See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281352223

Shakedown criterion employing actual residual stress field and its application
in numerical shakedown analysis

Article  in  Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering · August 2015

DOI: 10.3901/CJME.2015.0727.102

CITATIONS READS

2 257

5 authors, including:

Zongyuan Zou
Yan Shan University
11 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zongyuan Zou on 12 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 28,aNo. 5,a2015 ·919·

DOI: 10.3901/CJME.2015.0727.102, available online at www.springerlink.com; www.cjmenet.com; www.cjme.com.cn

Shakedown Criterion Employing Actual Residual Stress Field and Its Application
in Numerical Shakedown Analysis

ZOU Zongyuan1, GUO Baofeng1, LI Yinxiao2, JIN Miao1, *, and ZHAO Shiyan1
1 Key Laboratory of Advanced Forging & Stamping Technology and Science of Ministry of Education, Yanshan University,
Qinhuangdao 066004, China
2 Chinese 91315 People’s Liberation Army Troops, China

Received August 18, 2014; revised April 27, 2015; accepted July 27, 2015

Abstract: Construction of the static admissible residual stress field and searching the optimal field are key tasks in the shakedown
analysis methods applying the static theorem. These methods always meet dimension obstacles when dealing with complex problems. In
this paper, a novel shakedown criterion is proposed employing actual residual stress field based on the static shakedown theorem. The
actual residual stress field used here is produced under a specified load path, which is a sequence of proportional loading and unloading
from zero to all the vertices of the given load domain. This ensures that the shakedown behavior in the whole load domain can be
determined based on the theorem proposed by König. The shakedown criterion is then implemented in numerical shakedown analysis.
The actual residual stress fields are calculated by incremental finite element elastic-plastic analysis technique for finite deformation
under the specified load path with different load levels. The shakedown behavior and the shakedown limit load are determined according
to the proposed criterion. The validation of the criterion is performed by a benchmark shakedown example, which is a square plate with
a central hole under biaxial loading. The results are consistent with existing results in the literatures and are validated by full cyclic
elastic-plastic finite element analysis. The numerical shakedown analysis applying the proposed criterion avoids processing dimension
obstacles and performing full cyclic elastic-plastic analysis under arbitrary load paths which should be accounted for appearing. The
effect of material model and geometric changes on shakedown behavior can be considered conveniently.

Keywords: elastoplastic, finite element, shakedown criterion, specified load path, actual residual stress field

boundary values of shakedown limit load. The classic


1 Introduction
Shakedown is a safe steady state of a structure with finite
plastic deformation under repeated loading. The
determination of shakedown behavior is important in the
design and evaluation of a structure subjected to repeated
load[1]. Shakedown is recognized by checking the
accumulation of the structural plastic deformation cycle by
cycle through full cyclic elastoplastic analysis. However,
such procedure is very time-consuming and inapplicable
considering the infinite load paths which should be
accounted for appearing in many cases.
The shakedown theorem gives an alternative. The classic
shakedown theorems contain the static (Melan) shakedown
theorem[2] and the kinematic shakedown theorem[3]. They
employ static and kinematic fields to determine the
* Corresponding author. E-mail: jmiao@ysu.edu.cn
Supported by National Science and Technology Major Project of China
(Grant No. 2013ZX04003031), National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 51475408), Hebei Provincial College Innovation Team
Leader Training Program of China (Grant No. LJRC012), and Hebei
Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
E2012203045)
© Chinese Mechanical Engineering Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
theorems have been extended by many scholars to deal
with varied situations[4–8]. Many alternative shakedown
analysis methods have been developed based on the classic
theorems and the extended theorems. For example, the
“GLOSS R-Node” method[9], Elastic Compensation
Method (ECM)[10–12], the Linear Matching Method[13–15],
the bipotential approach[16], the homogenized method[17],
the mathematical programming method[18–20], the nonlinear
superposition method[21–22] and the simplified
technique[23–25], etc. Recently, a Residual Stress
Decomposition Method by decomposing the expected
residual stresses in Fourier series was proposed[26–27].
In general, Melan’s theorem is usually more useful for
structural design and evaluation, because in principle it
leads to a conservative solution, and is more convenient
than the kinematic shakedown theorem. The key of
methods applying Melan’s theorem is to find the optimal
static admissible residual stress field. Thus it is always the
case that a fictitious static admissible residual stress field is
constructed and the optimal stress field is then searched.
When dealing with huge complex structures or complex
loading problems, the dimension obstacle will be induced
and is hard to overcome. The nonlinear superposition
 ZOU Zongyuan, et al: Shakedown Criterion Employing Actual Residual Stress Field and Its Application
·920· in Numerical Shakedown Analysis
method and the simplified technique construct the residual
stress field by superposition of the results of the elastic
analysis and the inelastic analysis under given explicit load
path[21–25]. They only obtain the optimal residual stress field
of the given explicit load path. However, they do not
encounter dimension obstacles. Thus lower bound of elastic
shakedown limit load for complex structure under explicit
load path can be determined. This method has already been
applied to a number of practical components. But it cannot
deal with arbitrary load path and the effect of geometric
changes has not yet been taken into account.
Actual residual stress field is produced in the structure
under given loading and unloading, and of course satisfies
the static admissible condition. It is a specific case of static
admissible residual stress field. By current incremental FE
elastoplastic analysis technique and computer power the
actual residual stress under a given load path considering
the existing plastic deformation can be calculated[28–30].
Besides, the shakedown behavior under arbitrary load path
in the given load domain can be determined under some
specified load paths satisfying some conditions[1]. So
numerical shakedown analysis employing the actual
residual stress field is reasonable and feasible. It will not be
limited to small and simple structures under relative simple
loadings anymore. Furthermore, the effect of material
model and geometric changes can be considered
conveniently by appropriate incremental FE elastoplastic
analysis technique for finite deformation.
A shakedown criterion employing actual residual stress
field based on Melan’s theorem is proposed in this paper.
The actual residual stress field employed in the criterion is
solved under a specified load path satisfying some
conditions so as to determine the shakedown behavior in
the whole load domain. The criterion is implemented in the
FE shakedown analysis by incremental elastoplastic finite
element technique. For validation, the FE shakedown
analysis applying the criterion is performed to a typical
example.
2 Shakedown Criterion Employing Actual
Residual Stress Field
2.1 Specified load path
A structure may be subjected to many types of loads, and
generally the loads vary obeying their own rules. The
magnitude and the affecting time are not the same. Some of
them may change periodically, whereas some may keep
constant and some may change randomly. Let us present a
mathematical model describing any loads applied to a given
structure. If a finite number of general external loads
obeying their own rules vary in their own domain, the loads
can be presented in the following form:
F = [1 F1 , 2 F2 , , n Fn ]T ,
where Fi ( i = 1, 2,, n ) is the basis load vector of every
load, and i ( i = 1, 2, , n ) is the corresponding
multiplier. The multiplier i varies independently in its
variation domain [i- , i+ ] . Eq. (1) describes the domain
 of the loads. In practical engineering problems, the
domain  of the loads is usually known. However, the
history of loading is unknown. The loads can vary
randomly in their domain, as shown in Fig. 1(a).
Fig. 1. Load domain and load path
König showed that in practical applications, the domain
 is usually a convex hyper-polyhedron defined by the
vertices, which are 1 ,  2 ,  ,  . As illustrated in Fig.
1, a two-dimensional load domain with six vertices is taken
as an example. König proposed the theorem as follows[1].
Theorem: If a given structure shakes down over a cyclic
load path containing all the vertices of the hyper-polyhedral
load domain , it shakes down over any load path
contained within the domain .
To check whether a given structure will shakedown over
any load paths within , only the behavior of the structure
over a cyclic load path which contains all the vertices of the
polyhedron has to be investigated. Now let us define a
specified load path P (t ) of the load domain . Zero load
is assumed to be included in the load path. The load path
contains a sequence proportional loading and unloading
from zero load to all the vertices of the load domain. If  m
( m = 1, 2,,  ) are the vertices of the hyper-polyhedral
load domain , the specified load path P (t ) can be
defined by the following equations:
P (t ) =  m (t ) =  m (t + T ), (2)
P (nT ) =  m (0) =  m (nT ) = 0, (3)
where t is the loading duration, T is the time period, m is
the vertices of the polyhedron and m = 1, 2,,  , n is an
integer representing the number of cycles for each vertex
and n = 1, 2, . The specified load path P (t ) is
illustrated in Fig. 1(b).
The shakedown behavior of the structure in the load
domain  can be evaluated by the shakedown behavior
under the load path described by Eqs. (2) and (3). Thus the
shakedown behavior in the whole load domain can be
represented equivalently by the shakedown behavior under
(1) all the cyclic load paths from zero to the vertices of the
domain. If the structure shakes down under all the cyclic
load paths from zero to the vertices of the domain, then it
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
will shake down in the load domain defined by the vertices.
Otherwise the structure will not shake down in the domain.
The assumption that zero load belongs to the load path
makes it convenient to obtain the actual residual stress field.
According to the shakedown behavior under different load
levels corresponding to each vertex, the shakedown limit
load corresponding to the vertex can be determined. Then
the shakedown domain can be obtained with the shakedown
limit loads of all the vertices.
2.2 Shakedown criterion
Melan’s theorem[2] gives the requirement of elastic
shakedown employing static admissible stress field. The
structure will shakedown if a time independent
self-equilibrated stress field  ijr can be found such that
 ( ije +  ijr ) ≤ 0 for every location of the structural body
and everywhere of the loading. Where  ( ij ) = 0 is the
yield function and  ije is the linear elastic reference stress
of the structure under loading. Polizzotto extended the
classical Melan’s shakedown theorem to complex loading
and makes use of a time independent stress field which is in
static equilibrium with the external loads instead of a
self-equilibrated stress field[4].
For the steady cyclic state of a given cyclic loading path
containing a sequence of proportional loadings and
un-loadings from zero to a vertex of the given load domain
, assuming  ij is the peak elastoplastic stress of the load
vertex and ̂ij is the corresponding steady actual residual
stress field at zero load condition, then  ij satisfies the
following equation:
 ( ij ) ≤ 0. (4)
If ̂ij does not satisfy the yield condition, it implies that
the unloading process of the steady cyclic state from the
vertex to zero load is elastic, then the actual residual stress
field ̂ij under this load vertex of the steady cyclic state
can be calculated using principle of superposition as
follows:
ˆ ij =  ij -  ije , (5)
where  is the elastic reference stress of the structure
e
ij
under the load vertex as in Melan’s theorem. Submitting Eq.
(5) into Eq. (4), the following equation can be obtained:
(ˆ ij +  ije )≤ 0. (6)
This implies the satisfaction of Melan’s theorem. Then the
elastic shakedown can be attained under the cyclic loading
path from zero load to this load vertex.
If the actual residual stress field satisfies the yield
condition, then according to the elastoplastic theorem, the
right hand side of Eq. (5) will violate the yield condition.
Eq. (5) cannot be used to calculate the actual residual stress
of the structure, and Eq. (6) does not hold anymore.
·921·
In conclusion, as long as the actual residual stress of the
steady state does not satisfy the yield condition, it satisfies
Melan’s theorem. The structure can shake down to elastic
in the load domain if all the steady actual residual stress
fields for all the vertices of the specified load path do not
satisfy the yield condition. In summary, the shakedown
criterion employing actual residual stress field based on
Melan’s theorem can be stated as following:
The load path P (t ) is a specified cyclic load path
containing a sequence of proportional loadings and
un-loadings from zero to all the vertices of the given load
domain . If the actual residual stress fields of the steady
state ̂ij under all the load vertices of the load domain do
not satisfy the yield condition, the structure will reach
elastic shakedown state under arbitrary load paths in the
load domain. The criterion can be expressed by
（ˆ ij）< 0. (7)
2.3 Determination of shakedown limit load
According to the criterion proposed above, the
corresponding load level Ps at which the steady residual
stress ̂ij just satisfies the yield condition, i.e., （ˆ ij）= 0
is the elastic shakedown limit load. All of the residual stress
fields for the lower load levels than Ps don't satisfy the
yield condition, i.e., （ˆ）< 0 .
Proof:
Assuming two load levels P ( n) and P (n + 1),
P (n + 1) > P (n), which are two different levels lower than
the elastic shakedown limit load Ps for the same load
vertex. Then according to the proposed criterion, the
corresponding actual residual stresses ˆ ijn and ˆ ijn+1 of
the respective steady cyclic state don't satisfy the yield
condition, so they can be calculated by performing
superposition as the following equations:
ˆ ijn =  ijn -  ijen , (8)
ˆ ijn+1 =  ijn+1 - （
e n+1）
ij
, (9)
where  ijn and  ijn+1 are the elastoplastic stresses of
steady cyclic state caused by the cyclic load P ( n) and
e n +1）
P (n + 1) , respectively,  ijen and  （
ij
are the reference
elastic stresses caused by the load P ( n) and P (n + 1) ,
respectively.
The elastoplastic stress  ijn+1 and the reference elastic
e n +1）
stress  （ ij
caused by the load P (n + 1) can be
expressed by the following equations:
 ijn+1 =  ijn +  ijn+1 , (10)
e n +1） e n+1）
（ =  ijen +  （ , (11)
ij ij
where  ijn+1 and  （
e n +1）
ij
are the elastoplastic stress
 ZOU Zongyuan, et al: Shakedown Criterion Employing Actual Residual Stress Field and Its Application
·922· in Numerical Shakedown Analysis
increment and the reference elastic stress increment caused
by the load increment P = P (n + 1) - P (n) respectively.
By submitting Eqs. (10) and (11) into Eq. (9) and
comparing to Eq. (8), the following expression can be
obtained:
ˆ ijn+1 = ˆ ijn + ( ijn+1 -  （
e n+1）
ij
).
Due to the yielding property of materials, the following
expression can easily be obtained:
e n+1）
 （
ij
>  ijn+1 ,
e n+1）
where  （ and  ijn+1 are the equivalent stresses of
ij
the corresponding stresses. As the load increment increases,
e n+1）
the difference between  （ and  ijn+1
ij
become larger, so the equivalent stress ( ijn+1 -  （
e n +1）
) step. In the second load step, i.e., between t1 and t2, load
ij
will become larger too.
It can be concluded that the equivalent residual stresses
 is gradually changing with the increase of the load
levels. The equivalent residual stress  may increase
with the increase of the external load level or firstly
decrease then increase with the increase of the load levels.
However, once the actual residual stress reaches the yield
stress, it will not change anymore with the increase of load
level. Thus according to the criterion proposed, it can be
concluded that the load level at which the actual residual
stress firstly reaches to the yield stress is the shakedown
limit load. So the shakedown limit load can be determined
by searching the load at which the residual stress ̂ij just
satisfies the yield condition, i.e., （ˆ ij）= 0. In other
words, the minimum load level at which the residual stress
satisfies the yield condition.
3 Application of the Shakedown Criterion
in Numerical Shakedown Analysis
In the shakedown analysis procedure of this paper, the
incremental finite element elastoplastic analysis technique
for finite deformation is used to calculate the actual residual
stress fields under the specified load path with different load
levels. The criterion proposed is applied to check shakedown
behavior and determine shakedown limit load.
3.1 Calculation of the actual residual stress field
Generally when carrying out structural shakedown
evaluation, the inertia, viscous forces, the creep, the
material cyclic plasticity as well as the temperature effect
on the material properties etc., are neglected. The material
model adopted obeys the Von Mises criterion. The actual
residual stress fields ̂ij is calculated by incremental finite
element's finite deformation elastoplastic loading and
unloading analysis under the specified load history.
According to the analysis of a time-independent residual
stress field in Ref. [21], the residual stress field for one
cycle of loading and unloading is taken as a
time-independent actual residual stress field for each load
level.
(12) In reality, structures may be subjected to several constant
and cyclic loads simultaneously and the load domain with
several vertices. For simplicity, we take a loading type of
combination of one constant load P1 and one varied load
P2 as an example to illustrate the specified load history.
The load history is given to determine the shakedown limit
(13) load for one load vertex i.e. for one load ratio  = P1 / P2 ,
as shown in Fig. 2. It is cumulative multistep loading. The
specified load history contains a sequence of combinations
of constant load P1 with proportional loadings and
unloadings from zero to the corresponding cyclic load P2
with different load levels for the load vertex. The loads
will
P1 (1) and P2 (1) are first applied together in the first load
P2 (1) is unloaded while P1 (1) is still acting. Then in the
third load step, load P1 (2) and P2 (2) are applied
together and then P2 (2) is unloaded in the next load step
while load P1 (2) is still acting. The procedure continues
till the load levels of the two loads reach their maximum
values. Both amplitudes of load P1 and P2 for each level
are gradually increasing. The lowest load level applied can
be the first yield load Pe , i.e., elastic limit load, while the
highest load level can be the plastic limit load PL for the
load ratio. Then according to Fig. 2 the residual stress fields
ˆ ij (i ) of different load levels can be picked up from times
t2, t4, and so on. To check the shakedown behavior of the
given load domain and determine the whole shakedown
domain, all the vertices should be dealt with in the same
way.
Fig. 2. Specified loading history in the FEA for one vertex
Furthermore, the loading is a cumulative multistep
loading, so the load level which is lower than the
shakedown limit load can produce new plastic strain at
every loading half cycle and it can redistribute the residual
stress field. In consideration of the stress field’s gradually
stabilized property under cyclic loading of a explicit load
level[31], to some extent, the cycles of lower loads have an
effect on the stabilization process of the higher load. The
effect of cumulative multistep loading on the calculation of
stabilized residual stress field can be seen in the Numerical
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Example part. Methods which can calculate more accurate
time independent actual residual stress field may be further
developed.
In the calculation, the incremental FE elastic-plastic
loading and unloading analysis for finite deformation takes
account of the effect of existing plastic deformation on the
actual residual stress field, i.e., the geometrical effect is
considered naturally. In addition, the effect of material
model can be considered easily by employing appropriate
material model in the FE analysis.
3.2 Determination of shakedown behavior and
shakedown limit load
For the Von Mises yield criterion, the shakedown
criterion proposed can be expressed as follows:
 <s, (14)
where  is the Mises equivalent stress of the actual
residual stress field in equilibrium with the applied constant
load ̂ij , and  s is the yield stress of the material. Only
the residual stresses of the critical locations determining the
structural shakedown behavior need to be checked.
Not only the equivalent residual stress  but also some
other parameters such as the equivalent plastic strain rate
 p , the equivalent plastic strain  p , can be obtained in the
FE post processer. They can also be used to judge whether
or not the residual stress field satisfies the yield condition.
There are different choices to check shakedown behavior
and search shakedown limit load from a series of load
levels. They can do by searching the load level at which the
equivalent residual stress is smaller than the yield stress
and just equal to the yield stress, searching the load level at
which the equivalent plastic strain rate at the end of
unloading is equal to zero and turn to not be zero, searching
the load level at which both of the equivalent plastic strains
at the ends of loading and unloading are equal to each other
and turn to not be equal. These parameters of different load
levels are read from the FE post processer and the
corresponding curves are plotted. As illustrated in Fig. 3,
the equivalent residual stress  and the equivalent plastic
strain rate  p are taken as examples. In Fig. 3, Pe is the
elastic limit load, Ps is the shakedown limit load, PL is
the plastic limit load.
Fig. 3. Determination of shakedown limit load
·923·
For the EPP (Elastic Perfectly Plastic) material, checking
the equivalent residual stress is convenient as the yield
stress  s is constant. For strain hardening materials,
checking the other parameters may be more convenient.
If the residual stress does not satisfy the yield condition
at all the load levels from the elastic limit load to the plastic
limit load, it implies that the limit state arrives earlier than
the shakedown limit state.
4 Numerical Example
The criterion and the corresponding FE shakedown
analysis procedure proposed in this work can be applied to
various complex problems. However, a common simple
benchmark example has been chosen for comparison and
validation purposes. The example is a square plate with a
central hole subjected to biaxial tension under plane stress
assumption. This problem has been used extensively to
validate numerical shakedown analysis methods, such as the
elastic compensation method[10], the mathematical
programming technique[18], and the non-linear superposition
method[21]. In order to gain confidence in the criterion
proposed, full elastoplastic cyclic loading simulation with the
shakedown limit load resulted is also performed.
4.1 Problem description and finite element model
Fig. 4 shows the schematic diagram of the plate and the
applied loads. The load domain is assumed as a polygon
with 9 vertices, i.e., 1 ,  2 ,  , 9 , as shown in Fig. 5,
and each vertex represents a special load ratio of
 = P1 / P2 . The horizontal stress load P1 is assumed to be
constant and the vertical stress load P2 is assumed to vary
between zero and corresponding maximum magnitude
cyclically, as illustrated in Fig. 6. In this case, the diameter
of the hole D and the length of the plate L are 20 mm and
100mm, respectively, hence the ratio D/L is 0.2.
Fig. 4. Square plate with a central hole schematic
Fig. 5. Load domain and the specified
load path of the plate
 ZOU Zongyuan, et al: Shakedown Criterion Employing Actual Residual Stress Field and Its Application
·924· in Numerical Shakedown Analysis

the shakedown limit load and in this example it is a stress

Fig. 6. Cyclic loading history for a special load ratio
The material of the plate is assumed to be homogenous,
isotropic. The EPP material model and Von Mises criterion
are utilized. The elastic modulus is 207 GPa, Poisson’s
ratio is 0.3 and the yield stress is 353 MPa. All finite
element analyses were carried out in MSC. Marc using
plane stress 4-noded quad element. The finite element mesh
and boundary condition are shown in Fig. 7. A quarter
model is used with appropriate symmetric constraint
conditions due to the symmetry of the geometry and
loading. The meshes of the region nearby the hole were
refined as shown in Fig. 7 considering the stress
distributing character and efficiency of computation. About
17 000 elements were meshed after several tentative
calculations to guarantee the accuracy and efficiency.
load,  s is the yield stress of the material.
The resulting shakedown limit load multiplier for the
load ratios 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 corresponding to the
vertices 1 ,  2 ,  , 5 are shown in Fig. 8. The results
presented by HAMILTON, et al[10], CORRADI, et al[18],
and MUSCAT, et al[21] are also plotted. They are obtained
by the mathematic programming method, non-linear
superposition method and elastic compensation technique,
respectively. As a general result, the elastic, shakedown and
plastic limit domains of current work are given in Fig. 9.
In the present work the elastic limit loads were computed
using linear elastic finite element analysis. The limit loads
have been calculated according to ASME rules of 2 times
the elastic slope criterion[32].

Fig. 8. Graph of elastic shakedown limit load multiplier

for biaxial loaded square plate with a hole

Fig. 7. Finite element mesh and boundary condition

The FE shakedown analysis applying the criterion

proposed was performed to this problem. The shakedown
limit loads are obtained and accompanied by the
corresponding information of elements where the
shakedown limit condition is satisfied. To validate the
results, full cyclic loading elastoplastic simulations with the
resulted shakedown limit loads are performed to check the
shakedown behavior. They are performed under the load
history shown in Fig. 6 for each load vertex.

4.2 Results of the Numerical Shakedown Analysis

To eliminate the influence of different yield stresses of
varied materials and for the convenience of contrasting the
results with other literature, the shakedown limit load,
elastic limit load and plastic limit load for different load
ratios are all normalized with respect to corresponding
yield stress. As shown in the following equation, the
shakedown limit load multiplier is taken as an example:
Ps
ps = , (15)
s
where ps is the shakedown limit load multiplier, Ps is
Fig. 9. Elastic limit, elastic shakedown and limit load
domains for biaxial loaded square plate with a hole
4.3 Discussion
4.3.1 Consistence and validity
In Fig. 8, the elastic shakedown limit loads obtained by
applying the criterion proposed are in good agreement with
those obtained by the non-linear superposition method[21]
and are greater than those obtained by the ECM[10] and the
programming method[18]. The good agreement with results
in Ref. [21] can be due to that both of them use
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·925·

elastoplastic analysis to obtain the residual stress field.
However, the method proposed calculates the actual
residual stress in the structure directly by finite deformation
elastic-plastic incremental finite element analysis. The
calculation considers the geometrical effect naturally and
does not use any additional programs. The remarkable
differences in comparison to the results in Refs. [10, 18] are
due to some reasons. The ECM performs a series of elastic
analysis to construct the residual stress field and the
programming method searches the optimal static admissible
residual stress field by various optimization algorithms,
which will naturally result in errors. Besides, the coarse
mesh used by them may also bring numerical errors. Fig. 9
also illustrates that when only the cyclic load P2 is acting
i.e.,  = P1 / P2 = 0 , the shakedown limit load is 2 times
the elastic limit load. This agrees with the well known
result for proportional loading. The shakedown limit is the
lesser one of the limit load and the load for which the
effective stress of the elastic solution equals twice the yield
stress[33–34]. It also illustrates the validity of the criterion.
The shakedown limit loads obtained are also validated by
full cyclic elastoplastic analyses. Fig. 10 shows the
accumulation of equivalent plastic strain of critical point
determining the structural shakedown behavior versus the
number of the load cycles for  = 0.5 corresponding to
the load vertex 3. The plastic strain accumulation stays
constant after the first few cycles, indicating that
shakedown is reached. It can validate that the calculated
shakedown limit load is a valid shakedown lower bound.
stress against different load levels. It shows that at lower
load levels the equivalent residual stress changes ups and
downs then stabilizes to a value approximately equal to the
yield stress at a higher level. Thus the load level at which it
just exceed the yield stress can be taken as the shakedown
limit load for a conservative solution.
Fig. 11. Equivalent residual stress against load increment
The other problem lies in the calculation of the time
independent actual residual stress field. In the proposed
method, the residual stress field obtained from only one
cycle for the load level is used to evaluate the shakedown
behavior at this load level. However it applies a series of
cumulative load levels. For a higher load level, the cycles
of the lower load levels will promote the stabilization of the
residual stress field. Two full cyclic elastoplastic analyses
with the resulting shakedown limit load and the load level
just lower than it were performed to illustrate the situation.
The resulting equivalent residual stresses with cycles are
plotted in Fig. 12. It is shown that the equivalent residual
stress with the calculated shakedown limit load is less than
the yield stress at first then stabilizes to the yield stress
afterwards. The equivalent residual stress of the lower load
level does not reach the yield stress all the time. Even if the
calculated residual stress field is not the accurate steady
one the shakedown limit load obtained will be a valid lower
bound load.

Fig. 10. Curve of the maximum accumulated plastic strain

against the number of load cycles for =0.5

4.3.2 Calculating accuracy

Two problems affecting the calculating accuracy should
be taken particular care of in the numerical shakedown
analysis. One problem arises at searching the residual stress
which just satisfies the yield condition. Due to the fact that
the interval of the load level cannot be infinitely small and
an appropriate value should be chosen to assure both the Fig. 12. Curve of the equivalent residual stress
accuracy and the computing efficiency, also considering the against the number of cycles
approximate nature of the FEM, the residual stress that just
satisfies the yield condition cannot always be found. So the 5 Conclusions
resulting shakedown limit loads are just valid lower bound
ones. Fig. 11 shows a general plot of the equivalent residual (1) A novel shakedown criterion is derived from Melan’s
 ZOU Zongyuan, et al: Shakedown Criterion Employing Actual Residual Stress Field and Its Application
·926· in Numerical Shakedown Analysis
theorem by employing actual residual stress field. The
shakedown behavior can be determined by checking
whether the steady actual residual stress field satisfies the
yield condition or not.
(2) The specified load path utilized in the criterion is a
sequence of cyclic proportional loadings and unloadings
from zero to all the vertices of the given load domain
according to the theorem proposed by König. Thus the
actual residual stress field can be obtained conveniently and
the shakedown behavior in the whole load domain is
determined without considering infinite load paths which
should be accounted for appearing.
(3) The criterion is applied in a numerical shakedown
analysis utilizing the incremental FE elastoplastic analysis
technique for finite deformation. The effect of material
models and geometric changes can be considered naturally.
The analysis avoids processing dimension obstacles and
full cyclic analysis. It is suitable to various structures under
various loadings.
(4) The numerical shakedown analysis applying the
proposed criterion was performed to a benchmark example
of the square plate with a central hole. The results are
consistent with the ones in the literature and validated by
full cyclic elastoplastic analysis. This illustrates the validity
of the criterion and corresponding FE analysis method
proposed. The application of the criterion with FE
elastoplastic analysis technique will greatly promote the
application of shakedown theory in the engineering field.
References
[1] KÖNIG J A. Shakedown of elastic-plastic structures[M]. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1987.
[2] MELAN E. The Mises-Hencky’s stress distribution of continuum
under variable load[C]//Conference Report of the Vienna Academy
of Science, Mathematic Natural Scientific Division, Section IIa,
1938, 147: 73–87. (in German)
[3] KOITER, W T. General theorems for elastoplastic
solids[M]//KOITER Sneddon J N, HILL R, ed. Progress in Solid
Mechanics, North-Holland, Amsterdam,1960.
[4] POLIZZOTTO C. On the conditions to prevent plastic shakedown:
part I – theory; part II – the plastic shakedown limit load[J]. Journal
of Applied Mechanics, ASME, 1993, 60: 15–25, 318–323.
[5] POLIZZOTTO C. Shakedown theorems for elastic–plastic solids in
the framework of gradient plasticity[J]. International Journal of
Plasticity, 2008, 24(2): 218–241.
[6] POLIZZOTTO C. Shakedown analysis for a class of strengthening
materials within the framework of gradient plasticity[J].
International Journal of Plasticity, 2010, 26(7): 1050–1069.
[7] STEIN E, ZHANG G, KÖNIG J A. Shakedown with nonlinear
strain hardening including structural computation using finite
element method[J]. International Journal of Plasticity, 1992, 8:
1–31.
[8] PHAM D. Shakedown theory for elastoplastic kinematic hardening
bodies[J]. International Journal of Plasticity, 2007, 23:
1240–1259.
[9] SESHADRI R. The generalized local stress strain (GLOSS)
analysis-theory and applications[J]. Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, 1991, 113: 219–227.
[10] HAMILTON R, BOYLE J T, SHI J, et al. Shakedown load bounds
by elastic finite element analysis[C]//Proc. ASME-PVP Division,
New York, USA, 1996, 343: 205–211.
[11] PONTER A R S, CARTER K F. Shakedown state simulation
techniques based on linear elastic solutions[J]. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics Engineering, 1997, 140: 259–279.
[12] MOHAMED A I, MEGAHED M M, BAYOUMI L S, et al.
Applications of iterative elastic techniques for elastic-plastic
analysis of pressure vessels[J]. Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, 1999, 121: 1–6.
[13] CHEN Haofeng, PONTER A R. Shakedown and limit analyses for
3-D structures using the linear matching method[J]. International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2001, 78: 443–451.
[14] CHEN Shenshen, LIU Yinghua, LI Jun, et al. Performance of the
MLPG method for static shakedown analysis for bounded kinematic
hardening structures[J]. European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids,
2011, 30(2): 183–194.
[15] LI Tianbai, CHEN Haofeng, CHEN Weihang, et al. On the
shakedown analysis of welded pipes[J]. International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2011, 88(8–9): 301–310.
[16] BOUSSHINE L, CHAABA A, SAXCE G D. A new approach to
shakedown analysis for non-standard elastoplastic material by the
bipotential[J]. International Journal of Plasticity, 2003, 19:
583–598.
[17] MAGOARIEC H, BOURGEOIS S, DÉBORDES O. Elastoplastic
shakedown of 3D periodic heterogeneous media: a direct numerical
approach[J]. International Journal of Plasticity, 2004, 20(8–9):
1655–1675.
[18] CORRADI L, ZAVELANI A. A linear programming approach to
shakedown analysis of structures[J]. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 1974, 3: 37–53.
[19] CHEN Haofeng, URE J, LI Tianbai, et al. Shakedown and limit
analysis of 90° pipe bends under internal pressure, cyclic in-plane
bending and cyclic thermal loading[J]. International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2011, 88(5–7): 213–222.
[20] SIMON J W, WEICHERT D. Shakedown analysis of engineering
structures with limited kinematical hardening[J]. International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 2012, 49(15–16): 2177–2186.
[21] MUSCAT M, HAMILTON R, BOYLE J T. Shakedown analysis for
complex loading using superposition[J]. The Journal of Strain
Analysis for Engineering Design, 2002, 37(5): 399–412.
[22] HASBROUCQ S, OUESLATI A, SAXCé de G. Inelastic responses
of a two-bar system with temperature-dependent elastic modulus
under cyclic thermo mechanical loadings[J]. International Journal
of Solids and Structures, 2010, 47(14–15): 1924–1932.
[23] ABDALLA H F, MEGAHED M M, YOUNAN M Y. A simplified
technique for shakedown limit load determination[J]. Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 2007, 237(12–13): 1231–1240.
[24] ABDALLA H F, MEGAHED M M, MOHAMMAD M, et al. A
simplified technique for shakedown limit load determination of a
large square plate with a small central hole under cyclic biaxial
loading[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2011, 241(3): 657–665.
[25] KORBA A G, MEGAHED M M, ABDALLA H F, et al. Shakedown
analysis of 90-degree mitred pipe bends[J]. European Journal of
Mechanics A/Solids, 2013, 40: 158–165.
[26] SPILIOPOULOS K V, PANAGIOTOU K D. A direct method to
predict cyclic steady states of elastoplastic structures[J]. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2012, 223:
186–198.
[27] SPILIOPOULOS K V, PANAGIOTOU K D. A residual stress
decomposition based method for the shakedown analysis of
structures[J]. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 2014, 276: 410–430.
[28] SPITERI P, HO S, LEE Y-L. Assessment of bending fatigue limit
for crankshaft sections with inclusion of residual stresses[J].
International Journal of Fatigue, 2007, 29(2): 318–329.
[29] WANG J, WANG Y, HUO Z. Finite element residual stress analysis
of planetary gear tooth[J]. Advances in Mechanical Engineering,
2013: 1–12.
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
[30] WANG X, CHEN T, LI S, et al. The simulation and experimental
study of residual stress based on thermo-mechanical model of
GCr15[J]. Advances in Machining and Manufacturing Technology
Xii: Key Engineering Materials, 2014, 589–590: 152–156.
[31] MARTIN J B. Plasticity: fundamentals and general results[M]. MIT,
1975.
[32] ASME. Boiler and pressure vessel code[S]. The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1986.
[33] STEIN E, HUANG Y. An analytical method for shakedown
problems with linear kinematic hardening materials[J].
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1994, 31(18):
2433–2444.
[34] ZEMAN J L, RAUSCHER F Schindler. Pressure vessel design—the
direct route[M]. Elsevier, 2006.
Biographical notes
ZOU Zongyuan, born in 1986, is currently a PhD candidate at Key
Laboratory of Advanced Forging & Stamping Technology and
Science of Ministry of Education, Yanshan University, China. She
received her bachelor degree from Yanshan University, China, in
2009. Her main research interest is strength analysis for the frame
of hydraulic press.
E-mail: zouzongyuan@126.com
View publication stats
·927·
GUO Baofeng, born in 1958, is currently a professor at Yanshan
University, China. He received his PhD degree from Yanshan
University, China, in 2001. His research interests include analysis
and design for the frame of hydraulic press and stamping process.
Tel: +86-335-8056786; E-mail: Guobf@ysu.edu.cn
LI Yinxiao, born in 1985, is currently an assistant engineer at
Chinese 91315 People's Liberation Army Troops, PR China. He
received his bachelor’s degree from Yanshan University, China, in
2009.
E-mail: Liyx@126.com
JIN Miao, born in 1968, is currently a professor at Yanshan
University, China. He received his PhD degree from Yanshan
University, China, in 2000. His research interests include analysis
and design for the frame of hydraulic press and forging process.
Tel: +86-335-8056775; E-mail: jmiao@ysu.edu.cn
ZHAO Shiyan, born in 1978, is currently an associate professor at
Yanshan University, China. He received his PhD degree from
Yanshan University, China, in 2009. His research interests include
analysis and design for the frame of hydraulic press.
E-mail: zhaosy@ysu.edu.cn