ASME Section III Design-By-

Analysis Criteria Concepts and

Gerry C. Slagis
e-mail: slagisg@asme.org
G C Slagis Associates,
258 Hillcrest Place,
Pleasant Hill CA 94523-2184
Stress Limits1
The ASME Section III design-by-analysis approach provides stress criteria for the design
of nuclear components. Stresses are calculated elastically for the most part, although
plastic analysis is recognized. Limits are specified for primary, secondary, and peak
stresses. Inherent in these limits are factors of safety against several modes of failure. The
purpose of this paper is to explain the design-by-analysis criteria and fundamental con-
cepts behind the approach. Topics covered include the bases for the primary stress limits,
shakedown to elastic action, fatigue, simplified elastic-plastic analysis, and thermal stress
ratchet. Issues that are explored are separating primary and secondary stresses in finite
element analyses, material ductility requirements, and the meaning of the fatigue penalty
factor. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.2140797兴

Introduction
The design-by-analysis concept was first introduced in 1963
with the publication of the nuclear vessels code 关1兴. In comparison
to the nonnuclear vessels code, a lower factor of safety on pres-
sure design is incorporated. To justify the lower factor of safety,
detailed stress analysis and an evaluation of fatigue, including
explicit consideration of thermal stresses, are required. Different
categories of stress are assigned different allowable values. A cri-
teria document 关2兴 to explain the design-by-analysis approach was
published by ASME in 1969.
For nuclear piping, a simplified design-by-analysis approach
was first published in 1969 as USAS B31.7 关3兴. The Foreword
section of B31.7 gives a description of the design philosophy for
nuclear piping. The piping rules were incorporated with the vessel
rules in 1971 when Section III was revised to include rules for all
nuclear components.
Some basic questions regarding interpretation of the design-by-
analysis rules have come up in recent years. Some of these ques-
tions result from extensive use of finite element methods to deter-
mine stresses. For example, how are primary stresses extracted
from a finite element analysis? The purpose of this document is to
review the design-by-analysis criteria, discuss the fundamental
concepts behind the criteria, and provide insight into some of the
technical issues. The fragmented nature of code developments and
the related literature makes it difficult to fully understand all as-
pects of the concepts involved.
Discussions of the design-by-analysis criteria are based mainly
on the 1974 Edition of the Section III Code although the stress
limits are taken from the 2001 Code. The Code rules given in
NB-3200 apply to any pressure retaining component. The piping
rules given in NB-3600 are a simplified version of the NB-3200
rules. Some piping terms and criteria will be used to illustrate
certain aspects of design-by-analysis.
Criteria
There are two basic concepts underlying the design-by-analysis
criteria. First, stresses are categorized into three types with differ-
1
This is a minor revision of a paper 共PVP2004-2614兲 of the same title that was
presented at the 2004 PVP Conference.
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 26,
2005; final manuscript received October 24, 2005. Review conducted by G. E. Otto
Widera. Paper presented at the 2004 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division
Conference 共PVP2004兲, July 25, 2004–July 29, 2004, San Diego, California, USA.
ent stress limits. Second, the stress limits change for different
service levels. The three categories of stress are primary, second-
ary, and peak. Primary stresses are load controlled; secondary
stresses are displacement controlled; and peak stresses are local
in nature. Primary and secondary stresses can be membrane or
bending.
Stress limits are established for Design, Level A, Level B,
Level C, and Level D loadings. Design conditions 共design pres-
sure, design temperature, and design mechanical loads兲 establish
the required wall thickness of the vessel. Level A conditions are
those originally referred to as normal conditions 共1971 edition兲
and Level B as upset conditions. Level A and B loadings are
expected to occur in the operation of the component. Stress limits
for Level A and B are selected so that there is no damage to the
component that requires repair. Level C stress limits permit large
deformations in areas of structural discontinuity which may ne-
cessitate the removal of the component or support from service for
inspection or repair of damage.2 Level D stress limits permit
gross general deformations with some subsequent loss of dimen-
sional stability and damage requiring repair, which may require
removal of the component or support from service.
The allowable limits of stress intensity from NB-3200 关4兴 are
shown in Fig. 1 as given in the 2001 Edition. Secondary and peak
stresses are not limited for Levels C and D on the basis that
fatigue analysis is not required since only one such event is an-
ticipated, followed by shutdown for inspection or repair 关5兴. NB-
3200 Level D limits are given in Appendix F of Section III. Sm,
the allowable material stress intensity, is based on a fraction of the
material yield stress and the ultimate stress. For ferritic steels, Sm
1 2
is the lower of 3 minimum tensile strength or 3 minimum yield
1
strength. For austenitic steels, Sm is the lower of 3 minimum ten-
sile strength or 90% of the minimum yield strength. The increase
to 90% of yield strength is to allow for the strain-hardening char-
acteristics of austenitic steel.
When the emergency 共Level C兲 and faulted 共Level D兲 condi-
tions and stress limits were first identified in 1971, the probability
of the condition occurring was discussed. For emergency—The
conditions have a low probability of occurrence …; for faulted—
Those combinations of conditions associated with extremely-low-
probability events.
Elastic stress limits for piping for emergency and faulted were
first defined in 1974. The probability of occurrence of the loads
2
Italics indicate wording taken from the Section III code document 共if no refer-
ence given兲 or the referenced document.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2006 by ASME FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 25

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/29/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 NB-3200 design-by-analysis stress limits „2001…
and an equal reliability approach was used as a technical basis for
the stress limits. For piping, the Design limit of 1.5Sm for primary
membrane-plus-bending was increased to 2.25Sm for emergency
and 3Sm for faulted 关6兴.
Stress Definitions
The definitions given in NB-3213 for primary, secondary, and
peak stresses are given below.
Primary stress is any normal stress or a shear stress devel-
oped by an imposed loading which is necessary to satisfy the
laws of equilibrium of external and internal forces and mo-
ments. The basic characteristic of a primary stress is that it is
not self-limiting. Primary stresses which considerably exceed
the yield strength will result in failure or, at least, in gross
distortion. A thermal stress is not classified as a primary stress.
Secondary stress is a normal stress or a shear stress devel-
oped by the constraint of adjacent material or by self-constraint
of the structure. The basic characteristic of a secondary stress
is that it is self-limiting. Local yielding and minor distortions
can satisfy the conditions which cause the stress to occur and
failure from one application of the stress is not to be expected.
Peak stress is that increment of stress which is additive to
the primary plus secondary stresses by reason of local discon-
tinuities or local thermal stress including the effects, if any, of
stress concentrations. The basic characteristic of a peak stress
is that it does not cause any noticeable distortion and is objec-
tionable only as a possible source of a fatigue crack or a brittle
fracture.
The key to understanding the difference between primary and
secondary stresses is that primary stresses are required for equi-
librium with an applied “mechanical” load. Pressure is an applied
mechanical load. The hoop stress in a cylinder to react the pres-
sure load is a primary membrane stress. An applied moment to a
horizontal cylinder from self-weight produces a primary bending
stress. If the cylinder includes a gross structural discontinuity,
secondary stresses will also be created by a mechanical load. If
the cylinder includes a local structural discontinuity, peak stresses
will be created.
If a piping system is subjected to a fluid temperature increase,
thermal expansion stresses are created. These thermal expansion
stresses 共restraint of free end displacement兲 are secondary
stresses. Thermal expansion also causes peak stress at a local
structural discontinuity 共a girth butt weld, for example兲.
A through-wall temperature gradient in a cylinder can cause a
26 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/29/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
secondary stress 共general thermal stress兲 and a peak stress 共local
thermal stress兲. The secondary stress is the equivalent linear
stress produced by the radial temperature distribution in a cylin-
drical shell. The peak stress is the difference between the actual
stress and the equivalent linear stress resulting from a radial tem-
perature distribution. In piping terminology, the secondary stress
in straight pipe is E␣⌬T1 / 2共1 − ␯兲, and the peak stress is
E␣⌬T2 / 共1 − ␯兲. In 1982, the piping rules 共NB-3600兲 were changed
to reclassify the ⌬T1 stress as a peak stress.
An axial temperature distribution in a cylindrical shell or a
temperature difference between a nozzle and the shell to which it
is attached can cause a secondary stress. In piping terminology,
the secondary stress is C3Eab共␣aTa-␣bTb兲. The peak stress is
K3C3Eab共␣aTa-␣bTb兲.
Failure Modes
The fundamental failure mode of concern for a pressure-
retaining component is burst. Another failure mode that is consid-
ered is plastic deformation. Plastic deformation 共yielding兲 is a
functional concern more than a pressure boundary concern. An
owner of a vessel will not be pleased if a Level A or B loading
results in observable deformation of the vessel. From the criteria
document 关2兴 …
The primary stress limits are intended to prevent plastic de-
formation and to provide a nominal factor of safety on the
ductile burst pressure. The primary plus secondary stress limits
are intended to prevent excessive plastic deformation leading to
incremental collapse, and to validate the application of elastic
analysis when performing the fatigue evaluation. The peak
stress limit is intended to prevent fatigue failure as a result of
cyclic loadings.
Basis for Stress Limits
The code stress limits are derived from … application of limit
design theory tempered by some engineering judgement and some
conservative simplifications 关2兴. Section III 共NB-3213兲 defines
limit analysis and allows the use of limit analysis to establish a
lower bound to the collapse load. This use of an ideally plastic
material without strain hardening has led some to conclude that
limit load is the failure load. But, limit load is not the failure load.
The fundamental failure load of concern is the ultimate load to
burst or plastic instability in the case of primary membrane stress.
In the case of primary bending stress, the failure mode of concern
is ultimate collapse.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 2 Rectangular cross-section bar in tension
Pressure Design. In design-by-rule, the minimum required wall
thickness for a cylinder is specified for pressure design. This mini-
mum wall equation is not contained in NB-3200, but is contained
in NB-3300 for vessels and NB-3600 for piping. The primary
membrane stress limit for straight pipe 共NB-3640兲 for design pres-
sure is met by meeting the design-by-rule minimum required wall
thickness equation.
tm = PDo/2共Sm + 0.4P兲 where P is the design pressure 共1兲
The piping equation is similar to the cylindrical vessel equation
given in NB-3324.
t = PRo/共Sm + 0.5P兲 共2兲
The piping equation was first adopted by the B31 Code in 1955.
Reference 关7兴 discusses the derivation of this formula. Over 31
different formulas were considered; these formulas included elas-
tic and plastic calculations. The final equation was selected since
it … approximates satisfactorily the available room-temperature
tubular bursting data 关7兴. The ASME B16.9 standard describes
burst test procedures for pipe fittings. Calculated burst pressure
for straight pipe is given as P = 2St / Do where S is the specified
minimum tensile strength.
Langer 关8,9兴 discusses pressure design of vessels for burst and
provides failure pressure data on PVRC disk tests for a range of
materials. The intent of the cylindrical vessel equation, as given
above, is to provide a nominal factor of safety on burst of 3. But,
the theoretical burst pressure is dependent on the strain hardening
exponent of the material. For five different materials, the theoret-
ical safety factor was found to vary from 2.75 to 3.34.
In NB-3200, a minimum required wall thickness is not specified
for pressure design. Instead, the primary membrane stress is cal-
culated by elastic analysis and compared to a stress limit of Sm
共for Design conditions as given in Fig. 1兲. Consider the limit
analysis of a simple, straight, rectangular cross-section, bar in
tension as shown in Fig. 2. Assume an elastic-perfectly-plastic
material model with a yield stress of Sy. Once the cross-sectional
stress reaches the yield stress, the maximum load carrying capa-
bility of the bar is achieved. Applying any additional load causes
the bar to deform until the failure strain is reached, and the bar
ruptures.
The normal stress in the bar is a primary membrane stress that
is required for equilibrium with the applied external load. Instead
2 1
of using Sy as the failure criterion, the code uses Sm 共 3 yield or 3
ultimate兲. Hence, the design-by-analysis criterion for primary
membrane stress provides a factor of safety of 1.5 on excessive
plastic deformation 共yielding兲. The use of ultimate tensile strength
in addition to yield strength to specify Sm accounts for the strain
hardening characteristics of the material. Ultimate failure 共plastic
in stability/rupture兲 occurs when the primary membrane stress
reaches the ultimate strength of the material. Hence, using Sm of 3
1 collapse for a ductile material occurs when a fully plastic hinge
ultimate strength provides for a factor of safety of 3 on plastic
instability or rupture failure.
By the same reasoning, the code primary membrane stress cri-
terion provides a factor of safety of 1.5 on excessive deformation
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/29/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
共yield兲 and a factor of safety of 3 on ultimate failure 共plastic
instability or burst兲 for design pressure. For Level D, the elasti-
cally calculated membrane stress is limited to 0.7Su. This means
that the nominal factor of safety on burst is 1 / 0.7 or 1.43 for
Level D. For piping for Level D, the elastically calculated allow-
able pressure is double that of the allowable pressure for Design
conditions. This means that the nominal factor of safety on burst
3
for piping for Level D is 2 or 1.5.
Primary Bending Stress. Primary bending stresses are limited
to ␣Sm 共or less if there is pressure stress兲. The limit is given in
NB-3221.3 and the Code requirement is in terms of the “Primary
Membrane Plus Primary Bending Stress Intensity. The Code
words are …
This stress intensity is derived from the highest value across
the thickness of a section of the general or local primary mem-
brane stresses plus primary bending stresses produced by De-
sign Pressure and other specified Design Mechanical Loads,
but excluding all secondary and peak stresses. For solid rect-
angular sections, the allowable value of this stress intensity is
1.5Sm. For other than solid rectangular sections, a value of ␣
times the limit established in NB-3221.1 may be used, where the
factor ␣ is defined as the ratio of the load set producing a fully
plastic section to the load set producing initial yielding in the
extreme fibers of the section.
Limit analysis is used to establish the stress limit for primary
bending stress. Consider the same rectangular cross-section bar
with the added weight applied to cause bending as shown in Fig.
3. As weight is increased, the bending stress increases until the
outer fiber stress is at the yield stress of the material 共a weight of
Wy in Fig. 3兲.
Since the material is ductile, the bar can withstand additional
load. Yielding is spread across the section. Maximum load carry-
ing capacity occurs when the cross-section is fully plastic. A plas-
tic hinge forms and the bar collapses—unlimited deformation
occurs.
For a rectangular cross-section, the moment at collapse is 50%
higher than the moment at first yield. Hence, the primary bending
stress limit is 50% higher than that for primary membrane. The
allowable 共from Fig. 1兲 is 1.5Sm.3 The bending stress in the bar is
a primary stress that is required for equilibrium with the applied
2 1
external load. Sm is 3 yield or 3 ultimate. Therefore, the elastically
predicted bending stress allowable is 1Sy or 0.5Su. The design-by-
analysis criterion for primary bending permits no significant yield-
ing for Design conditions.
Use of ultimate tensile strength, as a parameter in Sm, accounts
for the strain hardening characteristics of the material. Ultimate
3
The 1.5 factor is for a rectangular beam. NB-3221.3 refers to ␣Sm based on the
shape factor for the section. NB-3600 for piping uses 1.5 for all tubular piping
products.
FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 27
 Fig. 3 Rectangular cross-section bar in bending
with the entire cross-section at Su exists. The elastically predicted
moment stress corresponding to a fully plastic hinge is 1.5Su.
Hence, an elastic bending stress limit of 0.5Su provides a factor of
safety on ultimate collapse of 3 共for a design mechanical load兲.
For Level D, the elastically calculated bending stress limit is
1.5 times 0.7Su. This means that the nominal factor of safety on
ultimate collapse for Level D is 1 / 0.7 or 1.43. For piping for
Level D, the elastically calculated bending stress is double that for
Design 共3Sm versus 1.5Sm兲. This means that the nominal factor of
3
safety on collapse for piping for Level D is 2 or 1.5.
Secondary Stress. Two secondary stress limits are provided as
shown in Fig. 1. The quantity PL + Pb + Q and the quantity Pe are
both required to be less than 3Sm for Level A and B conditions.
Meeting the 3Sm limit is a precondition for the fatigue analysis.
The failure mode of concern is fatigue. Therefore, the stress range,
not the amplitude, is evaluated.
The 3Sm stress limit was developed by considering a cyclic
secondary stress range. Again, an elastic-perfectly-plastic material
model is used to develop this stress limit. Consider a rectangular
beam with a rotation that is applied, released, and then applied
again. This is a displacement-controlled condition. The magnitude
of the rotation is such as to produce an elastically predicted bend-
ing stress of 2Sy or a strain of 2Sy / E. The loading/unloading dia-
gram is shown in Fig. 4. On the first half-cycle of rotation, the
beam outer fiber will yield. But, on subsequent half-cycles, the
outer fiber will not yield. This behavior is called shakedown to
elastic action.
Since 3Sm is equivalent to 2Sy the design-by-analysis criterion
does not impose a factor of safety on shakedown to elastic action.
This is reasonable since exceeding the limit does not cause failure.
Limiting the thermal expansion stress range 共Pe兲 to 3Sm will en-
sure that the cyclic thermal expansion stresses by themselves will
shakedown to elastic action. This is a basic piping design require-
Fig. 4 Shakedown to elastic action
28 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/29/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
ment. For other secondary stresses 共Q兲, combining primary stress
range with secondary stress range will ensure that the combined
primary-plus-secondary stress range 共PL + Pb + Q兲 will shakedown
to elastic action.
The purpose of the limit as stated in the criteria document 关2兴 is
… to validate the application of elastic analysis when performing
the fatigue evaluation. The criteria document also states the pur-
pose is intended to prevent excessive plastic deformation leading
to incremental collapse. The need to validate the fatigue evalua-
tion will be discussed in the section on “Peak Stress.” Incremental
collapse will be discussed in the section on “Thermal Stress
Ratcheting.” As shown in that section, the primary-plus-secondary
stress range limit does not provide complete protection against
ratcheting.
Peak Stress. Peak stresses are a concern for fatigue. The total
共primary-plus-secondary-plus-peak兲 stress range for a stress cycle
is calculated. The stress evaluation must include consideration of
local structural discontinuities 共stress concentration兲. One-half of
the total stress range 共stress amplitude兲 is calculated and referred
to as Salt. Design fatigue curves are given for various materials.
Entering the fatigue curve at Salt gives an allowable number of
cycles N. From the specified number of cycles, n, the fatigue
damage is calculated as n / N. The damage from all stress cycles
are added together, and the accumulated damage must be less than
or equal to one 共兺n / N 艋 1兲. A detailed procedure is specified in
NB-3222.4共5兲 for determining the effect of superposition of dif-
ferent stress cycles.
The criteria document 关2兴 gives an excellent discussion on the
generation of the design fatigue curves. The best-fit data from
small polished bar specimens are provided. A factor of 2 on stress
and 20 on cycles, whichever is largest, was used to establish the
design curve from the best-fit curve. In the low cycle region, the
factor on cycles governs. The inherent factor on stress is signifi-
Transactions of the ASME
 cantly larger than 2 in the low cycle region.
The fatigue design method is straightforward. Elastically pre-
dicted total stress amplitude, including peak stress from local
structural discontinuities, are compared to a design curve to deter-
mine the allowable number of stress cycles. The inherent assump-
tion is that the net section stresses and strains are elastic. Only the
peak stresses at the local structural discontinuity are in the plastic
regime. Therefore, the precondition for the fatigue analysis is that
the primary-plus-secondary stresses shakedown to elastic action.
If the primary-plus-secondary stress range exceeds 3Sm, there is
plastic cycling at the local structural discontinuity, which is very
detrimental to fatigue life.
The original 共1963兲 fatigue design curves were based on small
polished bar specimen test data. These tests were run to the point
of separation of the specimen. A common question is—“Does the
fatigue design curve represent crack initiation or crack propaga-
tion through the wall thickness?” My answer is—The objective of
the fatigue design method is to prevent a leakage failure of the
pressure boundary. A cumulative usage factor of 1 does not mean
that a crack has initiated or that a crack has propagated through
the wall. A cumulative usage factor of 1 implies reasonable assur-
ance that leakage will not occur in the design life.
Simplified Elastic-Plastic Analysis. The primary-plus-
secondary stress range limit of 3Sm may be exceeded for a stress
cycle including thermal bending if a penalty is taken on the fa-
tigue evaluation 关NB-3228.5 Simplified Elastic-Plastic Analysis兴.
The primary-plus-secondary-plus-peak stress range amplitude,
Salt, is multiplied by Ke, a plastic strain correction factor. The Ke
factor can be substantial. Fig. 5 Bree diagram

for Sn 艌 3mSm Ke = 1/n = 5 for carbon steel

3.3 for austenitic steel 共3兲
The maximum value for Ke is a significant design problem for
severe thermal transients. Questions concerning Ke are discussed
in a later section 共Meaning of Ke兲.
“Thermal bending” is not specifically defined in NB-3228.5.
Examples of thermal bending as given in NB-3213.13 are 共1兲 the
equivalent linear stress produced by the radial temperature distri-
bution in a cylindrical shell, 共2兲 the bending stress produced by an
axial temperature distribution in a cylindrical shell, and 共3兲 stress
produced by the temperature difference between a nozzle and the
shell to which it is attached. By comparison with the piping rules
prior to 1982, thermal bending in piping terms are E␣⌬T1 / 2共1
− ␯兲 and C3Eab共␣aTa − ␣bTb兲.
Thermal Stress Ratchet. Thermal stress ratchet is discussed in
NB-3222.5.
It should be noted that under certain combinations of steady
state and cyclic loadings there is a possibility of large distor-
tions developing as the result of ratchet action; that is, the
deformation increases by a nearly equal amount for each cycle.
Limits for one particular loading, a through-wall temperature
distribution are given. The maximum allowable range of thermal
stress, as a function of the steady-state pressure stress, is given for
a linear temperature distribution and a parabolic temperature dis-
tribution. These limits are based on the work of Miller 关10兴.
The ratchet phenomenon can be quantified by the Bree diagram
as shown in Fig. 5. The Bree analysis 关11兴 considers a cylinder
with a steady-state pressure load 共primary membrane stress兲 and a
linear through-the-wall temperature distribution 共secondary bend-
ing thermal stress兲 that is applied and then removed. Material
properties are elastic-perfectly-plastic. A one-dimensional analysis
is performed. Only the hoop direction is considered. The regimes
are E for elastic behavior, S1 and S2 for shakedown to elastic
action, P for plastic cycling, and R1 and R2 for ratcheting. For R1
and R2, there is an incremental plastic strain on each cycle of
loading. If ratcheting occurs, the cylinder will permanently grow
in diameter on each cycle.
The ordinate is the thermal stress. With zero pressure, a thermal
stress range of 2Sy shakes down to elastic cycling. A thermal
stress range of 2Sy shakes down to elastic cycling as long as the
pressure stress is less than 0.5Sy. Once the sustained pressure
stress exceeds 0.5Sy, a thermal stress range of 2Sy will result in
ratcheting for an elastic-perfectly plastic material model.
Hence, the primary-plus-secondary stress range limit of 共P
+ Q ⬍ 3Sm = 2Sy兲 does provide protection against ratcheting as long
as the sustained primary membrane hoop stress is less than 0.5Sy.
As discussed in the section on “Pressure Design,” the hoop mem-
brane stress is limited to 2 / 3Sy. The primary-plus-secondary
stress range limit does not provide complete protection against
ratcheting.
Ductility
The design-by-analysis criteria presume ductile material behav-
ior. Allowing secondary stresses to exceed the yield strength of
the material requires that the material have sufficient ductility to
accommodate the required plastic flow without failure. Typical
yield strains from secondary stress, and even plastic strains at
local discontinuities, are not that large in comparison to elonga-
tion to failure of 33% or more for typical carbon steels. Materials
acceptable for code use are specified, but minimum ductility is not
one of the specified parameters used for material selection. Mate-
rial characteristics and ductility are discussed in Ref. 关12兴. One
quote from this document 共1964兲 is … The amount of ductility
required to insure satisfactory performance of a pressure vessel
has never been definitively established.
There are two other aspects of the design-by-analysis criteria
that are only directly applicable if the material has sufficient duc-
tility. For pressure design, the primary membrane stress limit is
intended to provide a nominal factor of safety of 3 on burst pres-
sure. In a cylindrical shell with a gross structural discontinuity,
there will be significant secondary bending stresses at the discon-
tinuity. The material must have sufficient ductility such that the
burst pressure of the cylinder is not significantly reduced.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 29

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/29/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 6 Discontinuity analysis
The code also allows the primary stress limits to be exceeded if
it can be shown by limit analysis that the specified loadings do not
exceed two-thirds of the lower bound collapse load. Limit analysis
implicitly assumes that the material possesses sufficient post-yield
ductility to ensure that the limit analysis is appropriate for the
specified geometry.
Is it Primary or Secondary?
A perennial problem in running FEA is determining the primary
stress from total stress results. Judgment is definitely required.
The fallback position seems to be to consider all stresses as pri-
mary, but this is unreasonable.
The key to resolving a stress distribution into primary and sec-
ondary components is to understand that the primary stress is
required for equilibrium with an applied mechanical load. If there
is no mechanical load, or if stress is a result of compatibility
considerations at a gross structural discontinuity, the stress is sec-
ondary in nature. Consider a long cylindrical vessel with a thick-
ness change in the middle 共gross structural discontinuity兲 sub-
jected to internal pressure 共Fig. 6兲. Simplify the structural model
by assuming an abrupt change in thickness for the stress analysis.
In this example, the thickness change is assumed to be sufficiently
removed from the vessel ends so that end conditions do not affect
the stress analysis at the discontinuity location.
Pressure causes a hoop membrane stress of pR/ t 共thin wall
approximation兲 resulting in hoop strain and growth in diameter.
The growth is larger in the thinner member with the higher hoop
stress. An internal shear and moment are required to restore com-
patibility at the joint. Pressure is an internal mechanical load. The
hoop membrane stress is required for equilibrium with the applied
pressure 共primary membrane兲. The internal shear and moment are
self-equilibrating and are not required for equilibrium with a me-
chanical load. Hence, the shear and moment at the discontinuity
are secondary in nature.
Consider a second geometry—a cylindrical vessel with a flat
plate closure 共Fig. 7兲. This geometry is an exception to the rule as
Fig. 7 Moment in flat plate with and without discontinuity moment
30 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/29/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
noted in Table NB-3217-1. The internal shear and moment are
required for displacement compatibility at the vessel/plate joint.
But whether the moment is classified as secondary or primary
depends on how the flat plate is evaluated for pressure design.
Stresses in the flat plate are dependent on the magnitude of the
end moment. If the flat plate is analyzed by itself without the
restraining effect of the compatibility end moment, then the mo-
ment is classified as secondary. If the flat plate is analyzed as a
vessel/plate structure, then the restraining effect of the compatibil-
ity moment reduces the bending stress in the plate, and the com-
patibility moment is classified as primary.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
When design-by-analysis was developed, shell analysis was the
standard method for determining stresses in a vessel. With shell
analysis, membrane stress and bending stress are a direct output of
the analysis. And, identification of primary stresses versus second-
ary stresses is relatively straightforward but still requires judg-
ment. Now, the more common analysis method is FEA. And with
FEA comes many questions on interpretation of results. The first
problem was linearization. To determine membrane stress or
bending stress, common practice is to select a “cut line” on the
model and interpolate between discrete stress output points to de-
termine the average 共membrane兲 and linear 共bending兲 stresses
across the wall. Many different methods have been tried. The
problem is compounded by the fact that the stress intensity re-
ferred to as Pb or Q . . . do not represent single quantities, but sets
of six quantities representing the six stress components
␴t , ␴l , ␴r , ␶lt , ␶lr , ␶rt 共footnote 2 to Fig. NB-3222-1兲.
Some people say that design-by-analysis stress criteria are not
applicable for FEA. I disagree. The stress criteria apply. The
implementation of FEA and the interpretation of results need to be
improved. A PVRC project was established to provide guidance.
The project report 关13兴 is very informative with a discussion of
Transactions of the ASME
 linearization, stress categories, example problems, and recommen-
dations. However, there are major problems with the approach in
my opinion.
The report is oriented to proper determination of membrane
stress and bending stress without categorization as primary or sec-
ondary. For primary stresses, a separate “equilibrium” analysis or
plastic analysis is recommended. This may be a workable solu-
tion. But the report gives the impression that the only other solu-
tion is to consider all membrane and bending stresses at a discon-
tinuity as primary. This is unreasonable in my opinion. A
knowledgeable engineer is able to separate primary from second-
ary in FEA results at a discontinuity using the principle that the
primary stress is that required for equilibrium with the applied
load. If the stress is not required for equilibrium with the applied
load, then that stress is secondary.
The report also recommends determination of P + Q at a “struc-
tural element” not a “transition element.” This is a significant
limitation. In my experience, many analyses are performed to de-
termine thermal gradient stresses for the fatigue evaluation. The
maximum thermal gradient stress is usually in the transition ele-
ment, and the P + Q stress is needed in the transition element to
determine Ke for the fatigue evaluation. The structural element
approach does not seem to be workable for fatigue damage
calculations.
Meaning of Ke
The maximum value of Ke 共1 / n equal to 5 for carbon steel, 3.3
for austenitic steel兲 has been a concern for design. For many of
the high thermal transient situations in nuclear applications, the
allowable number of cycles is very low because of the high Ke
penalty factor on the fatigue evaluation. Recalling the criteria, the
range of primary-plus-secondary stress including thermal bending
may exceed the 3Sm shakedown criterion if a penalty factor is
taken on fatigue.
Reference 关14兴 discusses a different procedure for calculating
the fatigue penalty factor as proposed for use in the French code.
A Ke factor of 1 / n is not applied to the thermal bending stress;
1 / n is only applied to the mechanical stress. The strain concen-
tration factor applied to thermal bending is based on the Neuber
rule. There is one statement in Ref. 关14兴 that I do not agree with—
The ASME III NB 3200 rule for Ke definition is clearly devoted to
elastic-follow-up effects as stated in Ref. 6.4 The intent of the 1 / n
factor is a critical issue.
To understand the use of Ke it is necessary to review the devel-
opment of the simplified elastic-plastic method. This method was
originally developed for piping and published in 1969 in B31.7
关3兴. The problem in Class 1 nuclear piping was that secondary
thermal gradient stresses were exceeding the 3Sm shakedown to
elastic action limit in many cases. There was no technique avail-
able to qualify the piping for fatigue without a simplified elastic-
plastic method. Hence, the B31.7 approach was developed. Sec-
ondary thermal gradient stresses 共thermal bending in NB-3200
terms兲 could exceed 3Sm provided a penalty was taken on the
fatigue analysis.
A full discussion of the development of the simplified elastic-
plastic rules is given by Slagis 关15兴. The background and technical
basis for the B31.7 approach is explained by Tagart in Ref. 关16兴.
The B31.7 approach included two penalty factors—a notch factor
and a plastic strain redistribution factor. The notch factor accounts
for detrimental effects of plastic cycling at a stress concentration.
The plastic strain redistribution factor accounts for underestima-
tion of strain by elastic analysis at a gross structural discontinuity
when the weaker member yields.
The 1968 edition of Section III did not have simplified elastic-
plastic rules to allow secondary stresses to exceed 3Sm. When the
B31.7 rules were incorporated into Section III in 1971, the sim-
4
The quoted Ref. 6 is Ref. 关9兴 in this document.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/29/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
plified elastic-plastic rules for piping were revised and comparable
rules were introduced into NB-3200. The A factor was eliminated,
and a single fatigue penalty factor Ke was introduced.
Ke = 1.0 for Sn 艋 3Sm
= 1.0关共1 − n兲/n共m − 1兲兴
⫻关共共Sn/3Sm兲 − 1兲兴 for 3Sm ⬍ Sn ⬍ 3mSm
= 1/n for Sn 艌 3mSm 共4兲
The single Ke factor with a maximum of 1 / n is based on the work
of Langer 关9兴. The n parameter is the strain hardening exponent
for the material.
Included in Ref. 关15兴 are summaries of test data, discussion of
the problems with the 1 / n approach, and recommendation for a
two separate factors approach as was done in B31.7.
Summary
Stresses are categorized as primary, secondary, or peak. Primary
stresses are a concern for deformation, burst, or collapse. Second-
ary stresses are limited to require shakedown to elastic action to
ensure the applicability of the fatigue evaluation. Peak stresses are
a concern for fatigue. Only primary stresses are evaluated for
Level C and D. The Level C and D stress limits permit large
deformations that may require repair or replacement of the com-
ponent. Implicit in the Level C and D limits are lower factors of
safety against failure based on lower probability of occurrence of
the load.
Primary stresses are required for equilibrium with an internal or
external applied mechanical load. Pressure is a mechanical load
and causes primary stress. Thermal expansion in a piping system,
or a through-wall temperature distribution, is not a mechanical
load and, therefore, produces a secondary stress. A secondary
stress is displacement controlled and is self-limiting. A mechani-
cal load can also cause secondary stresses. Stresses from internal
forces and moments, required for compatibility at a gross struc-
tural discontinuity, are secondary.
Stress limits are derived from application of limit design theory,
but limit load is not the failure criterion for primary stress. Burst
and collapse are the fundamental failure modes of concern for
primary stress.
Primary membrane stresses are limited to 1Sm for Design con-
ditions. Sm is the lesser of 2 / 3Sy or 1 / 3Su. Cylinder burst test data
indicate that failure will occur when the hoop membrane stress
reaches the ultimate stress of the material. Hence, the primary
stress limits for Design provide for a nominal factor of safety of 3
on burst. For Level D, the nominal factor of safety is reduced to
1.43.
Primary bending stresses 共actually, membrane plus bending兲 are
limited to ␣Sm for Design conditions. For a rectangular section, ␣
is 1.5. The limit for bending is higher than for membrane because
of the plastic hinge effect. The elastically predicted moment stress
corresponding to a fully plastic hinge is 1.5Su. Hence, an elastic
bending stress limit of 0.5Su 共1.5⫻ Su / 3兲 provides a factor of
safety on ultimate collapse of 3 for a design mechanical load. For
Level D, the nominal factor of safety is reduced to 1.43.
The primary-plus-secondary stress range limit of 3Sm is to en-
sure shakedown to elastic action of the through-wall membrane
and bending stresses. If the through-wall membrane and/or bend-
ing stresses exceed the limit, plastic cycling rather than elastic
cycling will occur. Plastic cycling at a local structural discontinu-
ity, such as a notch, is detrimental to fatigue life. The secondary
stress limit also provides protection against ratcheting as long as
the hoop membrane pressure stress is less than 0.5Sy.
The elastically predicted primary-plus-secondary-plus peak
stress range for each unique stress cycle is used in the fatigue
evaluation. Acceptable number of cycles is determined from a
design fatigue curve. The design fatigue curve is based on best-fit
polished bar specimen data. Factors of 2 on stress and 20 on
FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 31
 cycles are used on the best-fit data curve to obtain the design
curve. The design curve is not based on crack initiation. A cumu-
lative usage factor of 1 implies reasonable assurance that leakage
will not occur in the design life.
Simplified elastic-plastic analysis rules are provided in design-
by-analysis. The primary-plus-secondary stress range limit of 3Sm
may be exceeded for thermal bending provided a penalty factor,
Ke, is taken on the fatigue analysis. Thermal bending is the sec-
ondary bending from a through-wall temperature gradient or a
mean temperature difference. In piping terms, these stresses are
E␣⌬T1 / 2共1 − ␯兲 and C3Eab共␣aTa − ␣bTb兲.
The maximum value for Ke, 1 / n, is extremely conservative and
should be revised. The simplified elastic-plastic analysis method
was first developed for piping and published in B31.7. Two pen-
alty factors were specified in the B31.7 method—a notch factor
and a plastic strain redistribution factor. This is the approach that
should be adopted for design-by-analysis. The notch factor ac-
counts for plastic cycling at a local structural discontinuity. The
plastic strain redistribution factor accounts for underestimation
of plastic strain by elastic analysis at a gross structural
discontinuity.
NB-3200 contains code rules on “Thermal Stress Ratchet.” To
prevent ratcheting, limits are placed on thermal stress from
through-wall temperature distributions as a function of the value
of sustained pressure membrane stress. Ratcheting is incremental
deformation on each cycle of loading. The critical parameters are
a sustained primary stress and a cyclic secondary stress. General
loading cases can be evaluated by the Bree diagram. This is a
one-dimensional analysis based on elastic-perfectly plastic mate-
rial behavior.
The design-by-analysis criteria implicitly assume materials with
sufficient ductility to accommodate the required plastic flow with-
out failure. A measure of “sufficient ductility” has not been quan-
tified to date. The burst pressure of a vessel with a gross structural
discontinuity could be significantly reduced if the material does
not have sufficient ductility. Direct application of the design-by-
analysis criteria to high strength materials with low ductility is
questionable in my opinion.
One major problem in finite element analysis is separating pri-
mary stresses from secondary stresses. The analyst must exercise
competent engineering judgment. The key to making a decision is
that primary stresses are required for equilibrium with an applied
mechanical load. In general, shear and local bending moment
stresses at a gross structural discontinuity are secondary in nature.
Nomenclature
A ⫽ notch factor in B31.7
C3 ⫽ piping secondary thermal stress index
Do ⫽ outer diameter
E ⫽ modulus of elasticity
Eab ⫽ average modulus of two sides of a joint
K3 ⫽ piping peak thermal stress index
Ke ⫽ plastic strain correction factor
32 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/29/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
K␧ ⫽ plastic strain redistribution factor in B31.7
m,n⫽ material parameters
Ro ⫽ outer radius
Salt ⫽ primary-plus-secondary-plus peak stress amplitude
Sm ⫽ material allowable stress
Sn ⫽ range of primary-plus-secondary stress intensity
Sp ⫽ total stress intensity range
Su ⫽ material ultimate tensile strength
Sy ⫽ material yield stress
T ⫽ through-wall mean temperature
tm ⫽ minimum required wall thickness
␣ ⫽ coefficient of thermal expansion
␯ ⫽ Poisson’s ratio
⌬T1 ⫽ linear portion of through-wall temperature gradient
⌬T2 ⫽ nonlinear portion of through-wall temperature gradient
References
关1兴 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, 1963 Edition, “Rules for
Construction of Nuclear Vessels.”
关2兴 Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Design by Analysis
in Sections III and VIII, Division 2, 1969, ASME.
关3兴 USA Standard Code for Pressure Piping, “Nuclear Power Piping,” USAS
B31.7–1969, ASME.
关4兴 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, 2001 Edition, “Rules for
Construction of Nuclear Facility Components.”
关5兴 Bohm, G. J., and Stevenson, J. D., 1982, “Extreme Loads and Their Evaluation
With ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Limits,” Pressure Vessel and
Piping: Design Technology—1982—A Decade of Progress, ASME, pp. 415–
418.
关6兴 Slagis, G. C., 1991, “Basis of Current Dynamic Stress Criteria for Piping,”
Weld. Res. Counc. Bull., 367, pp. 15–16.
关7兴 Burrows, W. R., Michel, R., and Rankin, A. W., 1952, “A Wall Thickness
Formula for High-Pressure, High-Temperature Piping,” ASME Paper No. 52-
A-151, p. 6.
关8兴 Langer, B. F., 1972, “PVRC Interpretive Report of Pressure Vessel Research,
Section I—Design Considerations,” in Pressure Vessel and Piping: Design and
Analysis, A Decade of Progress, Volume 1, Analysis, ASME, New York, pp.
8–60 关reprinted from Weld. Res. Counc. Bull., 95, 1964兴.
关9兴 Langer, B. F., 1972, “Design-Stress Basis for Pressure Vessels,” in Pressure
Vessel and Piping: Design and Analysis, A Decade of Progress, Volume 1,
Analysis, ASME, New York, pp. 84–94 关reprinted from Exp. Mech., 1971兴.
关10兴 Miller, D. R., 1959, “Thermal-Stress Ratchet Mechanism in Pressure Vessels,”
J. Basic Eng., 81, pp. 190–196.
关11兴 Bree, J., 1967, “Elastic-Plastic Behavior of Thin Tubes Subjected to Internal
Pressure and Intermittent High-Heat Fluxes with Application to Fast-Nuclear-
Reactor Fuel Elements,” J. Strain Anal., 2共3兲, pp. 226–238.
关12兴 Gross, J. H., 1972, “PVRC Interpretive Report of Pressure Vessel Research,
Section 2—Material Considerations,” in Pressure Vessel and Piping: Design
and Analysis, A Decade of Progress, Volume 3, Materials and Fabrication,
ASME, New York, pp. 4–34 关reprinted from Weld. Res. Counc. Bull., 95,
1964兴.
关13兴 Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., 1998, “3D Stress Criteria Guidelines for
Application,” Weld. Res. Counc. Bull., 429.
关14兴 Grandemange, J. M., Heliot, J., Vagner, J., Morel, A., and Faidy, C., 1991,
“Improvements on Fatigue Analysis Methods for the Design of Nuclear Com-
ponents Subjected to the French RCC-M Code,” Weld. Res. Counc. Bull.,
361.
关15兴 Slagis, G. C., 2005, “Meaning of Ke in Design-by-Analysis Fatigue Evalua-
tion,” PVP2005-71420.
关16兴 Tagart, S. W., 1972, “Plastic Fatigue Analysis of Pressure Components,” in
Pressure Vessel and Piping: Design and Analysis, A Decade of Progress, Vol-
ume 1, Analysis, ASME, New York, pp. 209–226 关reprint of ASME Paper No.
68-PVP-3, 1968兴.
Transactions of the ASME