ˆ 0.283.
The self-equilibrating stress state of the submodel was
generated by performing two calculations—an elastic–plas-
tic one and a corresponding linear-elastic one—, creating
two load cases, copying the linear-elastic load case in the
working directory of the elastic–plastic load case and,
finally, superposing the load cases. The corresponding
computation times were 7 min for the linear-elastic and
4 h and 5 min for the elastic–plastic calculation, respec-
tively, on the compaqw workstation.
Fig. 3(e) shows the Mises’ equivalent stress distribution
at the lower bound shakedown limit, the scaling factor a is
given by 0.446, and the shakedown limit pressure by
PSmax SD ˆ 0:446 × 1:13 ˆ 0:504 MPa:
Determining the maximum allowable pressure according
426 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
Fig. 4. Geometry of thick-walled cylinder–cylinder intersection.
to PD with the corresponding application rule given in EN-
UFPV Annex 5.B, leads to a limit pressure of 0.506 MPa—
this value is an upper bound shakedown limit, which is—in
the case under consideration—very close to the shakedown
limit determined using Melan’s theorem. The limit pressure
according to GPD is larger than the limit pressure according
to the shakedown check and, unfortunately, no statements
about the inadaption mode of the structure at cycling with
the limit pressure according to GPD seem to be applicable.
If it could be shown, that the inadaption mode is alternating
plasticity and not progressive plastic deformation, cycling
with this larger value of internal pressure would be admis-
sible.
3.2. Thick walled cylinder–cylinder intersection—single
constant action (nozzle moment) and single varying action
(internal pressure)
In the following procedure, the structures under consid-
eration are cylinder–cylinder intersections, where a
constant moment load M is acting at the nozzle and the
cyclic load is given by the internal pressure, which varies
between 0 and the maximum admissible pressure for shake-
down PSmax SD.
Again, the problem in using Melan’s theorem is the deter-
mination of an optimal self-equilibrating stress field.
The difference of the elasto-plastic stress field
…sij †ep;…M1p† , which corresponds to a loading state with the
constant moment M and an internal pressure near the limit
state of the structure, and the linear-elastic stress field at this
state …sij †le;…M1p† , the stress field
…sij †res;…M1p† ˆ …sij †ep;…M1p† 2 …sij †le;…M1p† …
is a self-equilibrating stress field.
One endpoint of the considered linear-elastic load cycle is
the point (M; p ˆ PSmax SD ), the other endpoint is given by
(M, p ˆ 0), where p ˆ PSmax SD is the maximum admissible
pressure for shakedown of the structure. Therefore, to fulfil
Melan’s theorem, the following conditions have to be met:
f‰b…sij †res;…M1p† 1 …sij †M;le 1 a…sij †p;le Š # 0; …5†
f‰b…sij †res;…M1p† 1 …sij †M;le Š # 0; …6†
where f the yield condition, …sij †M;le the linear-elastic stress
field corresponding to the moment M, …sij †p;le is the linear-
elastic stress field corresponding to an arbitrary value of
internal pressure p, and b and a are the factors which
have to be determined such that the conditions are fulfilled.
Thus, the maximum admissible internal pressure according
to shakedown is given by
PSmax SD ˆ ap: …7†
Defining and using load cases in ANSYSw, the super-
position of stress fields can be carried out easily. Unfortu-
nately, in these examples, often no combination of stress
states, i.e. no factors b and a could be found, such that
the two conditions (5) and (6) are fulfilled. Often, the
Mises’ equivalent stress of the combined load cases are
too high either at the outer surface of the weld-fillet or at
the inner edge of the nozzle shell intersection.
In this case, the conclusion is that the chosen equilibrating
stress field was not an appropriate one. Therefore, a linear
combination of self equilibrating stress fields—the one
according to the limit state …sij †res;…M1p† and the one accord-
ing to the moment load only …sij †res;M —is used to fulfil
Melan’s theorem. This procedure is permissible because
of the following attributes of self-equilibrating stress fields:
• The sum of two self-equilibrating stress fields is a self-
equilibrating stress field.
• The multiple of a self-equilibrating stress field is a self-
equilibrating stress field.
Using this procedure, the necessary conditions are given
by
f‰b1 …sij †res;…M1p† 1 b2 …sij †res;M 1 …sij †M;le 1 a…sij †p;le Š # 0;
…8†
f‰b1 …sij †res;…M1p† 1 b2 …sij †res;M 1 …sij †M;le Š # 0; …9†
where the maximum admissible internal shakedown pres-
sure is now given by
PSmax SD ˆ ap: …10†
The self equilibrating stress field according to the
moment only, …sij †res;M , is given by the difference of the
elasto-plastic stress field at this state …sij †ep;M and the
linear-elastic stress field at this state …sij †le;M :
4† …sij †res;M ˆ …sij †ep;M 2 …sij †le;M : …11†
Usually, for the determination of the factors b 1, b 2 and a
the deviatoric maps of the stress states, i.e. the coordinates
of a stress point given by its principle stresses, at the critical
locations of the structure are used, as a result of the
increased number of factors and the different critical
 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
locations load case operations using the FE software are not
feasable.
The geometry of the considered cylinder–cylinder inter-
section is shown in Fig. 4. The specified materials are
P265GH according to EN 10028-2 for the shell and
11CrMo9-10 according to prEN 10216-2 for the nozzle,
and the service temperature is specified with 508C. A
constant moment load M ˆ 711.1 Nm is acting at the end
of the nozzle, the moment vector is normal to the plane
through both cylinder axis.
To model the structure, 3D 8-node brick elements—
SOLID45 in ansysw5.4—have been used. A higher order
version of this element is the 20-node brick element solid95
with midside nodes. To show the differences using these two
types of elements, linear-elastic and elasto-plastic calcula-
tions, leading to the following results, have been carried out:
• the linear-elastic peak stresses differ by about 5–8% (for
pressure as well as for moment load), the larger values
were obtained by the model using the 20-node elements;
• the elasto-plastic results near the limit load of the struc-
ture are almost identical, i.e. nearly independent of the
kind of elements used;
• the time for computing the results, using the compaqw
workstation, applying an internal pressure load of
26 MPa at constant moment (which is very close to the
limit state of the structure) was 1 h 15 min using the 8-
node elements, and 63 h 15 min using the 20-node
elements.
Because of the major difference in computation time and
the fact that there is no need to compute linear-elastic peak
stresses very exactly, because the check against PD can be
carried out using the stress-concentration-free structure, the
8-node elements were used for all the calculations.
Because of the possibility of using a stress-concentration-
free structure in the check against PD, the weld was
modelled with a fillet (radius 6.5 mm) located entirely
inside the weld. At the inner edge of the cylinder–cylinder
intersection a fillet with 1 mm radius was used (modelling
details of a structure for avoiding stress singularities or peak
stresses influence linear-elastic calculations, but do not
affect elasto-plastic results near the limit load of the struc-
ture).
The nozzle of the considered structure is of the set-on
type. Therefore, using the material characteristics of the
shell for the welding zone too, leads to conservative results,
because the material of the nozzle is stronger than the mate-
rial of the shell.
Calculations with the moment load only showed that the
region of the shell which is influenced by the moment is
rather small, and, therefore, FE models with different length
of the shell render almost identical results in the intersection
region. As the opening in the shell is small and the wall
thickness are considerable, the results obtained for internal
pressure are independent from the kind of boundary condi-
tion used at the end of the nozzle (rigid region or free) and
427
from the length of the shell and the nozzle. Therefore, to
save computation time, the total length of the model was
restricted to 200 mm. The length of the set-on nozzle in the
model was 100 mm (including the weld).
To apply the moment load, a beam element (3D elastic
beam BEAM4 in ansysw5.4) was attached to the structure
at the centre of the nozzle’s upper end. To transfer the
moment load from the beam to the nozzle, the nodes in
the upper cross-section of the nozzle (slave nodes) have
been linked to the lower node of the beam (master node)
rigidly. The constraining equations of this “rigid region”
associate the vertical displacements of the nodes in the
upper cross-section of the nozzle with the rotation in the
node of the beam caused by the moment load. As a conse-
quence of this boundary condition the upper cross-section of
the nozzle remains plane, i.e. the cross-section can become
oval but cannot warp.
Because of the symmetry of the structure and the load,
only half of the structure was modelled and, therefore, the
applied moment load was half of the specified value. In the
plane of symmetry a symmetry boundary condition was
applied to all the nodes.
As boundary condition in the end cross-sections of the
shell, the hoop displacement was set to 0. This affects the
hoop strain and the change of curvature in hoop direction,
but seems to be the best boundary condition applicable, as
warping and oval deformations are possible. Setting the
hoop displacements to 0 and creating rigid regions in the
end cross-sections of the shell leads to plane end cross-
section and avoids warping. As linear-elastic calculations
showed that the maximum stresses using this boundary
condition are lower than the ones using the boundary condi-
tion without rigid region, the latter one was used.
To get a stable model, the horizontal displacement in one
node at one end cross-section of the shell has been
constrained to 0. The vertical displacement in the node at
the upper (dummy) end of the elastic beam has also been
constrained to 0.
The used loading state for the shakedown analysis with
constant moment M ˆ 711.1/2 ˆ 355.5 Nm and internal
pressure of p ˆ 26 MPa is close to the limit state of the
structure, as the theoretical limit pressure of the undisturbed
shell is 27.04 MPa for Mises’ yield condition and a material
strength parameter of 234 MPa.
To obtain the required stress states and the elasto-plastic
stress state corresponding to the moment load only during
one analysis—which is advantageous to realise load case
operations in ansysw5.4—the following load path was
used in the FE analysis:
state 1 p ˆ 0 MPa, M ˆ 35.5 Nm (linear-elastic path)
state 2 p ˆ 2.6 MPa, M ˆ 35.5 Nm (linear-elastic path)
state 3 p ˆ 0 MPa, M ˆ 0 Nm (linear-elastic path)
state 4 p ˆ 0 MPa, M ˆ 355.5 Nm (elasto-plastic path)
state 5 p ˆ 26 MPa, M ˆ 355.5 Nm (elasto-plastic
path).
428 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
Fig. 5. Critical (high stressed) locations.
The required linear-elastic stress field corresponding to
the limit state is found by scaling the stress field of state 2,
the one corresponding to an internal pressure of p ˆ 26 MPa
by scaling the stress field of state 1, and the one correspond-
ing to the moment load of M ˆ 35.5 MPa by scaling the
stress field of the difference of the stress fields of the states 2
and 1.
The computation time was 3 h and 10 min on the
compaqw workstation. The elasto-plastic FE analysis was
carried out using Mises’ yield condition and associated flow
rule, a linear-elastic ideal-plastic law with material strength
parameters of 234 MPa for the shell and 343 MPa for the
nozzle (the boundary between the two materials was
assumed to be at the upper end of the weld), and first
order theory.
In the case under consideration, no factors a and b could
be found, so that the necessary conditions (5) and (6) were
fulfilled.
Therefore, a linear combination of self equilibrating
stress fields—the one according to the limit state
…sij †res;…M1p† and the one according to moment load only
…sij †res;M —is used to fulfil Melan’s theorem.
For the determination of the factors b1 ; b2 and a the
deviatoric maps of the stress states are used.
The two critical locations are the outer surface of the weld
fillet (path A in Fig. 5) with the adjacent part of the nozzle
(path N in Fig. 5), and the inner surface of the shell-nozzle
junction (path I in Fig. 5) with the adjacent part of the nozzle
(path Z in Fig. 5). To make sure, that the critical part of the
structure is not in a part of the undisturbed shell a corre-
sponding point at the inner surface was also taken into
account.
As the self-equilibrating stress field according to the
moment load …sij †res;M is equal to 0 in the critical point at
the inner surface (paths I and Z), i.e. the point of the linear-
elastic stress distribution for moment and pressure load with
greatest distance to the centre in deviatoric map (see Fig.
6(a)), the necessary conditions in this point are now given
by
f‰b1 …sij †res;…M1p† 1 …sij †M;le 1 a…sij †p;le Š # 0; …12†
f‰b1 …sij †res;…M1p† 1 …sij †M;le Š # 0: …13†
Thus, b1 and a can be determined from these two condi-
tions:
b1 ˆ 0:567; a ˆ 0:679:
Fig. 6(a) shows the stress distribution in the deviatoric map
for the inner surface:
• linear-elastic stress according to moment and pressure
load …sij †le;…M1p† —thin green line;
• elasto-plastic stress according to moment and pressure
load …sij †ep;…M1p† —thick green line;
R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434 429

Fig. 6. Deviatoric maps.

430 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
Fig. 7. Geometry of thin-walled cylinder–cylinder intersection.
• linear-elastic stress according to moment load only
…sij †le;M —orange line;
• self-equilibrating stress according to moment and pres-
sure load …sij †res;…M1p† —violet line.
For the critical point at the outer surface (paths A and N),
i.e. the point of the linear-elastic stress distribution for
moment and pressure load with greatest distance to the
centre in deviatoric map (see Fig. 6(b)), the necessary condi-
tions are given by
f‰0:569…sij †res;…M1p† 1 b2 …sij †res;M 1 …sij †M;le 1 0:679…sij †p;le Š
# 0;
…
f‰0:569…sij †res;…M1p† 1 b2 …sij †res;M 1 …sij †M;le Š # 0: …
It can be shown, that the first condition is fulfilled for all
values of b2 $ 0, and, therefore, the second condition
renders
b2 ˆ 2:4:
Fig. 6(b) shows the stress distribution in the deviatoric map
for the outer surface:
• linear-elastic stress according to moment and pressure
load …sij †le;…M1p† —thin green line;
• elasto-plastic stress according to moment and pressure
load …sij †ep;…M1p† —thick green line;
• linear-elastic stress according to moment load only
…sij †le;M —thin orange line;
• self-equilibrating stress according to moment and pres-
sure load …sij †res;…M1p† —thin violet line;
• self-equilibrating stress according to moment load only
…sij †res;M —thick red line.
Thus, the limit pressure according to the shakedown
condition is not smaller than
PSmax SD ˆ ap ˆ 0:679 × 26 MPa ˆ 17:65 MPa:
3.3. Thin walled cylinder–cylinder intersection—single
constant action (nozzle moment) and single varying action
(internal pressure)
The geometry of the considered cylinder–cylinder inter-
section is shown in Fig. 7. The specified material is P295GH
14†
according to EN 10028-2 for the shell and the nozzle, and
the service temperature is specified to 508C. A constant
15†
moment load M ˆ 15644.4 Nm is acting at the end of the
nozzle, the moment vector is normal to the plane through
both cylinder axis.
Principally, the model size and the boundary conditions
used for modelling a shell-nozzle intersection strongly influ-
ence the calculation results with increasing ratio of nozzle
diameter to shell diameter and decreasing wall thickness.
The example under consideration was used to investigate
these influences; some results are given briefly in the
following:
• Proceeding from a shell-nozzle intersection with an inner
shell diameter of 496 mm, an inner nozzle diameter of
367 mm and wall thickness of 4 mm, the linear-elastic
behaviour of FE models with different shell length and
with boundary conditions as applied to the model in
Section 3.2, loaded with internal pressure only, was
 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
studied. The maximum of the Mises’ equivalent stress
showed a strong dependence of the length of the shell—
the difference was about 12% for models with 1500 and
2000 mm total length of shell, respectively. Therefore, a
restriction of the model size to minimise computation
time is not admissible. The location of the maximum of
the Mises’ equivalent stress was the lowest point of the
intersection curve (on the symmetry plane normal to the
shell axis).
• As the example was specified initially to compare results
with fatigue tests performed at WTCM-CRIF in
Belgium, also a model with a geometry exactly the
same as used in the test was studied. This model had a
greater shell thickness near the ends, and flat ends at the
shell and the nozzle (see specification of examples).
Again, the linear-elastic behaviour of this model under
internal pressure load only was studied: the maximum
Mises’ equivalent stress was about half of the one of
the model stated above (with the same total length of
the shell). Additionally, the location of the maximum
of the Mises’ equivalent stress was completely differ-
ent—it was the saddle point of the intersection curve.
• The limit load of the model corresponding to the fatigue
tests was almost twice of the limit load of the other model
(the limit loads were determined with the very same
material strength parameter, Mises’ yield condition and
constant nozzle moment).
As a straight-forward conclusion: the knowledge of the
real “boundary conditions” of a real shell-nozzle intersec-
tion with such extreme diameter ratios and small wall thick-
ness is a basic requirement for FE calculations of practical
significance. Therefore, the FE model used finally had
exactly the same geometric features as the one tested.
To model the whole structure with solid elements using
an appropriate number of elements in wall thickness direc-
tion would result in an FE model with too many elements
and nodes and, therefore, in an unacceptable long computa-
tion time. Therefore, the shakedown check was performed
by submodel technique and, for this purpose, and due to the
large diameter-to-wall thickness ratio of the structure, 8-
node shell elements shell93 have been used for the “coarse
model”. The submodel consisted of 13600 8-node brick
solid elements solid45. To get proper stress results, 4
elements were arranged in wall-thickness direction of the
submodel. The submodel had a total length of 440 mm, the
highest cross-section of the nozzle had a distance of 280 mm
to the centre line of the shell, and the angle between the
lower cut-boundary of the shell and the x-axis was 308. To
avoid stress concentrations, the weld surface was modelled
with a fillet of 4 mm radius and the inner edge of the inter-
section was modelled with a fillet of 2 mm radius. In the
plane of symmetry a symmetry boundary condition was
applied to all the nodes, the boundary conditions of the
cut-boundaries were interpolated by the software from the
corresponding displacements of the coarse model.
431
Because of the symmetry of the structure and the load,
only the half structure was modelled and, therefore, the
moment load applied to the coarse model was half of the
specified value. In the plane of symmetry a symmetry
boundary condition was applied to all the nodes.
To apply the moment load on the top of the nozzle
properly, the rotational degrees of freedom about the axis
normal to the plane of symmetry of all nodes of the flat end
of the nozzle were coupled. Furthermore, the middle node of
the left flat end of the shell was supported in vertical
and horizontal direction and the middle node of the right
flat end of the shell was supported only in the vertical
direction.
The loading state with a constant moment M ˆ 15644.4/
2 ˆ 7822.2 Nm, as in the specification, and an internal
pressure of p ˆ 1.2 MPa was found to be relatively close
to the limit state of the structure, and, therefore, will be
called the “limit state” in the following.
As there is no possibility within the submodel technique
to calculate different load steps during a particular analysis,
separate calculations for the coarse model and the submodel
were necessary to obtain the required stress states—internal
pressure linear-elastic, moment only linear-elastic, moment
only elasto-plastic and the limit state elastic-plastic.
The computation times were:
• 2 min for the coarse model and 5 min for the submodel
for the load case internal pressure linear-elastic;
• 2 min for the coarse model and 5 min for the submodel
for the load case moment only linear-elastic;
• 20 min for the coarse model and 55 min for the submodel
for the load case moment only elastic-plastic;
• 1 h and 3 min for the coarse model and 3 h and 12 min
for the submodel for the load case limit state elastic-
plastic on the compaqw workstation.
The elasto-plastic FE analyses were carried out using
Mises’ yield condition and associated flow rule, a linear-
elastic ideal-plastic law with a material strength parameters
of 272 MPa for the shell and the nozzle, and first order
theory.
A linear combination of self equilibrating stress fields—
the one according to the limit state …sij †res;…M1p† and the one
according to the moment load only …sij †res;M —was used to
fulfil Melan’s theorem.
Again, for the determination of the factors b1 ; b2 and a
the deviatoric maps of the stress states are used.
The two critical locations of the structure are the inner
surface of the shell-nozzle junction (path I in Fig. 8, the fillet
is excluded), where the maximum linear-elastic calculated
stress arises in the case of internal pressure only (see Fig. 8),
and the intersection curve of the shell and the nozzle on the
outer surface of the structure (path A in Fig. 9), where the
maximum linear-elastic calculated stress arises in the case
of moment load only (see Fig. 9). As can be seen from the
following deviatoric maps, it is necessary to consider the
intersection curve from point X to point Y, a consideration
432 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434

Fig. 8. Critical location/path I.

only of the point where the maximum stress arises would
result in non-conservative results.
Again, the self-equilibrating stress field according to the
moment load …sij †res;M is equal to 0 at the inner surface
(paths I). Therefore, the necessary conditions are given by
(12) and (13). Thus, b1 and a can be determined from these
two conditions
b1 ˆ 0; a ˆ 0:858:
• linear-elastic stress according to moment load only
…sij †le;M —orange line;
• self-equilibrating stress according to moment and pres-
sure load …sij †res;…M1p† —blue line.
For the points at the outer surface (path A) the necessary
conditions are now given by
f‰b2 …sij †res;M 1 …sij †M;le 1 a…sij †p;le Š # 0; …16†

I.e. the self-equilibrating stress field according to the limit f‰b2 …sij †res;M 1 …sij †M;le Š # 0: …17†
state …sij †res;…M1p† cannot be used because of the distribution
Fig. 6(d) shows the stress distribution in the deviatoric map
of the linear-elastic calculated stresses due to the moment
for path A:
load only at path I. Therefore the maximum admissible
internal pressure (at path I) is given by the condition that • linear-elastic stress according to pressure load
the sum of the two linear-elastic stress distributions are 0:858…sij †le;p —thin green line;
completely inside the limit circle in the deviatoric map, • linear-elastic stress according to moment load only
which renders the value of a for path I. …sij †le;M —thin orange line;
This behaviour can be visualised directly in Fig. 6(c), • elasto-plastic stress according to moment load
which shows the stress distribution in the deviatoric map …sij †ep;M —thick orange line;
for the part of path I located at the shell, where the maxi- • self-equilibrating stress according to moment load only
mum stresses arise: …sij †res;M —thin blue line.
• linear-elastic stress according to moment and pressure It can easily be seen, that the critical point at the outer
load …sij †le;…M1p† —thin green line; surface is point X, because of its large value of linear-elastic
• elasto-plastic stress according to moment and pressure stress due to the pressure load, and not the point where the
load …sij †ep;…M1p† —thick green line; maximum linear-elastic stress due to the moment load only
 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
Fig. 9. Critical location/path A.
is located. Further, as the self-equilibrating stress according
to moment load only in X is 0, the admissible pressure to
fulfil Melan’s theorem is very low—i.e. the admissible
value of a for path A is (independently from b2 ) close to 0.
The conclusion is that the used self-equilibrating stress
field, according to moment load only, is not an optimal one,
and, therefore, another self-equilibrating stress field,
according to a moment load only, is used—the one which
corresponds to a moment of M ˆ 14632 Nm. This moment
load is smaller than the limit moment of the structure. The
reason for the use of this moment is the plastification in
point X at this loading state and, therefore, a non-zero
self-equilibrating stress according to this moment load in
point X.
As elasto-plastic results cannot be scaled up, an addi-
tional FE calculation with this higher moment load had to
be carried out. The corresponding computation times were
1 h 12 min for the coarse model and 4 h and 7 min for the
submodel.
The new self-equilibrating stress field according to the
larger moment load M is 0 at path I again, and, therefore,
does not change the admissibility conditions at this path.
At path A now a value of b2 ˆ 1 for the self-equilibrating
stress field is used, and a new corresponding value of a for
433
the linear-elastic stress due to pressure load (which must be
smaller than 0.858) is determined. This value is found to be
0.425 and, therefore, a lower bound shakedown pressure is
given by
PSmax SD ˆ ap ˆ 0:425 × 1:2 MPa ˆ 0:51 MPa:
Fig. 6(e) shows some corresponding stress distributions in
the deviatoric map for path A:
• linear-elastic stress according to the large moment load
…sij †le;M —thin orange line;
• elasto-plastic stress according to large moment load
…sij †ep;M —thick orange line;
• self-equilibrating stress according to the large moment
load …sij †res;M —thin blue line;
• sum of the self-equilibrating stress according to the large
moment load …sij †res;M and the linear-elastic stress
according to the specified moment load …sij †le;M —thin
yellow line;
• sum of the self-equilibrating stress according to the large
moment load …sij †res;M and the linear-elastic stress
according to the specified moment load …sij †le;M and the
linear-elastic stress field according to the pressure load
0:51…sij †le;p —thin red line.
434 R. Preiss / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 76 (1999) 421–434
4. Conclusions
From the examples discussed in this article the following
conclusions can be drawn.
If shell elements are used, the shakedown analysis is
difficult, as only surface stresses are available in the post-
processor of the FE software. If shell elements cannot be
avoided, e.g. for structures with large diameter to wall thick-
ness ratios, a check via submodeling of the distribution of
the self-equilibrating stress field which is used in Melan’s
shakedown theorem may be suitable.
The practical relevance of results in nodes of the inter-
section curve of two shells depends on the kind of geometry
of the structure, e.g. for cylinder–cylinder intersections the
nodes on the intersection curve do not correspond to points
of the real structure. If cyclic plastification occurs in these
nodes no statement of the behaviour of the structure can be
made according to these results.
In general, for thin walled structures with nozzles, the
knowledge of the real “boundary conditions” of the struc-
ture is a basic requirement for FE calculations of practical
significance—the importance increases with the nozzle
diameter.
The determination of the shakedown action of structures
in cases with more than one action by superposition of stress
states in the postprocessor of the FE software is often not
feasible. In these cases the use of the deviatoric map is
suitable, but care must be taken in the selection of the points
(locations) which are considered—considering only the
locations where the maximum stresses arise can lead to
non-conservative results.
Acknowledgements
Some of the research given in this article is a part of the
results of the European research project “Guide lines for the
use of the results of elasto-plastic FEM” [2], and the soft-
ware package ansysw was used under a University license.
References
[1] prEN 13445-3 Annex 5.B: Direct route for design by analysis.
[2] Guidelines for the use of the results of elasto-plastic FEM, based upon
the Tender in response to call for Tender S 150/31 NL Petten (97/S
150-95149/EN).
[3] Zeman JL. Some aspects of the work of the European working groups
relating to basic pressure vessel design. IJPVP 1997;70:3–10.
[4] Zeman JL, Preiss R. The deviatoric map—a simple tool in DBA.
IJPVP 1999;76:339–344.
[5] Zeman JL. Repititorium Apparatebau—Grundlagen der Festigkeits-
berechnung, Oldenbourg, 1992.
[6] Gokhfeld DA, Cherniacsky OF. Limit analysis of structures at thermal
cycling, Sijtkoff & Noordkoff, 1980.
[7] Rammerstorfer FG. On the modelling of cracks by finite elements.
Scand J Metall 1983;12:293–298.
[8] König JA. Shakedown of elastic–plastic structures. Amsterdam: Else-
vier, 1987.
[9] Burgreen D. Design methods for powerplant structures. C.P. Press,
1975.
[10] Preiss R. Das Einspielverhalten des Balkens mit Rechteckquerschnitt
bei Biege- und Normalkraftbelastung, Bericht Nr. 13, Institut für
Apparate- und Anlagenbau (A&AB), TU Wien, 1998.
[11] Zyczkowski M. Combined loadings in the theory of plasticity; PWN.
Polish Scientific Publishers, 1981.
[12] Chen WF, Han DJ. Plasticity for structural engineers. Berlin:
Springer, 1988.
[13] ansysw5.4 Analysis Guides.