Ahmed K.

Bakry1
Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University,
Orman, Giza 12613, Egypt
e-mail: ahmed.bakry@enppi.com
Chahinaz A. Saleh
Associate Professor
Solid Mechanics,
Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University,
Orman, Giza 12613, Egypt
e-mail: chahinaz@eng.cu.edu.eg
Mohammad M. Megahed
Professor
Solid Mechanics,
Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University,
Orman, Giza 12613, Egypt
e-mail: mmegahed@eng.cu.edu.eg
Shakedown Limits for Hillside
Nozzles in Cylindrical Vessels
This research paper is concerned with the mechanical behavior of the cylindrical vessels
with hillside nozzles when subjected to both pressure and nozzle bending loads in cyclic
forms. The influence of hillside angle on shakedown (SD) limits of the connection under
cyclic pressure and combined steady pressure with cyclic nozzle bending is investigated.
A shell finite element analysis model is built for the assembly using five different hillside
angles ranging from 0 deg to 40 deg. Shakedown limits are determined by a direct tech-
nique known as the nonlinear superposition method (NSM). Bree diagrams for cyclic out
of plane opening (OPO)/in plane (IP) nozzle moments combined with steady internal
pressure are determined. The results show an increase in both OPO and IP shakedown
moments as the hillside angle is increased. In addition, the OPO shakedown limit
moments for all hillside angles were found to be insensitive to the level of internal pres-
sure; this differs from the IP shakedown moment which starts to decrease with pressure
for the high pressures. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4039503]

Introduction been investigated by Fang et al. [9]. The results indicated that the
maximum stresses are located at the acute corner in the transverse
Nozzles in cylindrical shells may be radial, oblique, or hillside
section of the intersection. The results also showed that the maxi-
depending on their function, accessibility, or routing of the con-
mum elastic stress and stress ratio decrease with the increase of
nected piping. A hillside nozzle in cylindrical shells is generally
hillside nozzle angle b.
used as an inlet connection aiming to achieve better fluid distribu-
Nozzle connections with pressure vessels are subjected to vari-
tion inside the vessel such as in distillation towers. A hillside noz-
ous combinations of steady and cyclic external nozzle piping
zle is also adopted when it is required to decrease inlet fluid
loads and internal fluid pressure. Such combinations can be exces-
velocity by defining a tangential circular path inside the vessel.
sive enough to cause fracture to the nozzle–cylinder connection if
Study of localized stresses induced at the vicinity of nozzle-
not properly designed. Under such circumstances, as mentioned
vessel intersections has long attracted the attention of both design-
above, the acting loads on the nozzle–cylinder junction may be of
ers and scholars. In this regard, WRC 107 [1] and WRC 297 [2]
cyclic nature. In such case, the pressure vessel engineer is
are two of the most cited bulletins of the Welding Research Coun-
required to ensure that modes of failure associated with cyclic
cil for evaluation of localized stresses at nozzle-vessel joints.
loading such as ratcheting or low cycle fatigue will not cause fail-
WRC 107 [1] is used for nozzles attached to both cylindrical and
ure of the nozzle–vessel intersection.
spherical vessels, while WRC 297 [2] is confined only to cylinder
Beyond elastic limit, a structure under cyclic loading may experi-
to cylinder intersections. In WRC 297, stresses in shell and nozzle
ence a state of “elastic shakedown” in which its steady-state behav-
are determined for wide range of diameters ratios.
ior is fully elastic after development of limited initial plastic strains
For intersections of hillside nozzles with cylindrical vessels, the
during the first few load cycles. Such a steady-state response is
ASME code [3] provided a formula for estimation of the ratio
desirable and ensures that no potential danger of failure exists.
between Sb (maximum stress in a hillside nozzle with angle b)
Determination of shakedown (SD) limits for structures involves
and S0 (maximum stress in a radial nozzle, b ¼ 0) due to internal
investigation of the cyclic inelastic response of the structure to
pressure as: Sb =S0 ¼ 1 þ 2ðsinbÞ2 which implies that the maxi-
cyclic loading. The first obvious approach to this end is to conduct
mum stress increases with the hillside angle b. On the basis of test
a full cyclic inelastic finite element (FE) analysis, which involves
results, Mershon [4] proposed that Sb =S0 ¼ ðcosbÞ0:5 , which
the application of load cycles in steps and monitoring the plastic
implies a slight reduction in the maximum stress as the hillside
strain. If the resulting plastic strain fields show that cyclic accumu-
angle b increases. Thus, the predictions of ASME approach are in
lation ceases after a few cycles and/or nonexistence of reversed
contradiction with experimental test results for maximum stress at
cyclic state of plastic strains, then it is concluded that elastic shake-
hillside nozzles.
down is achieved. However, such extensive computations may be
Wang et al. [5] presented experimental and numerical investi-
in many cases expensive and impractical for realistic structures.
gations of elastic stresses induced by internal pressure at the vicin-
For simple structures, it is possible to conduct such full cyclic
ity of hillside nozzle intersections with cylindrical shells. The
analysis analytically as illustrated by Bree [10] in his treatment of
results show that the stress concentration factor decreases with the
the behavior of a pressurized thin-walled tube under cyclic thermal
increase of hillside nozzle angle, thus confirming Mehrson conclu-
gradient across the wall. Bree results for the various modes of cyclic
sions. Further, Hazlett [6], Skopinsky [7], Rodabaugh [8] also
elastic plastic behavior (shakedown, ratcheting, and reversed plastic-
confirmed Mehrson result. This indicated that the ASME code [3]
ity (RP)) are illustrated in an interaction diagram known as the “Bree
is grossly over conservative.
diagram.” Megahed [11] conducted analytical investigations to illus-
Elastic stresses at hillside nozzle intersection with cylindrical
trate the effect of hardening rules on the modes of cyclic inelastic
vessels due to out-of-plane (OP) nozzle bending moment have
behavior of a two-bar structure under sustained mechanical load and
cyclic thermal gradient on a Bree like diagram.
1
Corresponding author. During the last two decades, a number of the so-called direct
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication methods have been developed to determine shakedown loads
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received September 25,
2017; final manuscript received February 25, 2018; published online April 10, 2018. without resort to conducting full cycle-by-cycle inelastic analysis.
Assoc. Editor: Steve J. Hensel. In addition to their simplicity, direct methods are less demanding

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V

C 2018 by ASME JUNE 2018, Vol. 140 / 031601-1
on computer time and storage and therefore are more economical
than full cycle-by-cycle inelastic analysis.
The elastic compensation method is one of the earliest direct
methods that was developed for determination of lower bound
limit and shakedown loads; see Mackenzie and Boyle [12–14].
The elastic compensation method procedure adopts an iterative
procedure involving sequences of linear elastic FE-based analyses
in which the highly stressed regions of the structure are systemati-
cally weakened by reduction of its local modulus of elasticity.
The weakening mechanism via elastic modulus adjustment is iter-
atively repeated until convergence is achieved, and a constant
residual stress is determined for use in Melan’s theorem of shake-
down [15].
The linear matching method (LMM) proposed by Ponter et al.
[16] and Chen and Ponter [17] provided significant enhancement
in the field of direct methods. In the LMM, a series of iterative
elastic solutions are conducted, with the elastic modulus being
modified within the volume, in order to bring stresses down to the
level of material yield strength. Repetition of the iterations allows
stresses to redistribute within the structure in a way similar to the
response of nonlinear materials, and hence the load converges to
the upper bound shakedown load [18]. Applications of LMM have
been extended to assessment of other modes of potential failure
such as ratcheting, creep, and fatigue.
The nonlinear superposition method (NSM) has been originally
proposed by Muscat and Mackenzie [19] and later, it has been
developed and widely applied by Abdalla et al. [20], Oh et al.
[21], and Vermaak et al. [22]. The method is based on Melan’s
shakedown theorem [15]. As applied by Abdalla et al. [20], the
NSM involves two FE analyses, an elastic analysis under the
cyclic load and an elastic-plastic analysis under both steady and
cyclic loads. Based on these two analyses, the residual stress field
is identified to satisfy Melan’s shakedown theorem [15]. Abdalla
et al. [23,24] validated the accuracy of NSM predictions. Abdalla
et al. [25,26] validated the accuracy of NSM predictions through
comparison of shakedown domains with known analytical solu-
tions for a number of benchmark problems.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, there is lack of publica-
tion on shakedown behavior of hillside nozzle intersections with
cylindrical vessels. Therefore, the scope of this paper has been
designed to fill-in this gap by providing estimates of shakedown
limits for a hillside nozzle—cylindrical shell intersections when
subjected to either cyclic internal pressure only or a combination
of steady internal pressure and cyclic nozzle moments. The influ-
ence of hillside angle on the resulting shakedown pressure and
shakedown limit moments will be investigated. The NSM proce-
dure is utilized, and the following loading cases are considered:
cyclic pressure with no accompanying nozzle moment, cyclic out-
of-plane opening (OPO) combined with steady pressure, and
cyclic in-plane (IP) combined with steady pressure. The objective
of the study is to estimate the shakedown limit loads for hillside
nozzles in cylindrical vessels and to assess the effect of the hill-
side angle b on shakedown limits.
Description of Nonlinear Superposition Method
Procedure
The NSM procedure is an FE-based technique, in which small
displacement formulation and elastic-perfectly plastic material
model are adopted. The detailed description of the method exists
in many references such as Ref. [20].
The NSM procedure is built on the basis of Melan’s shakedown
theorem [15]. It implies that the given load (set) is a lower bound
shakedown load if the sum of elastic stress field (reij Þ and residual
stress fields (rrij Þ satisfy von-Mises yield criterion, i.e., f
(reij þ rrij Þ  SY . The residual stresses can be calculated using the
following equation where the suffix ELPL refers to elastic plastic:
rri ¼ rELPLi  rei (1)
031601-2 / Vol. 140, JUNE 2018
The residual stresses at each load step are calculated based on
superposition of both the nonlinear elastic plastic stress field and
the elastic stress field. Accordingly, the NSM procedure involves
an elastic and an elastic-plastic analyzes as shown in Fig. 1.
Since elastic stress fields are linearly proportional to load level,
the second term in right-hand side of Eq. (1) can be replaced by
rE ðPi =Pref Þ, where Pi is the load at the current load step and Pref
is the load used in the elastic analysis. The elastic analysis can be
performed only once using any cyclic load magnitude.
The purpose of the elastic-plastic analysis is to estimate the
elastic plastic stress field rELPL corresponding to each load step
required in Eq. (1). The elastic-plastic analysis is subdivided into
two steps where both the cyclic and static loads are applied; see
Fig. 1(b). The first step involves application of the steady load,
which induces stresses in the elastic range. The cyclic load is then
applied incrementally until its full magnitude is reached; see Fig.
1(b). Knowing all the terms of the right-hand side of Eq. (1), the
residual stress components can be calculated using the same equa-
tion. The equivalent residual stress can then be calculated from
the corresponding components using von-Mises yield criterion.
A check is performed to know whether the material yield
strength has been exceeded by the residual stress at any integra-
tion point of an element. Whenever this condition is satisfied, the
load corresponding to the previous load step is the shakedown
limit load. Such procedure and check can be automated using the
FE platforms tools as performed by Muscat and Mackenzie [19]
R
and Abdalla et al. [20] on ANSYSV and ABAQUS, respectively. A
semi-automatic approach has been adopted in the current research
using the “solution combination” tool in ANSYS WORKBENCH
(WB) for minimizing the post-processing time.
Characteristics of the Hillside Nozzle-Vessel Finite Element
Model
The FE model for hillside nozzle–cylindrical vessel intersection
was built on ANSYS-WB platform [27]. A four-node shell element
(shell-181 element) with six degrees-of-freedom per node was
used. The current investigation used the nozzle–vessel geometry,
dimensions, and materials similar to those used by Wang et al.
[28] in their investigation of burst pressures of such connection.
Table 1 and Fig. 2 show the dimensions of the Wang et al.
nozzle–vessel intersection model. The letters (D), (L), and (T)
stands for the diameter, length, and wall thickness of the vessel
while the letters (d), (l), and (t) denote the same for the nozzle.
The symbol (b) denotes hillside angle. The characteristic geome-
try indicators are thus: d/D ¼ 0.32, t/T ¼ 0.8, and D/T ¼ 75.1.
Shakedown investigation employs an elastic perfectly plastic
material model. For this purpose, the material data provided by
Wang et al. [28] were adopted as follows: yield strength
Sy ¼ 332 MPa for both vessel and nozzle materials, Young’s mod-
ulus E ¼ 202 GPa for the cylindrical vessel and 212 GPa for the
nozzle, Poisson’s ratio  ¼ 0.3 for both materials.
The current investigations are conducted for the following range
of hillside angles: b ¼ 0 deg (radial), 10 deg, 20 deg, 30 deg, 40 deg.
Note that b ¼ 40 deg is almost the largest hillside angle that can be
achieved for this nozzle/vessel diameter ratio d/D ¼ 0.32. Since the
investigation of shakedown limits requires the generation a large
number of FE models to cater for the adopted ranges of pressure,
moments, and hillside angles, it was necessary to utilize built-in
parametric tools of ANSYS-WB. In addition, parameterization enables
an easier generation of the FE models representing all the different
geometries of the nozzle–vessel intersection.
Figure 3 shows some features of the FE model adopted here.
Similar to the approach adopted by Abdalla [25,26], the fillet weld
joining the nozzle and vessel was replaced by a fillet with a radius
of 6 mm in order to avoid stress singularity at the weld toe. The
boundary conditions along the vessel length include fixation of
one end, while allowing the other end to translate freely in the
axial direction. Since the vessel length is large enough (800 mm)
compared to nozzle diameter (133 mm), it is not expected that the
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 1 Elastic and elastic-plastic analysis in the NSM: (a) elastic analysis and (b) elastic-
plastic analysis
Table 1 Dimensions ( in mm) of the nozzle-vessel intersection
[28]
Di L T do l t
400 800 5.4 133 300 4.3
vessel end boundary conditions would influence stresses or defor-
mations at the junctions. Elastic stress analysis shows that discon-
tinuity stresses arising at the nozzle junction decay after a
longitudinal distance of around 55 mm. Internal pressure was
applied to all internal surfaces of both nozzle and vessel. The lon-
gitudinal effect of pressure was simulated by acting upon the cir-
cular end closures of nozzle and vessel by longitudinal stresses of
magnitudes Pd/4t and PD/4T, respectively. Bending moments
were applied to the nozzle end by means of a master node con-
nected to the nozzle circular closure. The FE model mesh adopted
12 elements at the intersection fillet with element size around
4 mm. The maximum element size away from the intersection was
about 35 mm. The FE model employed about 15,700 shell ele-
ments and 15,900 nodes.
Validation of Finite Element Model. In order to validate the
accuracy of the FE model and NSM procedure, the predictions pub-
lished by Abdalla [25,26] for shakedown behavior of radial nozzle
in cylindrical vessel under combined sustained pressure and cyclic
IP and OP moments are utilized. This special case of radial nozzle
was adopted for validation as no published literature could be
found for shakedown behavior of hillside nozzle with b 6¼ 0. In
Abdalla’s work [25,26], the geometries and material properties
were similar to those of Wu et al. [29] and Sang et al. [30] for the
cases of cyclic IP and OP nozzle moments, respectively. The
Fig. 2 Master model dimensions used in current research similar to Wang et al. [28]
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
dimensions of Abdalla’s model [25,26] are as following:
D ¼ 508 mm, d ¼ 125 mm, T ¼ 8 mm, t ¼ 4 mm, i.e., d/D ¼ 0.25, t/
T ¼ 0.5, and D/T ¼ 63.5. The yield strength for both the nozzle and
the cylinder materials was 302 MPa. For the current validation, FE
models similar to that illustrated in Fig. 3 above were constructed
by means of the parametric feature on ANSYS-WB to match the geo-
metries adopted in Abdalla’s work. The comparisons between Bree
diagrams generated here with Abdalla’s predictions for the valida-
tion cases are illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5 for IP and OP moment
cases, respectively. In such diagrams, the abscissa represents a nor-
malized measure of sustained load (P/PY), while the ordinate repre-
sents a normalized measure of cyclic load (M/MP), where
PY ¼ 2Sy T=D is the internal pressure that is necessary to initiate
yielding in the cylindrical vessel and MP ¼ Sy d2 t is the fully plastic
moment of a straight pipe similar to the nozzle. Accordingly, the
values of PY and MP for the nozzle–vessel intersections geometry
are: PY ¼ 9.5 MPa, MP ¼ 18.9 KN m.
Figure 4 indicates that the current predictions for the case of IP
moment compare favorably with Ref. [25] with deviation of
around 3% in the low pressure range and a deviation of about 8%
for the high pressure range. The results presented in Fig. 5 for the
OP moment exhibit better correlation with Abdalla’s results [26]
with a deviation less than 2%. The correlation depicted in Figs. 4
and 5 indicates that the methodology and modeling adopted is
valid for use with nozzle intersections having hillside angle  0.
Elastic Shakedown Results for Hillside
Nozzle–Cylindrical Vessel Intersections
The shakedown study for hillside nozzle in a cylindrical vessel
arrangement was performed for following load cases:
Case 1: Cyclic pressure.
Case 2: Steady pressure þ cyclic out-of-plane moment OPO.
Case 3: Steady pressure þ cyclic IP moment.
JUNE 2018, Vol. 140 / 031601-3
 Results for Case 1: Cyclic Pressure. Figure 6 shows the varia- Results for Case 2: Sustained Pressure 1 Cyclic Out of
tion of elastic and shakedown limits with hillside angle b from Plane Opening Moment. Figures 8 and 9 compare the elastic
0 deg to 40 deg for the case of cyclic pressure. Note that the elastic limits and shakedown OPO limit moment in the Bree diagram at
limit is the maximum load beyond which the equivalent stress different hillside angles ranging from 0 deg to 40 deg. Values of
exceeds the yield strength of the material. The value of PY for the PY and MP for the hillside nozzle–vessel intersections shown in
hillside nozzle–vessel intersections shown in Fig. 2 is 8.8 MPa.
The results indicate that the pressure shakedown limit for
b ¼ 0 deg is about 0.5 PY . In addition, both elastic and SD pressure
limits increase by about 12% as the angle b is increased from
0 deg to 40 deg. Shakedown pressure approaches about 0.6 PY at
b ¼ 40 deg.
For all values of b, the critical location around the intersection
at which shakedown condition is first reached coincides with loca-
tion where angle h ¼ 90 deg as illustrated in Fig. 7 for b ¼ 40 deg
as an example. See Fig. 2 for definition of angle h.

Fig. 5 Comparison of the predicted elastic and shakedown

limit moments for combined sustained P and cyclic OP nozzle
moment with Abdalla prediction [26]: d/D 5 0.25, t/T 5 0.5, and
D/T 5 63.5

Fig. 3 FE model of Wang et al. [28] intersection of hillside noz-

zle with cylindrical vessel adopted in the present work

Fig. 6 Elastic and shakedown pressures for hillside nozzle

intersections with cylindrical vessels under condition of cyclic
pressure only for various values of hillside angle (b)

Fig. 4 Comparison of the predicted elastic and shakedown

limit moments for combined sustained P and cyclic IP nozzle Fig. 7 Residual stress distribution showing the location of SD
moment with Abdalla prediction [25]: d/D 5 0.25, t/T 5 0.5, and critical element for b 5 40 deg model under cyclic internal
D/T 5 63.5 pressure

031601-4 / Vol. 140, JUNE 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 2 are: PY ¼ 8.8 MPa, MP ¼ 23.6 k Nm. For all values of b, hillside angle has a stronger stiffening effect, which in turn
the elastic limit is a decreasing function of pressure while the increases the SD limit.
shakedown limit moment is constant overall the entire pressure The critical location around the vessel–nozzle intersection at
range. Increased values of b cause corresponding increase in both which shakedown condition is first reached is between angle
the elastic and shakedown limit moments. As b increases from h ¼ 90 deg and 180 deg as illustrated in Fig. 14 for b ¼ 10 deg as
0 deg to 40 deg, the elastic limit at zero pressures increases by an example. See Fig. 2 for definition of angle h.
about 42% while the shakedown moment increases by about 47%.
Figure 10 illustrates the effect on the pressure independent OPO
shakedown limit when the hillside angle is increased.
The critical location around the intersection at which shake-
down condition is first reached coincides with location where
angle h ¼ 0 deg at most of the internal pressure domain as
illustrated in Fig. 11 for b ¼ 10 deg as an example. See Fig. 2 for
definition of angle b.

Results for Case 3: Sustained Pressure 1 Cyclic In-Plane

Moment. Figures 12 and 13 compare the elastic limits and shake-
down IP limit moment in the Bree diagram at different hillside
angles ranging from 0 deg to 30 deg. For all values of b, the elastic
limit is a decreasing function of pressure while the shakedown
limit moment is pressure independent up to about P/PY ¼ 0.1; i.e.,
in the low pressure range. For higher pressure ranges, shakedown
limit moment decreases with increasing pressure. Increased values
of b cause corresponding increase in both the elastic and shake-
down limit moments. At the high pressure range, increased

Fig. 10 Effect of hillside angle on the pressure-independent

OPO shakedown limit

Fig. 8 Comparison of elastic limit boundaries for different hill- Fig. 11 Location for SD critical element for b 5 10 deg model
side angle (d/D 5 0.32, t/T 5 0.8, and D/T 5 75.1) and cyclic moment

Fig. 9 Comparison of OPO shakedown load boundaries for dif- Fig. 12 Comparison of elastic limit boundaries for different
ferent hillside angle (b) (d/D 5 0.32, t/T 5 0.8, and D/T 5 75.1) hillside angle (b) for IP moment loading

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology JUNE 2018, Vol. 140 / 031601-5

 Comparison of Cyclic Out-of-Plane Opening and In-Plane
Elastic and Shakedown Moments Domains. Figures 15 and 16
compare the elastic limits and shakedown IP and OPO limit
moment in the Bree diagram at different hillside angles ranging
from 0 deg to 40 deg. In the low pressure range, IP limits are
Fig. 13 Comparison of IP shakedown load boundaries for dif-
ferent hillside angle (b)
Fig. 14 Location for SD critical element for b 5 10 deg model
and steady pressure 1 cyclic IP moment
Fig. 15 Comparison of elastic limit boundaries for different
hillside angle (b) for IP and OPO moment loading
031601-6 / Vol. 140, JUNE 2018
considerably higher than OPO limits. At zero pressure, ratios of
IP to OP shakedown limit moments vary from 2.6 to 2.2 for
b ¼ 0 deg–30 deg.
Verification of Elastic Shakedown Limit Results Via Full
Elastic-Plastic Cyclic Loading Finite Element Analysis. In
order to check the accuracy of NSM prediction for shakedown
moments and to illustrate the potential mode of failure if this limit
is exceeded, a full cyclic elastic plastic analysis is performed at
sample operating cases. The equivalent plastic strain at the critical
integration points determined by NSM is monitored. Variation of
such plastic strain with time (or cycles) will determine whether
shakedown has occurred after the first moment cycle at that point.
Two different operating cases for an intersection with b ¼ 20 deg
for each of OPO and IP loading cases are selected for this check,
viz. P/PY ¼ 0.05 and P/PY ¼ 0.20 as illustrated in Fig. 17. At each
pressure level, two cyclic analyses were performed just below and
above the NSM-predicted shakedown boundary. Exact locations
of the eight operating points are listed in Table 2.
The full cyclic elastic-plastic analysis involves application of
the steady pressure coupled with three full OPO/IP moment cycles
as illustrated in Fig. 18. The ASME Sec. VIII Div. [3] procedure
was taken as a guidance for such number of cycles. The equivalent
plastic strain is monitored over the moment cycles. Normalized
equivalent stress is then plotted against the normalized equivalent
plastic strain in a manner similar to that adopted by Oda et al.
[31]. The reference values for the normalization are: SY for stress
Fig. 16 Comparison of shakedown boundaries for different
hillside angle (b) for IP and OPO moment loading
Fig. 17 Cyclic elastic-plastic verification points
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Cyclic elastic-plastic verification points in Fig. 17 and linear kinematic hardening models, and showed that SD
domains are slightly larger than for PP models. Adoption of non-
Point Internal pressure Normalized bending linear kinematic hardening models would require the identifica-
[% Py (vessel)] moment [M/Mp (nozzle)] Behavior tion of a larger number of material constants.
The SD domains obtained above show some distinctive features
1a 5 0.135 SD
1b 5 0.145 RP
of radial and hillside nozzle junctions. SD limits for IP moments
2a 20 0.135 SD are much higher than for OP moments, particularly at the low
2b 20 0.145 RP pressure range. For OP moments, the SD limit is pressure inde-
3a 5 0.31 SD pendent all over the whole pressure range. For IP moment, the SD
3b 5 0.34 RP moments are pressure independent only in the low pressure range.
4a 20 0.26 SD Most of these features can possible be interpreted in terms of
4b 20 0.29 R subtle interactions between the effects of pressure and moments.
The fact that post shakedown behavior always involves reversed
plasticity when the SD limit is pressure independent is most prob-
and SY/E for plastic strain, and the sign of equivalent stress is the ably related to the formation of isolated plastic zones at the highly
same as that of the mean stress. stressed locations surrounded by large elastic zones. However,
The outcome of the full cyclic elastic-plastic analyses showed such interpretation requires further investigation.
that all operating points (O/P) below the SD limits (1a, 2a, 3a, and The fact that SD domains are bounded by a critical pressure
4a) exhibited elastic shakedown behavior in accordance with ratio P/PY of about 30% at zero moment implies that this limiting
NSM predictions. An example of the plastic response at O/P (1a) pressure ratio represents condition of initial yielding under pres-
is shown in Fig. 19. On the other hand, the full cyclic analyses sure load only. This critical value is independent of the type of
have shown that the post shakedown behavior at O/P 1b, 2b, and bending moment (IP or OP), which supports this view. Further,
3b constitutes a state of RP. Figure 20 shows an example of RP Fig. 6, which shows elastic and SD moments under pressure, only
behavior for O/P 1b. Full cyclic analysis for O/P 4b exhibited a reveals that the yielding begins at P/PY of about 30%.
ratcheting behavior as illustrated in Fig. 21. Table 2 summarizes
the results of all O/P tests. These checks verify the ability of NSM
to correctly predict shakedown limits.
Both NSM and full cyclic plastic analyses have utilized perfect-
plasticity (PP) material model. Adoption of such model causes
conservative results for shakedown domains. Abdalla et al. [32]
compared NSM predictions for SD of pipe elbows using both PP

Fig. 20 Point 1b plastic cycling behavior due to cyclic loading

including zooming the cyclic portion

Fig. 18 Pattern for moment and pressure loading in cyclic

analysis

Fig. 21 Point 4b ratcheting behavior due to cyclic loading

Fig. 19 Point 1a shakedown behavior due to cyclic loading including zooming the cyclic portion

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology JUNE 2018, Vol. 140 / 031601-7

Conclusion [6] Hazlett, T., 1990, “Three Dimensional Parametric Finite Element Analyses of
Hillside Connections in Cylinders Subject to Internal Pressure,” ASME Pres-
The results reported illustrate the effects of hillside angle b and sure Vessels & Piping Conference, Nashville, TN, June 17–21, pp. 141–145.
internal pressure with IP and OP nozzle moments on shakedown [7] Skopinsky, V. N., 1993, “Numerical Stress Analysis of Intersecting Cylindrical
Shells,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 115(3), pp. 275–282.
limits. Three loading cases are considered: cyclic pressure with no [8] Rodabaugh, E. C., 2000, “Part 1: Internal Pressure Design of Isolated Nozzles
nozzle bending, and combination of steady pressure and cyclic OPO in Cylindrical Vessels With d/D up to and Including 1.00: Report No. 1: Code
bending and cyclic IP bending. Under cyclic pressure, the shake- Rules for Internal Pressure Design of Isolated Nozzles in Cylindrical Vessels,”
down pressure was found to increase with increased hillside angle. Welding Research Council, New York, Report No. WRC 451.
[9] Fang, J., Li, N., Sang, Z. F., and Widera, G. E. O., 2009, “Study of Elastic
Under cyclic OPO nozzle bending, a pressure-independent shake- Strength for Cylinders With Hillside Nozzle,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Tech-
down moment was obtained, whose level increases with increased nol., 131(5), p. 051202.
values of the hillside angle. Under cyclic IP nozzle bending, shake- [10] Bree, J., 1967, “Elastic-Plastic Behaviour of Thin Tubes Subjected to Internal
down moment remains constant with pressure in the low pressure Pressure and Intermittent High-Heat Fluxes With Application to Fast-Nuclear-
Reactor Fuel Elements,” J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des., 2(3), pp. 226–238.
range, and reduces with pressure in the high pressure range. Similar [11] Megahed, M. M., 1981, “Influence of Hardening Rule on the Elasto-Plastic
to OP bending, level of IP shakedown moment increases with Behaviour of a Simple Structure Under Cyclic Loading,” Int. J. Mech. Sci.,
increased values of the hillside angle. The increased shakedown 23(3), pp. 169–182.
capacity of hillside nozzle junctions in cylindrical vessels can be [12] Mackenzie, D., and Boyle, J. T., 1992, “A Method of Estimating Limit Loads
by Iterative Elastic Analysis—I: Simple Examples,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels
interpreted in terms of reduced stress concentration as the hillside Piping, 53(1), pp. 77–95.
angle is increased, contrary to what ASME rules suggest [3]. [13] Nadarajah, C., Mackenzie, D., and Boyle, J. T., 1992, “A Method of Estimating
Limit Loads by Iterative Elastic Analysis—II: Nozzle Sphere Intersections
With Internal Pressure and Radial Load,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 53(1),
Acknowledgment pp. 97–119.
[14] Shi, J., Mackenzie, D., and Boyle, J. T., 1992, “A Method of Estimating Limit
The authors acknowledge the support provided by Engineering Loads by Iterative Elastic Analysis—III: Torispherical Heads Under Internal
for Petroleum and Process Industries Company (ENPPI) in Egypt Pressure,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 53(1), pp. 121–142.
to the research reported in this paper. [15] Melan, E., 1936, “Theorie Statisch Unbestimmter Systeme Aus Ideal-
Plastichem Baustoff,” Sitzungsber. Kais. Akad. Wiss. Wien, 2A(145), pp.
195–218.
Nomenclature [16] Ponter, A. R. S., Fuschi, P., and Engelhardt, M., 2000, “Limit Analysis for a
General Class of Yield Conditions,” Eur. J. Mech.-A/Solids, 19(3), pp.
d¼ mean diameter of the nozzle 401–421.
D¼ mean diameter of the cylinder [17] Chen, H. F., and Ponter, A. R. S., 2001, “Shakedown and Limit Analyses for
do ¼ outer diameter of the nozzle 3-D structures Using the Linear Matching Method,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels
Di ¼ inner diameter of the cylinder Piping, 78(6), pp. 443–451.
[18] Ure, J., Chen, H., and Tipping, D., 2015, “Verification of the Linear Matching
E¼ modulus of elasticity Method for Limit and Shakedown Analysis by Comparison With Experiments,”
L¼ cylinder length ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 137(3), p. 031003.
l¼ nozzle length [19] Muscat, M., and Mackenzie, D., 2003, “Elastic-Shakedown Analysis of
Axisymmetric Nozzles,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 125(4), pp.
M¼ nozzle moment 365–370.
MP ¼ plastic moment of a straight pipe similar to the nozzle [20] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, M. M., and Younan, M. Y A., 2006, “Determination
P¼ internal pressure of Shakedown Limit Load for a 90-Degree Pipe Bend Using a Simplified
Pi ¼ load at step i Technique,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 128(4), pp. 618–624.
[21] Oh, C.-S., Kim, Y.-J., and Park, C.-Y., 2008, “Shakedown Limit Loads for
Pref ¼ reference load Elbows Under Internal Pressure and Cyclic In-Plane Bending,” Int. J. Pressure
PY ¼ yield pressure of the cylinder Vessels. Piping, 85(6), pp. 394–405.
r¼ fillet radius [22] Vermaak, N., Valdevit, L., Evans, A. G., Zok, F. W., and Mcmeeking, R. M.,
SY ¼ yield strength 2011, “Implications of Shakedown for Design of Actively Cooled Thermostruc-
tural Panels,” J. Mech. Mater. Struct., 6(9–10), pp. 1313–1327.
Sb ¼ maximum stress in a hillside nozzle of angle b [23] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, M. M., and Younan, M. Y. A., 2009, “Comparison of
S0 ¼ maximum stress in a radial nozzle Pipe Bend Ratchetting/Shakedown Test Results With the Shakedown Boundary
t¼ thickness of nozzle Determined Via a Simplified Technique,” ASME Paper No. PVP2009-77403.
T¼ thickness of cylinder [24] Abdalla, H. F., Megahed, M. M., and Younan, M. Y. A., 2011, “A Simplified
Technique for Shakedown Limit Load Determination of a Large Square Plate
b¼ hillside angle With a Small Central Hole Under Cyclic Biaxial Loading,” Nucl. Eng. Des.,
¼ Poisson’s ratio 241(3), pp. 657–665.
rE ¼ elastic stress due to reference load [25] Abdalla, H. F., 2014, “Shakedown Limit Load Determination of a Cylindrical
rei ¼ elastic stress at load step i Vessel–Nozzle Intersection Subjected to Steady Internal Pressures and Cyclic
in-Plane Bending Moments,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 136(5),
rELPL ¼ elastic plastic stress
p. 051602.
reij ¼ elastic stress components [26] Abdalla, H. F., 2014, “Elastic Shakedown Boundary Determination of a Cylin-
rrij ¼ residual stress components drical Vessel-Nozzle Intersection Subjected to Steady Internal Pressures and
rri ¼ residual stress at load step i Cyclic Out-of-Plane Bending Moments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 267, pp. 189–196.
[27] ANSYS, 2012, “ANSYS Mechanical APDL Element Reference,” ANSYS Inc.,
Canonsburg, PA, pp. 724–746.
References [28] Wang, H. F., Sang, Z. F., Xue, L. P., and Widera, G. E. O., 2009, “Burst Pres-
[1] Wichman K. R, M. J. L., and Hopper, A. G., 1979, “Local Stresses Spherical sure of Pressurized Cylinders With Hillside Nozzle,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel
Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings,” Welding Research Council, New Technol., 131(4), p. 041204.
York, Report No. 107. [29] Wu, B. H., Sang, Z. F., and Widera, G. E. O., 2010, “Plastic Analysis for Cylin-
[2] Mershon, J. L., Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G. V., and Rodabaugh, E. C., 1987, drical Vessels Under In-Plane Moment on the Nozzle,” ASME J. Pressure Ves-
“Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings on Nozzles- sel Technol., 132(6), p. 061203.
Supplement to WRC Bulletin No. 107 (Revision I),” Welding Research [30] Sang, Z. F., Wang, Z. L., Xue, L. P., and Widera, G. E. O., 2005, “Plastic Limit
Council, New York, Report No. WRC 297. Loads of Nozzles in Cylindrical Vessels Under Out-of-Plane Moment
[3] ASME, 2015, ASME B&PVC, Section VIII, Division 2, Rules for Construction Loading,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 82(8), pp. 638–648.
of Pressure Vessels—Alternative Rules, American Society of Mechanical Engi- [31] Oda, A. A., Megahed, M. M., and Abdalla, H. F., 2015, “Effect of Local Wall
neers, New York. Thinning on Shakedown Regimes of Pressurized Elbows Subjected to Cyclic
[4] Mershon, J. L., 1970, “Part 1: Interpretive Report on Oblique Nozzle Connec- In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Bending,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 134, pp.
tions in Pressure Vessel Heads and Shells Under Internal Pressure Loading,” 11–24.
Welding Research Council, New York, Report No. 153. [32] Abdalla, H. F., Younan, M. Y. A., and Megahed, M. M., 2011, “Shakedown
[5] Wang, H. F., Sang, Z. F., Xue, L. P., and Widera, G. E. O., 2006, “Elastic Limit Load Determination for a Kinematically Hardening 90 Deg Pipe Bend
Stresses of Pressurized Cylinders With Hillside Nozzle,” ASME J. Pressure Subjected to Steady Internal Pressures and Cyclic Bending Moments,” ASME
Vessel Technol., 128(4), pp. 625–631. J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 133(5), p. 051212.

031601-8 / Vol. 140, JUNE 2018 Transactions of the ASME