Commission of the European Communities
The computation of shakedown limits
for structural components subjected to variable
thermal loading Brussels diagrams
Report
EUR 12686 EN
Commission of the European Communities
B,
The computation of shakedown limits
for structural components subjected to variable
thermal loading Brussels diagrams
A.R.S. Ponter, S. Karadeniz, K.F. Carter
University of Leicester
Department of Engineering
University Road
Leicester LE1 7RH
United Kingdom
Contract No RAP054UK
Final report
This work was performed under the
Commission of the European Communities
for the Working Group 'Codes and standards'
Activity Group 2: 'Structural analysis'
within the Fast Reactor Coordinating Committee
PARI. F^P.
DirectorateGeneral
Science, Research and Development
1990
L* ,
l U l i *.
N.C./EUR
UR
EUR 12686 EN
Published by the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
DirectorateGeneral
Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation
L2920 Luxembourg
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting
on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of
the following information
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1990
ISBN 9282613402
Catalogue number: CDNA12686ENC
ECSCEECEAEC, Brussels Luxembourg, 1990
Printed in Belgium
C O N T E N T S
Page
Notations and some definitions
Foreword and Executive Summary
VIII
PART I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The general problem and associated Brussels diagram
Typical Brussels diagrams
Example 1  Pure type A. The Bree problem (figure 4)
Example 2  Type A : General case. Torispherical shell
with through thickness temperature gradient
(Figure 5)
Example 3  Transitional A/B. Bree probelm with thermal
transients (Figure 6)
Examples 4 and 5  Type B : Thermal gradients along a shell
surface. Cylindrical tube with axial temperature
gradient (Figure 7), and circular plate with
radial temperature gradients (Figure 8)
Example 6  Type B : Moving temperature gradients.
Cylindrical tube subjected to axial load and a
traversing temperature discontinuity (Figure 9)
Structure of thereport
Conclusions
References
PART II
 THE INFLUENCE OF TRANSIENT THERMAL LOADING ON THE
BREE PLATE
3
5
8
11
12
12
14
18
20
20
22
25
1. Introduction
2. An upperbound approach to calculations of ratchet boundaries
3. The transient Bree problem
4. Solutions to the Bree plate
5. Conclusions
Appendix
Tables
References
27
29
34
38
53
56
58
61
PART III  THE PLASTIC RATCHETTING OF THIN CYLINDRICAL SHELLS
SUBJECTED TO AXISYMMETRIC THERMAL AND MECHANICAL LOADING
63
1. Introduction
2. Finite element technique
3. Variation of temperature along the length of a tube
III
65
68
71
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The effects of strain hardening upon the ratchet boundaries
Experiments on thin cylinders subject to axially moving
temperature front (7)
Other types of thermal loading of cylinders
Tube subjected to a band of pressure and axially moving
temperature fronts
Conclusions
References
PART IV
1.
2.
3.
'4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
 INTERACTION DIAGRAMS FOR AXISYMMETRIC GEOMETRIES
Introduction
EECS3
Cylindrical shells
Baylac tests
Case 2  The Bree problem
Case 7  Cylindrical tube with variable thickness and
variable throughthickness temperature gradient
Conical tubes
Spheroidal and composite shapes
Case 4  Cylindrical tube with spherical cap of same
thickness
Case 5  Cylindrical tube with spherical cap of half thickness
ASME standard torispherical head
Case 6  Cylinder to cone to cylinder (continuous angle)
Case 9  Cylinder to cylinder by spheroidal sections
(continuous angle)
Conclusions
Tables
References
APPENDIX  EXTENDED UPPERBOUND SHAKEDOWN THEORY AND FINITE
ELEMENT METHOD FOR AXISYMMETRIC THIN SHELLS
1. Introduction
2. Upperbound theory
3. Upperbound method for axisymmetric shell elements
4. Extended upperbound method
5. Computational method
6. Thermoelastic stress due to an arbitrary axial temperature
distribution along a cylindrical tube
References
Figures
IV
76
82
85
90
95
98
99
101
102
107
107
115
119
125
128
133
133
137
139
141
143
144
155
157
159
159
162
168
170
173
176
177
Notation
and Some Definitions
x = (x, y, z ) , t
Space and time
O, e
Uniaxial stress and strain
ij' e i j ^ij
Cartesian components of stress, strain and
strain rate
P
P
ij ^ij
Plastic component of strain and strain rate
XL
Plastic strain components (see Fig. 2 of
Appendix)
ac
c
ij ^ij
C
f*T
Ae^j = J
Plastic component of strain rate in upper
bound theorem and corresponding stress
C
ijdt
Accumulated strain over cycle, compatible
with displacement increment
P, P
Primary load
Scalar load parameter
XL PL
to yield
stress
oy
Limit
load
value of
Pij Pij
and
Au c ^
P , corresponding
Residual stress field; satisfies equilibrium
equations within body and zero surface
tractions on surface Sp
P
Ojj
^ 0
oj
ap
Elastic stress field corresponding to
primary load P
Elastic stress field corresponding to
temperature distribution 0
Primary stress, uniform stress corresponding
to load XP
op = Qp/Qy
Nondimensional primary stress
Oy
Yield stress
Oy
Mean yield stress defined by equation (7) of
Part IV
0, A0
Temperature, temperature difference
Scalar temperature parameter
0max
Maximum temperature during cycle
Reference temperature
0O
Uniform initial temperature of structure
c , 6 C , c f
Lower temperature; constant, initial and
final in temperature transients of Part II
JJ, flL, 8jjf
Higher temperature; constant, initial and
final in temperature transients of Part II
at
Maximum effective thermoelastic stress in
cycle
*
A6
e
o
EaA6
2a y
Defined in Fig. (8) of Part III
Nondimensional thermal stress, equals
crt/Oy for Bree problem
Knockdown factor,
= k EaA0/2, i.e.
k = 1 for Bree problem
E
Elastic modulus
Slope of plastic portion of stressstrain
curve
= E/K
Poisson's ratio
Eor
S
P
R
C o  e f f i c iof
e n tthe
of Brussels
thermal Diagrams,
e x p a n s i o n Elastic
Regions
(E), Shakedown (S), Reverse Plasticity (P)
and Ratchetting (R)
Ax
Movement length along cylinder of
temperature front
Ax = Ax//Rh
Nondimensional form of
Ax
Radius of cylindrical shell
Shell thickness
r0, rlf v2
Radii of curvature of axisymmetric shell,
defined in Fig. (1) of the Appendix
Surface of body
Sp
Surface area where primary load
is
applied
Su
Surface area where displacements prescribed
Volume of body
Vs
Volume where shakedown conditions apply
Vp
Volume where reverse plasticity conditions
apply
VI
hth
B =
F =
KT
Pch
3 = [3(1  v )/R h z ] '*
Biot number measures the relative resistances
to heat transfer of the surface compared with
the shell thickness, where h t = surface heat
transfer coefficient, h = shell thickness and
K = thermal conductivity
Fourier number, nondimensional transient
time, where T = transient time in thermal
shock, p = material density and c = thermal
capacity
Characteristic parameter
 VII 
FOREHORD AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Commission of the European Communities is assisted in its
actions regarding fast breeder reactors by the Fast Reactor Coordinating Committee which has set up the Safety Working Group and the
Working Group Codes and Standards (WGCS). The latter's mandate is to
harmonise the codes, standards and regulations used in the EC member
states for
the
design,
material selection, construction and
inspection of LMFBR components.
The present report is the final report of CEC study contract N
RAP054UK performed
under WGCS/Activity Group 2 : Structural
Analysis.
It corresponds to one of the priority themes of WGCS/AG2,
namely the development of simplified methods for the design. The
final report issued in December 1987 was updated and revised for this
publication.
LMFBR structures are characterised by low primary stresses (due
to dead weight and internal pressure) and
variable secondary
(thermal) stresses of high amplitude.
For certain combinations of
geometry, material properties and loading, ratchetting may occur
whereby the strains undergo an increment at each cycle of the applied
thermal loading until either failure occurs, or the strain becomes
limited by material hardening after the accumulation of unacceptably
large strains. Ruling out this phenomenon at the design stage is an
important task of the designer. This task is made very easy by the
Brussels diagrams presented in this report.
The Brussels diagram
for a given geometry and a given type of loading shows four regions
in the plane amplitude of the cyclic thermal stress versus magnitude
of the primary stress :

Elastic behaviour from the beginning.
Shakedown : after the first cycles in which plastic strains
occur a residual stress field is built up and only elastic
strains appear thereafter.
Reverse plasticity : in a limited volume plastic strains occur
but they do not grow cyclically due to the constraint offered
by the remaining shakeddown region.
Ratchetting.
 VIII
The report presents the theory on which Brussels diagrams are
based. It is the upper bound shakedown theory, specialised for
axisymmetric shell elements and in which the upper bound is minimised
by linear programming techniques.
This theory is extended to the
reverse plasticity region and has been implemented in two finite
element axisymmetric shell programs which calculate a sequence of
points on the ratchetting boundary.
Three classes of problems are
discussed :

The uniaxial transient Bree problem.
The cylindrical tube subjected to axial load and stationary or
moving temperature discontinuity.
A range of Brussels diagrams for axisymmetric geometries and
thermal loadings typical of LMFBRs.
The discussion includes comparisons with some experiments and
considerations on the sensitivity of the diagrams to the material
assumptions.
Using this methodology it is possible to construct an Atlas of
Brussels diagrams covering the whole range of structural geometries
and temperature histories that may be encountered in LMFBR design
problems. The present work, does not cover the creep range which will
be treated in another report.
L.H. Larsson
CEC/DGXIID1
IX
Part I
Summary and conclusions
A.R.S. Ponter
1.
INTRODUCTION
The design of liquid metal cooled fast reactors poses a range of new
problems for the structural designer.
Although the level of stress due
to dead weight and liquid pressure is low, usually less than 0.25 of the
yield stress, the occurrance of periodic thermal transients can induce
substantial thermal stresses which, in the most severe conditions, can
exceed twice the yield stress.
involved.
There are two broad classes of phenomena
Turbulent mixing of hot and cooler liquid sodium above the
reactor core can cause rapid temperature fluctuations of a moderate magnitude (less than 70C) over a short time scale.
Major peaks and troughs
at a fixed material point in the above core structure are separated by time
intervals of the order of seconds.
The main concern in this case is the
possibility of thermal fatigue in the form of thermal stripping, but the
thermal stresses are not sufficiently large to induce structural distortions, provided the temperature remains below the creep range.
The second
class of phenomena are associated with the thermal transients which occur
when the reactor trips.
It is expected that the number of such trips will
be relatively small, perhaps as many as 2000 during the lifetime of the
structure.
The concern here is not so much low cycle fatigue but the
possibility that components will suffer increments of plastic strain and
displacement, which will accumulate to an unacceptable level of distortion.
The broad features of this phenomenon, which is referred to as "shakedown"
when it does not occur and "ratchetting" when it does occur, has been known
and understood for some time through the work of Miller [1], Parkes [2],
Bree [3] and Gokfeld and Cherniavsky [4].
But the solutions to specific
problems which these authors discuss have proved to be an incomplete picture of the range of circumstances which can occur in fast reactors.
In
the late 1970's it was appreciated that a more systematic approach to the
problem was required which could place in the hands of the designer
sufficient information to allow him to quickly assess whether a particular
circumstance was likely to cause ratchetting.
At the same time, it had
become clear that the generation of step by step finite element solutions
to specific problems failed to provide any general insight into the
behaviour of thermally loaded structures.
One particular approach to the
problem was described by the author (Ponter [5]) where it was suggested
that the application of classical shakedown theory, the upper bound
theorem with an extension, could be used to construct generalised "Bree"
diagrams for a range of structural components and temperature histories.
This suggested that an "Atlas" of such diagrams, which later became known
as "Brussels diagrams" could then be used as a reference to demonstrate
the way differing types of thermal loading effected a range of structural
geometry, and thereby assist designers at the initial stages of design.
The realisation of this concept has proved more difficult than was
initially envisaged for reasons which, with the aid of hindsight, are
fairly obvious.
If information of this type is to be used by designers
there must be a fair degree of confidence in the relevance and accuracy of
the diagrams.
Traditionally, such confidence is built up over a period of
time through comparison with experimental results.
For thermal loading
problems the range of data available is limited, and the process of forming
a comparison is quite a task in its own right.
reliability of the diagrams themselves.
The second problem is the
The simple examples discussed by
Ponter [5] were mainly problems where the mode of ratchetting, which forms
the input into the upper bound shakedown theorem, was either known or could
be sensibly guessed.
In this case the exact, or near exact, solution to
the ratchet limit could be found with relative ease.
problems the optimal mechanism needed to be found.
For more complex
The development of the
finite element technique for axisymmetric shells which was capable of doing
this and the writing of the associated computer software has been no mean
task, but has now been achieved by Dr Carter with the assistance of a research grant from the Science and Engineering Research Council of Great
Britain.
Lastly the range of possible diagrams seemed to expand with the
length of the computer listing (the main programme has in excess of 5000
lines of code) and it has taken some time before they could be condensed
down into a smaller number of significant cases.
This introduction sets out, in fairly simple terms, what the Brussels
diagrams mean, how they were generated, and what the main classes of diagrams look like.
The main body of the report is a more detailed discus
sion of classes of problems with some comparisons with experimental results.
2.
THE GENERAL PROBLEM AND ASSOCIATED BRUSSELS DIAGRAM
The general problem consists of a structural component which is sub
jected to two separate loading systems.
A constant load, which may be a
pressure loading or a localised loading is given by
scalar load parameter.
space and time.
of
and
y0 (x,t),
where
The behaviour of such a structure for differing values
is quite complex, but we can summarise the behaviour in the
and
for yield stress
For ease of inter
are not used as axes, but two equivalent
nondimensional quantities; P/PL where
PL is the limit load parameter
a y at some reference temperature
is the maximum effective thermoelastic stress due
P/PL .
is a
is a distribution of temperature which varies in both
pretation the scalars
XP
is a second scalar
form of the general Brussels diagram shown in Fig.l.
where
where
In addition, the structure is subjected to a
cyclic history of temperature
parameter and
XP
produces a uniform stress
a p , then
0 r and; O/Oy
to
op/Oy
y0 .
where a t
For cases
is substituted for
These are the quantities used by Bree [3],
The diagram has four separate regions, referred to as E, S, P and R.
 5
The position of the boundaries and mode of behaviour in each region depends
upon the material behaviour assumed.
There are, however, two basic models,
perfect plasticity and linear hardening, Fig. (2), which are sufficient to
encompass the range of real material behaviour.
The behaviour within the
regions can be summarised as follows:
E:
Purely elastic behaviour occurs.
the initial yield surface.
S:
During the first few cycles some plastic strains occur but they are
limited in magnitude to the order of magnitude of elastic strain i.e.
0.1%. A residual stress field is built up which pulls the elastic
stress into the yield surface. The boundary to the region ABD is
the elastic shakedown limit, and no plastic deformation occurs after
the first few cycles.
P:
In some limited volume of the structure Vp , for shells a proportion
of the thickness of the shell, the stresses cause plastic strains at
the extreme of the thermal loading cycle, but the kinematic constraint
of the remaining material in volume Vs prevents continued cyclic
growth of displacement.
After a few cycles, cyclic growth of displacement ceases and the accumulated strain remains small, of the order
of elastic strains.
R:
For a perfectly plastic material cyclic strain growth of the structures
occur which become a constant increment per cycle after the first few
cycles.
The rate of growth can be significant for small excursions
into this region.
For a strain hardening material the rate of strain
growth is initially close to the value for a perfectly plastic material
with the same yield stress, but the rate then decreases until a limiting strain value is obtained.
This process usually takes a significant number of cycles, in excess of 4050 cycles.
The boundary between the
and
The elastic stresses nowhere exceed
and the
S and
region can be
predicted by classical shakedown theory and the cyclic hardening properties
of the material is not significant.
The boundary between the P
and
region, however, is more sensitive to the cyclic material properties.
extremes can be calculated.
R
Two
We may assume that the material suffers no
cyclic hardening i.e. perfect plasticity or kinematic hardening, or, that the
material cyclically hardens to elastic behaviour, i.e. isotropic hardening.
The extremes are illustrated in Fig. (3).
The behaviour of 316 stainless
steel lies midway between these two extremes.
By looking at simple examples
V~y 1
P / P L or CTp/oy
EJ9_1 The general Brussels diagram

Fig, 2 Perfect plasticity and linear hardening
"
Isotropic hardening
ACT.
316 S.S.
Kinematic hardening
he
Perfect plasticity
Ae
Fig._3 Cyclic stressstrain curves
 7
(Ponter and Karadeniz [6] ) it becomes clear that the assumption of complete
cyclic hardening within the volume of material where reverse plasicity occurs
provides the more conservative boundary between the
and
R region.
With this assumption it is then possible to define the ratchet boundary
by using an extension of classical shakedown theory.
ABC
The theory is des
cribed by Ponter and Karadeniz [6] and all the diagrams in this Atlas are
produced using this theory.
The Tresca yield condition is assumed and a
simple class of displacement field involving discrete hinge circles at nodal
points and uniform membrane deformation within elements.
For limit load
calculations the assumptions are equivalent to the classic noninteractive
prismatic yield surface of Drucker and Shield [11].
The thermoelastic
stresses are generated either analytically or by a finite element method
(using the code CONIDA kindly supplied by the UKAEA) and the optimal mechanism is found by converting the upper bound into a linear programming
problem, which is solved using a sparse matrix simplex method.
A full
description of the theory and computational techniques are given in Part 2
for uniaxial problems and in the appendix to Part 4 for axisymmetric shells.
3.
TYPICAL BRUSSELS DIAGRAMS
In the previous E.E.C, report [5] two classes of diagram were distin
guished, termed type
and Type
the following properties.
the applied load
B .
The two types are distinguished by
In the general Brussels diagram, Fig. (1), when
is zero and the value of
exceeds the line
DB
then
there exists a volume of the structure, Vp , where reverse plasticity occurs.
The volume can be found from the thermoelastic solution as the regions of
the structure where the thermoelastic stress history cannot be contained
within the yield surface by translating it by a rigid body translation in
stress space.
We then imagine the structure with this volume
VF
removed.
If the reduced structure can now carry some applied load, then the region P
OpH
2R
 x
J*Tt
e,
e.
a.
t
At
Fig._ Example 1, Type A, the Bree problem
h=.0025
e0o
.12m ^ f \
.'
i \\
.88m
h=.0025
i \\ h:
Ito
Internai
pressure P
Into
\\
/ X
y,'
 V\
1m
\i \\
\\
\\
! Il
Total
length
1.5m
J .233m
.10(
1.16m
2 =0.00
 =2.08
iii
iii
cry(6R)
GR=20C
Bree
1\
l> I
1
P.
P,
Fiq. 5 Example 2. Type A, Torispherical shell with throughthickness temperature gradient.
10
exists (the proof is given in [6]).
A pure
type thermal loading problem
is one where this remains true however large the value of
at/Oy , and it has
the property that there always exists some value of applied load
be carried by the structure without ratchetting.
On the other hand, if the
reduced structure is not capable of carrying any applied load, no
exists and the thermal loading problem is of type
P which can
region
B , and shows a much
greater susceptability to thermal stress than type A .
Since that time is has become clear that a greater range of diagrams
exist across a complete spectrum with distinctive types of behaviour occurring within each category.
To indicate the range of behaviour currently
understood we describe five categories with examples, two each of type
and
and a transitional type
A/B , arranged in order of increasing
susceptability to ratchetting for low levels of mechanical load.
A.
EXAMPLE 1. PURE TYPE A.
THE BREE PROBLEM (FIGURE 4)
A thin walled tube is subjected to internal pressure and/or axial load.
A temperature difference
A0
is induced with no thermal transients through
the thickness of the tube and then removed with or without a change in mean
temperature.
The elastic stresses produced by the pressure are uniformly
distributed with value
ap
and the thermoelastic stresses vary linearly
through the wall thickness with a zero value at the midthickness surface.
The ratchet boundary has been computed by Bree [3].
The volume
sists of two surface layers and the remaining volume
Vg
reduced thickness.
As a result, a
boundary assymptotes to the
o"p a large value of
at
O^/Oy
Vp
con
forms a tube of
region exists and the ratchet
axis as
0"p reduces to zero.
For low
can be tolerated before ratchetting occurs.
11
5.
EXAMPLE 2, TYPE A; GENERAL CASE
TORISPHERICAL SHELL WITH THROUGH THICKNESS TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
(FIGURE 5)
If the temperature gradient remains predominantly through the thickness
of the shell but the shell itself has a more complex geometry, including
changes in thickness and, perhaps, a spherical or torispherical end cap,
then the stresses induced by the applied load are no longer uniform and
the thermal stresses will be effected by the geometry.
is a torispherical cap subjected to internal pressure
temperature gradient
collapse for
at =
A0
0
through the shell wall.
A typical example
P with a uniform
The mechanism of plastic
involves hinge circles which allow outward movement
of the shell cap as shown in Fig. 5.
We find with increasing thermal stress
that the ratchet mechanism is very similar to this collapse mechanism and the
Brussels diagram is very similar to the classic Bree problem with the
horizontal axis given by
P/PL .
such examples are analysed.
In Part 4 of this report a whole set of
We conclude that the classic Bree diagram gives
a conservative boundary for such problems provided that crp/ay
P/L , where
PL
is replaced by
is the limit load using the yield stress corresponding to the
maximum mean temperature during the cycle.
6.
EXAMPLE 3, TRANSITIONAL A/B.
BREE PROBLEM WITH THERMAL TRANSIENTS (FIGURE 6)
If the rate of surface heating in the Bree problem is sufficiently
great, the throughthickness temperature distribution has a transient phase.
The nature of the transients vary with the details of the surface temperature
history, but there are certain phenomena which always occur.
The stress at
the midsection surface does not remain at zero, as was the case in the Bree
problem, but can show a significant fluctuation.
As a result, the entire
thickness of the shell experiences a fluctuating thermoelastic stress distribution, and the volume
VF
can penetrate the full thickness of the shell.
 12 
k<
6H
6 = Constant
a. Rate element ond initial condition for thermal downshock
HJ
Hi
ii
o^
A6
VJ
HC
.
IU
b. Temperature history of medium H ( Q r is constant)
time
Hi
Power on
Shutdown trar.sient
Peroff
c. Temperature distributions
Compressive
R
Fig. 6 Example 3, Transitional A/B, Bree problem
with thermal transients
13
There is, in addition, the influence of the variation of the yield stress with
temperature.
Both these effects cause the ratchet boundaries for both
positive and negative ratchetting to meet at a cusp which is marked as
Fig. 6.
D
in
For zero applied load the compressive ratchetting will occur at point
at a finite value of
a^ .
The exact geometry of the Brussels diagrams
depends, however, on a number of factors.
These include whether the transient
is associated with an upshock or a downshock or a doublesided shock.
In
addition, the effects of surface heat transfer, given by the Biot number, and
the rapidity of the surface temperature change, given by the Fourier number,
are quite significant.
In Part 2 of this report a range of such cases are
discussed in detail.
7.
EXAMPLES 4 AND 5, TYPE B: THERMAL GRADIENTS ALONG A SHELL SURFACE
CYLINDRICAL TUBE WITH AXIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT (FIGURE 7), AND
CIRCULAR PLATE WITH RADIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS (FIGURE 8).
An important class of problems involves temperature gradients which
are predominantly along the shell surface.
In fact, in reactor design the
tubes are relatively thin and throughthickness gradients are often small.
It may be expected, therefore, that many problems fall into this category.
We consider two examples which are typical of this type.
Example 4
consists of a uniform cylindrical tube, subjected to an axial load and an
axial history of temperature which fluctuates between a uniform temperature
and a maximum temperature.
The detailed temperature history corresponds
to those of an experiment carried out at EDFSEPTENin Lyon, France.
The
axial temperature gradients induce throughthickness hoop stresses which
can exceed twice the yield value of the material.
In addition, axial
bending moments with maximum stresses of a similar order of magnitude as the
hoop stresses are also induced.
distinct branches
AB
and
BC
The resulting Brussels diagram shows two
as~shown in Fig. (7).
Along
AB
the
mechanism is a local ratchetting mechanism due to the applied load and the
14
axial bending moments and is similar to that of the classic Bree Problem.
Along
BC
CJA
a reverse plasticity mechanism occurs where the large hoop stress
, together with the axial load
instants during the cycle.
ap
, cause plastic strains at two
Most of the plastic strain is in the hoop
direction, but there is an increment of axial strain each cycle.
Example 5 is similar in nature but rather different in geometry and
serves to demonstrate that the characteristics of example 4 are shared by
other problems which have the same type of thermal loading.
In this case a
circular plate is simply supported at its edge and subjected to uniform
lateral pressure
and a linear radial temperature gradient with a maximum
temperature at the centre of the plate as shown in Fig. (8).
Despite the
considerable differences between examples 4 and 5 their Brussels diagrams
are virtually identical in form.
Along
AB
the ratchet mechanism is the
same as the plastic collapse mechanism; the plate deforms as a cone.
BC
Along
a local ratchet mechanism occurs around the edge of the plate induced by
the large hoop thermoelastic stress variation and the shear stresses induced by the transmission of the pressure
to the edge support.
Again
this mechanism is a reverse plasticity mechanism through the thickness of
the plate.
(A lower bound solution has been given by Cocks [8]).
The rate at which ratchetting will occur for load points in excess of BC
in both examples depends upon the details of the material behaviour.
The
best way of describing the severity of ratchetting is to say that it can be
significant (see solutions by Ponter and Cocks [9]) but it might well be
small.
Some detailed finite element calculations by Webster et al [10] for
example 5 shows that ratchetting occurs but at a lower rate than along
It is tempting to refer to the boundaries
and
AB
as strong ratchetting boundaries.
loading in excess of
BC
BC
AB.
as weak ratchetting boundaries
There is a possibility that
could be allowed, but there is a total lack of
experimental data with which comparisons can be made.
15
u >> ^
18
0.1
0.2
0.1
1 i
0.4
0.;
0.7
0.9
o.e
>^
549
1.4
0.6
0.4
N.
0.2
415
348
\
^
482
+
to
. Expt  70KN
12
>>
^
0.8
>
emax(C)
616
^ ^ ^ ^
*y I W C ) 16
0.0
0.6
\
\
\
\
282
215
148
\
81
0.0 0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
06
.7
.9
^ i
1.1
1.2
14
<rr IUC)
F\g._2 Example U. Thermal gradient along a cylindrical
tube, the Lyon lest. Type B
 16
a.
Local shear mechanism
Global mechanism
Temperature independent yield stress o~y
Fig._8 Example 5, Type B, Circular plate, simply supported.
uniform lateral pressure P and radial linear temperature
gradient.
ti
17
S* ,
This type of problem is discussed, together with some experimental data,
in Part 3 and also in Part 4.
It may well be the most important class of
thermal loading for fast reactor design and it must be emphasised that the
Brussels diagram is very different to that of the Bree problem.
Ratchetting
can ocur at zero applied load.
8.
EXAMPLE 6; TYPE B; MOVING TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS
CYLINDRICAL TUBE SUBJECTED TO AXIAL LOAD AND A TRAVERSING TEMPERATURE
DISCONTINUITY (FIGURE 9~K
The last example concerns the most severe thermal loading problems of
all where an axial temperature gradient along a tube traverses a length of
the tube so that the thermoelastic stresses are swept backwards and forwards
over a significant volume of material.
In examples 4 and 5 the volume
VF
penetrates the thickness of the shell but remains relatively small compared
with
Vs
Vp can be large and consists of the volume of
In this example
material through which the high thermal stress is swept.
In detail the
example consists of an axially loaded tube with a steep discontinuity of
temperature which repeatedly traverses a length
Ax
of the tube.
position of the ratchet boundary depends upon the value of
where
is the radius and
the thickness of the tube.
Ax = Ax/ /Rh
A whole set of
ratchet boundaries are shown in Fig. (9) for a range of values
small Ax
The
Ax.
For
the boundary is similar to that of examples 4 and 5 with two
parts, the upper part involving a reverse plasticity mechanism, mode II.
However, as Ax
increases the severe ratchetting Mode III, which consists
of inward displacement over
Ax , occurs at decreasing applied load until,
for Ax > 3, corresponding to Ax > 0.3R
for
boundary reduces to near the elastic limit.
where reverse plasticity begins when
ap =
R/h = 100, the ratchet
In addition, the point
0 , occurs when
at one half of the thermal stress of all the other cases.
C ,
a^ = ay , i.e.
When the effect
of the variation of yield stress with temperature are included then severe
18
**?
m. X
2R
Cn^^rs
L
Temperature
e.ae
to
AX1
Cold front\
L
Hot front
Axial distance X
Generat
yield
Mode I
= 'Weak'
i reverse
! plasticity
Model
= = ^ ^ J = ^ 'Strong*
^ ^
I local
mechanism
* cr
Fig._9 Example 6, Type B, moving temperature
discontinuity traversina length Ax of cylindrical
tube. AS = Ax / / R h
 19 
ratchetting can occur at zero applied load.
This problem, together with
some experimental data, is discussed in Part 2.
This circumstance is
clearly very severe and may well be of considerable significance in fast
reactor design.
9.
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
The body of the report is subdivided into three sections which discuss
distinct classes of problems, which also correspond to three differing
methods of applying the upper bound theorem.
Part 2 discusses the transient Bree problem, posed as a uniaxial problem, where the mode of deformation is known and calculations for the ratchet
limit become a simple integration procedure.
The shakedown theory and its
application are explained in full and a number of cases are discussed involving both single sided upshocks and downshocks and doublesided shocks
in terms of the Biot and Fourier numbers.
transition from type
to type
This class of problems form the
B.
In Part 3 a detailed description is given of the behaviour of a cylindrical tube subjected to axial load and either stationary or moving temperature
discontinuity.
The emphasis is placed upon the sensitivity of the diagrams
to the material assumptions and correlation with the limited available
experimental data.
The final part 4 contains a wide range of diagrams involving axisymmetric
geometries using a general purpose computer code.
These include a class of
problems originally suggested by Working Group 2 of the EEC Fast Reactor Coordinating Committee and are known as the Bergamo Set.
A description of the
computational techniques is given in the appendix.
10.
CONCLUSIONS
The theoretical extremes of the ratchet boundary in the Brussels diagram
are; a vertical line, i.e. thermal stresses have no effect whatsoever and; the
20
ratchet limit coincident with elastic limit, so that no
exist.
or
regions
The range of problems discussed in the report shows that both these
extremes can be achieved and that there is a gradation of cases of increasing
severity which lie between these extremes.
The classic Bree diagram can now
be seen as a significant but particular case which lies within this spectrum
and that there are other forms of Brussels diagrams which are possibly more
significant for fast reactor design.
This work represents a first systematic attempt to understand the effect
of thermal cycling.
It constitutes, in essence, a theoretical conjecture,
as the amount of experimental data currently available for low mechanical
loads is very limited, although what data there is tends to support the
theory.
It is hoped that this work might stimulate further experimental
work, particularly into the behaviour of the less severe type
problems
such as examples 4 and 5 where "weak" ratchetting occurs.
All the calculations have been carried out in terms of a yield stress
Oy , usually taken as the 0.1% offset yield stress when comparisons are
given with experimental data.
With such a definition the plastic strain
within the shakedown limit cannot be precisely known as it depends, amongst
other things, upon the initial state of residual stress in the shell.
How
ever, shakedown theory and experimental evidence indicates that the plastic
strain will remain of the same order as elastic strains, i.e. in the range
0.1  0.3% strain within the ratchet limit, and will rapidly grow once the
ratchet limit is exceeded, except in the "weak" ratchetting cases where the
strain growth is dependent upon the particular material and the details of
the loading history.
In conclusion the authors would like to emphasise that the Brussels
diagrams characterise a particular aspect of the behaviour of shells.
The
extension to creep deformation and rupture is discussed in a companion
report [12], where comparisons, based upon the Brussels diagram, is made
21
with the solutions of O'Donnell and Porowski [13,14], and the CEA efficiency
diagram [15].
Work is currently underway within the UK to use these
results to established improved design code rules which will allow a more
accurate and flexible set of restrictions on thermal stresses than those
currently provided by either ASME Section III or RCCMR.
The authors hope that this report will encourage an improved understanding of structural behaviour for these complex loading problems.
Suggestions of particular cases of interest would be welcomed.
References
[1]
MILLER, P.R.
"Thermal stress ratchet mechanism in pressure vessels", J Basic
Engineering, Trans ASME, Series D, 1959: 81, ppl90196.
[2]
PARKES, E.W.
"Structural effects of repeated thermal loading" in Thermal Stress,
Benham et al. (eds), Pitman and Son Ltd., London 1964.
[3]
BREE, J.
"Elastoplastic behaviour of thin tubes subjected to internal
pressure and intermittent highheat fuses with application to fast
nuclear reactor fuel elements", J Strain Analysis, 1967: 2, No.3,
PP226238.
[4]
GOKFELD, D.A. and CHERNIAVSKY, O.F.
"Limit analysis of structures at thermal cycling", Sijthoff and
Noordhoff, Alpen aan den Rijm, The Netherlands, 1980.
[5]
PONTER, A.R.S.
"Shakedown and ratchetting below the creep range", Report EUR 8702 EN,
Commission of the European Communities DirectorateGeneral for Science,
Research and Development, Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, L2985, Luxembourg.
[6]
PONTER, A.R.S. and KARADENIZ, S.
"An extended shakedown theory for structures that suffer cyclic
thermal loading" Parts I and II, J Appi. Mechanics, Trans ASME, 52,
PP877882 and pp883889.
22
[7]
CARTER, K.F. and PONTER, A.R.S.
"A finite element and linear programming method for the extended
shakedown of axisymmetric shells subjected to cyclic thermal
loading", Department of Engineering, University of Leicester,
Report no. 86XX, 1986.
[8]
COCKS, A.CF.
"Lowerbound shakedown analysis of a simply supported plate carrying
a uniformity distributed load and subjected to cyclic thermal
loading", Int. J. Mech. Sci. 1984: 26, pp471475.
[9]
PONTER, A.R.S. and COCKS, A.CF.
"The incremental strain growth of an elasticplastic body loaded in
excess of the shakedown limit", Jn. Applied Mechanics, Trans ASME,
1984: Paper 84  WA/APM10,
and
"The incremental strain growth of elasticplastic bodies subjected
to high loads of cyclic thermal loading", Op. Sit. 1984: Paper 84 WA/ADM11.
[10]
WEBSTER et al.
Private Communication.
[11]
DRUCKER, D.C. and SHIELD, D.
"Limit analysis of symmetrically loaded thin shells of devolution",
Trans ASME, Jn. Applied Mechanics, 1959: 26, p61.
[12]
PONTER, A.R.S. and COCKS, A.CF.
"Computation of shakedown limits for structural components (Brussels
Diagram) Part II  The Creep Range.
Final Report RAP066UK (AD),
EEC Fast Reactor Coordinating Committee, 1986.
[13]
O'DONNELL, W.J. and POROWSKI, J.S.
Trans ASME, Jn. of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 96, 1974, pl26.
[14]
POROWSKI, J.S., O'DONNEL, W.J. and BADLANI M.
Welding Research Council Bulletin 273, 1982.
[15]
CLEMENTS, G. and ROCHE, R.
General review of available results of progressive tests of structures
and structural components.
In: Ratchetting in the Creep Range by
Ponter, A.R.S., Cocks, A.CF., Clement, C , Roche, R., Corradi, L.
and Franchi, A., Report EUR 9876 EN. DirectorateGeneral, Science
Research and Development Commission of the European Community,
Brussels, 1985.
23
Part II
The influence of transient thermal loading
on the Bree plate
S. Karadeniz, A.R.S. Ponter
1.
INTRODUCTION
Many components of power producing plants are subjected to thermal
transients during startup and shutdown conditions, but generally the time
scale of the temperature changes means that near quasistatic temperature
gradients are maintained.
There are, however, some exceptional circum
stances when extremely rapid changes induce transient thermal and thermoelastic fields.
For example, the particular thermal properties of liquid
sodium and the rapid response of the core of a fast breeder reactor result
in rates of changes of temperature on the surface of components as high as
40 K s _ 1 [ l ] .
In the context of the fast reactor it is necessary to ensure that
structural components do not exhibit progressive distortion during the
reactors lifetime.
transients as
The ASME [2] design codes treat stresses due to thermal
stresses, i.e. local stresses which can cause localised
plastic strain but are not a source of general deformation of the structural
component.
As a result, they are only taken into account when assessing the
possibility of fatigue failure.
It seems advisable to test this hypothesis
by the solution of some relevant problems involving only plastic deformation
(i.e. no creep) and this forms the main objective of this section.
In fact,
we discover that transient thermal fields can have a significant effect upon
the potential for strain growth of components and, as a result, it appears
that the ASME code does not fully take into account the effect of
stresses.
Some particular solutions to such problems have been published by
Goodman [3] who extended the classic Bree solution for quasistatic thermal
fields [4] to include through thickness thermal transients for an elastoperfectly plastic material, assuming a temperature independent yield stress
and computed the ratchet boundary where an increase in loading would cause a
rapid progressive plastic strain growth.
From a computer study Goodman
found that for the singlesided thermal downshock there is a reduction in
27 
PP
PP K.H.
I.HA
\
\
Reversed
plasticity
P
Plasticity
K.H. Kinematic hardening
I. H. Isotropic hardening
(Complete cyclic hardening)
\
/Oy
Perfect
\
\
\
Ratchetting
R
10 X / X L
CTf' Maximum thermoelastic effective stress
X L : Plastic limit load parameter
Fjg.
1_ Schematic representation of general problem
 28
allowable thermal loading for small mechanical loading but the effect Is
less distinct for a doublesided downshock.
In this section of the report we discuss a wide range of such problems,
using the extended upper bound theory of Ponter and Karadeniz [5].
As the
problem involves uniaxial strain growth which is constant through the wall
thickness of the tube, the application of the theory is relatively simple.
This gives an opportunity for the discussion of the general techniques for
the construction of the Brussels diagram in the simplest of contexts.
full discussion of the numerical techniques for a wider class of problems,
axisymmetric shells, is given in the appendix to Part 4.
Those readers who
wish to avoid discussions of the shakedown theory may proceed to section (3).
In section (2), the theory is briefly described and in section (3) a set
of solutions of the Bree problem with thermal transients are presented.
2.
AN UPPER BOUND APPROACH TO CALCULATIONS OF RATCHET BOUNDARIES
The general problem is shown schematically in Fig. (1) where a struc
ture with volume
over part of S, S
Within
and surface
is subjected to constant loads XP
, and zero displacements over the remaining surface
a nonsteady cyclic temperature field
material suffers both elastic strains
e^
0(x,t) occurs.
and plastic strain
Su .
The
e. and the
total strain is given by
e
where
ij
= e
ij
+ e
ij
+ a,S
ij (8 " 6o>
is the linear coefficient of thermal expansion and
(1)
0O
some con
p
stant reference temperature.
If
Ej
is represented by one of the clas
sical plasticity models (perfect plasticity, kinematical hardening or isotropic hardening) then the general features of the structural responses are
similar but not identical, and are shown schematically in Fig. (1) where
is the maximum effective thermoelastic stress during the thermal cycle.
There are four regions in this
(1)
Region E:
(A.,at) interaction diagram:
the elastic stresses do not exceed initial yield
29
at
(2)
Region S:
some plastic strain occurs during the first few cycles
but shakedown subsequently occurs
(3)
Region P:
cyclic plastic straining occurs over a confined volume
but no incremental growth of the structure occurs
(4)
Region R:
for a perfectly plastic material steady incremental
strain growth occurs. For the two hardening models
the structure initially shows substantial rate of
strain growth which assymptotes to a final value.
The detailed calculation of the boundary between the
the
and
S regions, line
ABC
region and
can only be precisely defined for per
fect plasticity where there is a distinct load level at which incremental
strain growth occurs.
For the hardening models the boundary is less clearly
defined and varies, to some degree, with the definition of tolerable plastic
strains and the initial residual stress field assumed.
ever, for linear hardening models, that the line
AB
It is observed how
is defined reasonably
well for both isotropic and kinematic hardening by the perfectly plastic
shakedown boundary for the same initial yield stress.
The boundary
BC ,
however, is influenced by the presence of cyclic hardening, a feature
included in an isotropic hardening model but excluded from both perfect
plasticity and kinematic hardening.
From experiments on a twobar struc
ture composed of 316 SS at 400C Ponter and Karadeniz [5] showed that the
actual load level at which plastic strain increased rapidly occurred along
a line which lay between
lines
case.
BC' and
BC
ABC'
and
ABC .
For the twobar structure the
are quite far apart, but this seems to be an extreme
For the classic Bree problem they are identical [5] and for cases
involving transient thermal loading, where the perfectly plastic solution
has been evaluated on a computer, the difference is small (see section 3).
We find that the evaluation of the line
ABC'
can be done directly from the
thermoelastic solution and, as this line is conservative, we adopt it as
the most appropriate definition of a ratchet boundary.
The resulting cal
culation requires knowledge of the elastic properties and the variation of
a proof stress with temperature, i.e. the information which is customarily
30
available to a designer.
The theory may be described in two parts for the evaluation of line
AB
and line
BC' .
The region
a residual stress field
Pjj
ABD
is characterised by the existence of
so that the stress history
CT
ij= *ij (x)
+ CT
ij (X't) + Pij
(2)
satisfies the yield condition
where
or
(3)
is an appropriate effective stress, and
varies with temperature.
due to
< CJy (9(t))
Su .
~p
Oj_j and
Here
~6
OM
C7y a yield stress which
denote the elastic stresses
0(x,t) respectively where, in each case, u = 0
and due to
Combination of (2) and the maximum work principle results in an
upper bound [5], which will now be discussed.
We define a compatable strain increment field
ding displacement field
c
du^
c
den
with a correspon
We will be concerned with problems where
the history of thermoelastic stress follows a near linear path in stress
space and, as a result, plastic strains will occur at most at two instants
t = tx
and
t = t2
during the cycle, i.e.
c
i
2
deLj = dejj + de
where neither
de^j
(4)
nor
de^j
need be compatible.
Using the maximum work
principle [5] the following upper bound can be evaluated
]
[Gij (9X) dEij + ajj (62) dGij] dV > X j Pi du dS
f [a?j (t x ) dej + a?j (t 2 ) dejj] dV
31
(5)
where
Qjj
(^k)
(k = 1,2)
is the point on the yield surface with the
k
associated plastic strain
perature is
0fc
deM
at time
t^ when the instantaneous tem
The evaluation of the bound can be more easily under
stood if inequality (5) is rearranged as
du
(aj (Bj)  al3 (tx)) delj
dS < f
+ (aij (02)  e
aij (t2)) deij
(6)
dV
The minimum value of the right hand side which yields the exact solution
requires both the optimal mechanism
dGji
and
de^j
du^ "and the optimal subdivision into
For the problems to be discussed here the mechanism is
1
known a  priori and the optimal subdivision requires either
to be zero.
dejj or
de^j
As a result, the minimum of the right hand side merely requires
the identification of the instant
~0
> !
0"ij (t1)J dji
tx
(or t 2 )
for which
(cjjj (j) 
is a minimum, which can be accomplished by a simple search
procedure.
When the maximum effective thermoelastic stress exceeds
ay(0x)+ cry(02)
then the total volume V comprises two subvolumes; V s where the history
~0
Gji may, by a rigid body translation in stress space, be contained within
the yield surface at all times and V F , where Ot > ay(01)+ ay(02) where
Q
aM
cannot be so translated and must, therefore, cause reverse plasticity.
For the boundary
BC', the upper bound (5) for positive
cr
now has
the form
J [Qij (0X) del]
oli
*>f
9 2 ) d ij ] d v > X
~6
P^du^ ds
2 ,
d i j ( t x ) d e u + a i j ( t 2 ) d e i j ] dV
32
o
co
^f
*
f1

Fig. 2
The Bree problem and the definition of VF and V;
CT,
j [j (tx) + oJ (t2)] de^j dV
(y)
vF
the formal proof of which is given in the Appendix.
An important corollary to this result is that the shakedown condition
can only be satisfied if there exists a region of
ting the load
AP^
through the structure.
Vg
capable of transmit
For such problems the structure
is capable of carrying some load in excess of the reverse plasticity limit
and a
region exists.
Such problems have been termed type
([5] of Part 1) and include the classic Bree problem.
of reverse plasticity
the load
AP^
Vp
by Ponter
However, the volume
contains a mechanism which can be activated by
then ratchetting can occur once the reverse plasticity limit
is exceeded and no
type
The transient Bree problem discussed here has features
problem.
region exists.
This situation has been termed a
of both situations and therefore forms a transitional type A/B .
3.
THE TRANSIENT BREE PROBLEM
Consider the problem shown in Fig. (2) where a plate of thickness
is restrained from curvature and subjected to a constant average stress
in the
direction and zero average stress in the
cyclic thermal history
face temperature
direction.
p
a
0(y,t) is created by cyclic variation of the sur
6(0,t) and
0(h,t) .
If we adopt a Tresca yield condition then the plastic strain field for
positive
p
a
C
d x
and
has the simple form
constant, de y
c
0,
c
du x
c
de x . x
de z
c
=  de x
(8)
(9)
The bound (6) becomes, forsmall A0,
toy (9j)  x (tj)] dy ,
34
(10)
and the exact solution requires the location, at each
t, , when the integrand is a minimum.
For negative
y , of the instant
cr , the strain field
is reversed in sign and the corresponding result is:
Ic^lh
<
,h
[ [cry (j) + a x (t^)] dy .
In both (10) and (11) the optimal choice of
A0
when a volume
Vp
(11)
t yields equality.
For large
exists, the corresponding results are; for positive
cA < f ' j [jtj) + <jj(t2)]dy +  2 [a y (0 1 )x(t 1 )]dy +  ' j K x t ^ + ^ t p j d y
(12)
and for negative
rh.
l^lh ^ J ^[c&V+iSctpidy + J 2 [a y (0 2 )+a x (t 2 )]dy + 
j[(a x (t 1 )+a x (t 2 )]dy
(13)
where
,h
and
are shown schematically in Fig. (2).
It can be
seen that, in all cases, the problem is reduced to a single integral.
The calculation has been carried through for three separate cases; a
singlesided downshock, a singlesided upshock and a doublesided downshock.
The solutions are dependent upon the nondimensional groups which govern the
transient thermal distribution.
We assume a linear heat transfer relation
ship between the temperature in the media
0 H and
0C
within which the
temperature changes take place and those on plate surfaces
0(y = 0) and
0(y = h ) ;
QH
h t (0(0,t)  0 H (t))
(1A)
h t (0(h,t)  0 C (t))
35
where
h t is the heat transfer coefficient and
Qj an d
transfer per unit area through the plate surfaces in the
Qc
y
are the heat
direction .
The plate material itself is characterised by a coefficient of thermal con
1 0 position
Fig. (3): Tran sien t temperature profiles due to thermal downshock on
one surface, B = 810, F = 0.0056.
36
ductivity
K , density
and specific heat
c .
The transient tempera
ture fieids [3,7], corresponding to the media temperature history of the form
shown in Fig. (4) where the temperature changes between its extreme values
at a constant rate in time
the Biot and Fourier numbers
, are functions of four nondimensional groups,
B
and
F , nondimensional distance and time.
e = f (B , F , I , J )
h
h
where
t
= r
and
K
(15)
KT
pch2
F =
The Biot number measures the relative resistance of the plate surface and
plate thickness to heat transfer.
In the context of the sodium cooled
reactor the relevant range of values will be characterised by extreme values
B = 160 and
to
B = 810.
We find, in fact, that the solutions are insensitive
in this range as, effectively, the sodium/steel interface has neg
ligible relative resistance to heat transfer.
The Fourier number
plate.
indicates the speed of heating or cooling of the
Thus a large value of
implies a very slow rate of change of
temperature.
As a wide range of values of
are possible we compute
solutions for
0.0014 < F < 50 which covers a practical range.
The details
of the thermoelastic solutions are given by Karadeniz [6],
In order to include the effect of temperature on the stress distribu
tions it is assumed that in the reversed plasticity region, where the his
tories of peak stresses cannot be contained within the yield surface, the
ratio of peak stresses under tension and compression will be the same as the
ratio of the monotonie yield stresses at the two relative temperatures, i.e.
r 9/^ x.max
[ax(t2)piin
where
and
1
ay[0(t2)]
<16>
are the instants of time during the transient process at
2
37
which the stress extremes occur.
In the analysis material properties characteristic of type 316 SS are
used and these are listed in Tables (1) and (2).
assigned to the dimensional parameters
The numerical values
ht , K , p and
are also pres
ented in Table (1) .
The mechanical and thermal load components are characterised by the
dimensionless measures
p
a
and where
4.
0R
"
where
o9
P _
0
O
and
0
ay(0R)
'
EaA6
2gy(eR)
( 1 7
is a convenient reference temperature.
SOLUTIONS TO THE BREE PLATE
The plate is assumed to have hot coolant at temperature
to the one surface and cold coolant at temperature
surface as shown in Fig. (4a).
OH
adjacent
QQ adjacent to the other
The temperature distribution at
t = 0
is
linear through the thickness of the plate.
For the present problem it is possible to produce two types of singlesided rapid thermal transients.
These depend on whether the thermal shock
is applied as a change in the temperature
the surface
OH
from an initial temperature
of the medium in contact with
0 ^ to a final temperature
Hf
along a ramp which is linear with respect to time, as shown in Fig. (4b) or
it is applied as a change in temperature
the surface
0Q
from an initial temperature
as shown in Fig. (5).
, of the medium in contact with
0 ^ to a final temperature
0Cf
These cases will be called a thermal downshock (drop
in temperature) and a thermal upshock (increase in temperature), respectively.
(a)
Solutions to the singlesided thermal downshocks
In order to obtain the response of the plate element to the temperature
gradient, the plate was subdivided into 50 throughthickness integration
intervals.
The transient stress distributions within each of these inter
vals were computed from the transient temperature distribution using a
38 
6H
9 = Constant
Q Plate element and initial condition for thermal dswnshock
6H
6H
b. Temperature history of medium H ( 8 r is constant)
er
Power on
time
e.
" Shutdown transient
Power off
c. Temperature distributions
Fig. (4):
Plate element and the d e t a i l s of temperature h i s t o r y for
single sided thermal downshock.
39
'Vi,
Q s C ors*an1
Piote element ond initio! conditions for thermol upshock
cf 6 H
6.cf
eCI
*
time
b.
Temperture history of medium C
e,Hf
Power on
c. Temperature
Trcnsient
End of transient
distributions
Fig. (5): Plate elements and the details of temperature history for
single sided thermal upshocks.
40
numerical integration technique.
Values of the temperature to an accuracy
of better than two significant figures were obtained from the summation of
50 terms of the series solutions to the temperature distribution problem.
To obtain the same accuracy for the thermal stresses 45 time steps were used,
time intervals starting from
t = 0
to
t = 140T, where
represents the
duration of the cooling ramp in seconds.
Fig. (3) shows the temperature profiles during the thermal downshock
for a Biot number of 810 and a Fourier number of 0.0056.
The resulting
stress profiles together with the envelope of such profiles are shown in Fig.
(6) for various values of
t/x .
In the first set of calculations the fixed temperature
chosen as 21C.
0 Q = 8jjf
was
In order to assess the effects of the Biot number on the
ratchet boundary, the calculations were carried out with the Biot numbers 810
and 100.
tions.
The Fourier number was kept constant at 0.0056 in both calculaThe computed contours providing the limits to the nonratchetting
area for tensile and compressive mechanical loadings are shown in Fig. (7)
together with the boundary given by Goodman [3] for a perfectly plastic
material with a temperature independent yield stress and the boundaries
corresponding to Bree's quasisteady thermal cycle solution.
It can be seen
that the ratchet boundary shows only a slight dependence on the Biot number
for this range.
Nevertheless, the extreme case, when the ratchet boundary
corresponds to the smallest value of mechanical load, occurs for larger values
of the Biot number.
It can also be seen that the rapid thermal downshock
reduces the nonratchetting area.
For positive
the ratchet boundary is
in good agreement with the boundary given by Goodman [3] for
the temperature independent yield stress is adopted.
9
o < 4.0 when
If the thermal load
exceeds this value, a compressive ratchetting begins to occur and a further
increase in the thermal load will result in compressive ratchetting for the
lower mechanical loads.
Goodman did not report this phenomenon in [3] but
reported that he was unable to generate stable solutions for small mechanical
loads.
 41 
a.
Envelope of stress profiles
10
10
Fig. (6): Thermal stress profiles for various values of
t/x , single
sided downshocks, B = 810, F = 0.0056.
Bret, Temprature independent yield stress
B=100,
. . . . . .
B=810
B=100 Temperature dependent yield stress
B=810
Bree. Average temperature dependent yield stress
Goodman's Perfect plasticity solution, B 610.
(Temperature independent yield stress)
Tensile
Ratchetting
05
Mechanical load
Fig. (7): The effects of Biot number on the ratchet boundary for single
sided thermal downshocks, F = 0.0056, 6 = 6D = 21C .
C
42
F.00056
FO07
o O l Fa 0112
* F = 1 1837
Bree. Temp, independent material prop.
Bree. Average temperature
dependent yield stress
Operating points for the high
temperature components in
the primary circuit of the
Commercial Fast Reactor 11 1
Tensile
Ratchetting
% 6 R = 370*C
Fig. (8): The effects of Fourier number
single sided thermal downshocks
on the ratchet boundary for
B = 810, 6 = 6 = 370C.
C
A further reduction is obtained when the temperature dependent yield
stress is adopted in the calculations.
For
>
0.2 a worse case may be
conservatively predicted by the analysis of Bree, if the yield stress is
replaced by the average value of the yield stresses at the two extreme tem
peratures.
However, as the transient thermal load increases then compressive
ratchetting in the absence of a mechanical load starts to develop at about
=2.4
P = 0.20
and the tensile and compressive ratchet boundaries coincide at about
and
= 3.5 .
The comparisons between the calculated ratchet boundaries corresponding
to tensile and compressive mechanical loadings suggests that the thermal down
shock applied on one side of the plate has its greatest effects when the
43
mechanical load is compressive.
This Is not a surprising result since the
integration of the area under the envelope of the compressive stress profiles
in Fig. (6) is larger than the tensile stress profiles.
In addition to this,
the temperature dependence of yield stress will introduce additional assymetry
since the yield stress reduces with increasing temperature and highest temperie
atures occur when a x < 0 .
The fixed temperature
However, in practice
0C
8C
chosen in the above calculations was 21C.
can be as high as 370C [1].
In order to assess
the effects of both the thermal downshocks at such a high temperature and the
Fourier number on the ratchet boundary, a computer investigation was carried
out with the fixed temperature
0 C = 370C.
In these calculations the Biot
number was kept as 810 and the changes in the yield stress with temperature
were included.
The results of such an investigations are shown in Fig. (8)
for tensile and compressive mechanical loadings which show that this set of
solutions possesses similar characteristics to those obtained for the fixed
temperature
0 C = 21C.
loading is compressive.
It is again found that the extreme case occurs when
It is seen that for the present case the boundary
given by Bree with the average temperature dependent yield stress may give
rise to nonconservative estimates of nonratchetting regions for the smaller
Fourier numbers.
(b)
Solutions to the singlesided thermal upshocks
The computer investigation was extended to examine the effects of thermal
upshocks on the ratchet boundary.
The first set of calculations were again
carried out with the fixed temperature
6ci
= 21C.
The ratchet boundaries
so calculated are shown in Fig. (9) for tensile and compressive loadings.
It
can be seen that the extreme case corresponds, as before, to the largest Biot
and smallest Fourier numbers.
The comparisons between the computed ratchet boundaries and the boundaries corresponding to the quasistatic case shows that the rapid thermal
44
upshocks cause considerable reductions in allowable combinations of the load
components, especially for compressive loadings when the temperature dependence of yield stress is taken into account.
However, the effect is much
greater for tensile loading when changes in the yield stress during the
transient are ignored.
This suggests that the extreme case for the single
sided upshock depends upon the relationship between yield stress and
temperature.
The reason for this marked difference in behaviour between
up and down shocks may be explained in terms of the temperature distributions and the stress histories.
For upshocks, integration of the area
under the envelope of the tensile stress curves due to thermal loading alone
is larger than that for the compressive stresses.
This leads to opposite
behaviour for the two loading cases; when the temperature dependence is considered, an asymmetry is introduced at the expense of tensile loading, since
the yield stress reduces sharply with increasing temperature and the hot
regions of the plate are in compression.
As in the previous case the second set of calculations was carried out
with a fixed temperature
0C
= 370C.
The resulting Bree diagrams are
shown in Fig. (10) for tensile and compressive mechanical loadings.
This
set of solutions shows many similar features to those described above for the
fixed temperature
6 C 1 = 21C.
There is, however, a significant difference;
ratchetting occurs at a reduced tensile load when
&
=0.
As the thermal
load increases then tensile ratchetting occurs.
It can be seen from these calculations that, for thermal upshocks, the
ratchet boundary for small
P
a
is very sensitive to the variation of yield
stress with temperature.
(c)
Equal thermal downshocks on both surfaces
This section considers the plate problem with a uniform initial tempera
ture profile as shown in Fig. (11).
A doublesided thermal downshock occurs
when the temperature of the surrounding coolant is suddenly reduced to a
45
lower value, i.e. the plate is fully immersed in the coolant so that the same
temperature history is applied to both outer surfaces of the plate.
Since
the temperature distributions are symmetrical it is only necessary to consider
the semithickness
0 < y < h/2 , taking the coordinate origin at the centre
line of the plate as shown in Fig. (11) and making surface
midsurface so that
the adiabatic
h t = 0.
The influences of the Biot and Fourier numbers on the ratchet boundaries
are examined in a manner similar to that in the case of the singlesided
thermal downshocks.
(12) for
F = .0014
The results of such calculations are presented in Fig.
and for
B = 810
and
B = 100.
The ratchet boundary shows only a slight dependence on the Biot number.
Note also that for tensile mechanical loads the onset of ratchetting is in
good agreement with the boundary proposed by Bree when the temperature independent yield stress is adopted.
However, when the changes in yield stress
with temperature are considered, considerable reductions in the allowable
combinations of load components occur and the ratchet boundary corresponding
to the quasistatic case with the average temperature dependent yield stress
gives rise to a nonconservative boundary.
It is again of interest to note
that as the thermal load increases, ratchetting starts to develop in the
absence of a mechanical load at about
9
a = 2.30.
A further increase in the
thermal load will lead to a compressive ratchetting for small mechanical
loading and the tensile and compressive ratchet boundaries coincide at about
P
a
6
= 0.12 ,
= 3.25.
Comparison between the boundaries for tensile and
compressive mechanical loadings demonstrates that the rapid thermal downshock
has the largest effect on the ratchet boundary for the compressive loading and
the reduction in yield stress at high temperatures may have the effect of
hastening compressive ratchetting at the expense of shakedown or reversed
plasticity.
This marked difference that occurs between the two types of
loading situations is due to the reduction in yield stress with increasing
 46
Bree,Temperaturi independent yield stress
Bree.Averoge temperature dependent yield stress
B100 F=0,O056 Temperature dependent yield stress
B.810 F= 0.0056
B=100 F=00056 Temperature Independent yield stress
B=100 F=06
Tensile
Ratchetting
V.nc
05
Mechanical load
Fig. (9): The effects of Biot and Fourier numbers on the ratchet boundary
F=0OO56
F = 007
 .
*
'
F=0112
F.M837
Bree temperature independent
yield stress
Bree average temperature dependent
yield stress
C.F Reactor operating points
Tensile
Ratchetting
05
Mechanical load
Fig. (10) : The effects of Fourier number on the ratchet boundary for
single sided thermal upshocks, B = 810, 9D = 0 = 370C .
K
47
y=*h
y=h
k'
e.
eH
Coolant
Coolant
h c =o
a Initio! conditions for thermal downhock on both surfaces
e,
e
Power on
Shutdown transient
Power of*
b T emperature distributors
Fig. (11) : Details of temperature h i s t o r y for a double s ided thermal
downshock.
 48
Brtt Temperature independent yield strest
Bree Avtragi temperature depndent yiald stress
Goodmark solution for perfect plasticity
B*1O0> Temperature ndtptndtnt yield stress
B*eio,
B100. Temperature dtpendtnt yitld stress
BsSIO,
H
M
Tensile
Ratchetting
W21t
VBR'
Fig. (12): The effects of Biot number on the ratchet boundary for double
sided thermal downshocks, F = 0.0014, 6 n = 9 = 370C .
K
rir
Bree, temperature independent yield stress
Bree average temperature dependent yield stress
x
*
F = CK5
F= 11837

F = 50
. ... Operating
points tor the
C F Reactor
Tensile
Ratchetting
E
a;
eHre=37o"c
Mechanical load CP/cr ( 6 R )
Fig. (13): The effects of Fourier number
on the ratchet boundary for
double sided thermal downshocks, B = 810, 6F = 9
49
= 370C.
temperature and the asymmetry in the stress profiles for thermal loading
alone.
As in the previous sections, the second set of calculations was carried
out with a fixed temperature
0u^
= 0
= 370C.
In order to examine the
effects of the Fourier number (i.e. the effects of plate thickness or the
duration of cooling ramp) different values were assigned to the Fourier
number, while the Biot number was kept constant at 810 by adjusting the heat
transfer coefficient
tion for
F = .0014
fixed temperature
F = .0014
h .
The results are shown in Fig. (13).
The solu
shows similar characteristics to that obtained for the
0Q
= 21C.
For tensile loading the ratchet boundary for
and the boundary given by Bree with the average temperature
dependent yield stress agree fairly well provided
>
0.4 .
But for small
mechanical loads the boundary corresponding to the average temperature dependent yield stress does not provide a conservative prediction of the onset of
ratchetting.
As in the previous cases, for larger values of thermal load,
ratchetting occurs in spite of a zero mechanical load.
this value is given as
0
a
= 3.80 .
For the present case
A further increase results in a com
pressive ratchetting for small mechanical loads and the two ratchet boundaries
n
coincide at about
Cr
6
= 0.1 ,
= 4.75 .
It is also seen in this figure
that as the Fourier number increases (i.e. an increase in the plate thickness
or a decrease in the duration of cooling ramp) then the effect of thermal
stresses will decrease, and as a consequence of this, the area in which no
ratchetting occurs will increase.
This increase will be larger for tensile
loading than for compressive, since the hot regions of the plate are subjected
to larger compressive stresses.
Following Goodman's approach [3], starting with a solution for a fixed
and
h , the variation of the onset of ratchetting with the plate thickness
may be evaluated by making use of the Fourier number concept.
If
= 5.0 is
taken as a realistic limit to the thermal stresses to be encountered in
 50
practice for doublesided thermal downshocks and assuming that the cooling
ramp duration
and quantities
culate a critical thickness
K, p
and
are constant, one can cal
for which ratchetting would not occur for
given combinations of thermal and mechanical load components.
Fig. (14)
shows the variation of computed critical thicknesses with mechanical loads for
the particular material properties of Tables (1 & 2), the Biot number of 810
and the cooling ramp duration of 10 seconds.
duration
The effects of cooling ramp
on the ratchet boundary may similarly be examined by use of the
Fourier number concept.
By keeping the Fourier number constant one can
obtain a relationship between the plate thickness and the cooling ramp time
T
which, if obeyed, should result in a safe design, i.e.
h < h / ^ 
where
is taken from Fig. (14).
a6 < 5.0
(18)
It should be noted, however, that this
result is dependent on the material parameters chosen and the types of transient thermal loading cycle.
(d)
Consequences for fast nuclear reactor design
In order to show the importance of rapid thermal transients in Liquid
Metal Fast Reactor design the following calculation was undertaken:
Using the following values, taken from [1] and Tables (1 & 2); and
At F u l l Power
Subassembly maximum nominal temperature
600C
Core mixed outlet temperature
540C
Core inlet temperature
370C
Rate of temperature transient
40C/sec.
E = 1.708 105MN/m2
a = 16.71 10~ 6 1/C
the maximum thermoelastic stresses which may occur in the primary circuit
51
Goodman [3I,B = 810,remperature independent
yield stress
Present study, temperature dependent
yield stress
j f l  E ( e p ) a (eR)A9 < 50
2ery(e R )
R =370C
ap>00
1001
90
80i
70
Il
601
ib
50
403020
101
{.tu
i t t t ,1 I i , i i l I , l i . i . , l n I , ,i
10
a * < 50
e R = 370C
cr p <0
090807
ib
a 06
05I
04030201I
4
5
6 7
8
Plate thickness
9 JO
\
11 12
13 cms
Fig. (14): Variation of allowable mechanical load with thickness for
double sided thermal downshocks, B = 810, 10 second cooling
ramp, material of Tables (1) and (2).
52
may be evaluated as
Ce^I
[a
J
EgA9 J
2ay(370)
_

16
_

'33
and
feqi,
lCT J
,11
EgA9
2ay(370)
where
A9
= 230C (Subassembly max. outlet temp.  Core inlet temp.)
AG
= 170C (Core mixed outlet temp.  Core inlet temp.)
These stress values exceed the classical shakedown limit by substantial
margins.
The operating lines which correspond to these thermal loadings are
shown in Figs. (8), (10) and (13).
For the material data given in Tables (1 & 2), the 5.75 second cooling
ramp (for A9 ) and a Biot number of 810, the critical plate thickness hj_s
below which ratchetting need not be expected, for: singlesided upshocks;
singlesided downshocks and doublesided downshocks can be calculated using
the Fourier number concept.
The resulting critical thicknesses so obtained
and the corresponding allowable mechanical loads are given in Tables (3) and
(4) together with the allowable mechanical loads given by Bree for analogous
quasistatic thermal loading.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of a series of computations of the behaviour of the Bree
plate subjected to singlesided rapid thermal down and up shocks and doublesided thermal downshocks have been presented and discussed.
As a result of
this study the following contributions have been made to the understanding of
the effects of rapid thermal transients on the behaviour of a Bree plate
taking into account, in a conservative manner, cyclic hardening.
53
(1)
It has been shown that, for a Bree plate subjected to various types
of rapid thermal transient loadings, the extended upper bound
shakedown technique can be particularly useful in predicting
structural behaviour.
(2)
Rapid thermal transients applied to only one surface or both surfaces of the Bree plate, will induce ratchetting at lower combinations of mechanical and thermal load components than predicted by
Bree for analogous quasisteady loading.
(3)
The extreme case, when the ratchet boundary corresponds to the
smallest value of
 c^  , is given by large Biot and small Fourier
numbers.
(4)
When a rapid downshock is applied to one surface of the plate, the
extreme case occurs for compressive loading, whereas if the plate
is subjected to a thermal upshock the extreme case strongly
depends upon the variation of yield stress with temperature.
If
the variation is large, the extreme case can occur for compressive
loading.
On the other hand, for small variation in yield stress
with temperature, the extreme case occurs for tensile loading.
If
equal thermal downshocks are applied to both surfaces then the
extreme case occurs for compressive loading.
(5)
As the thermal load increases then ratchetting becomes possible in
the absence of a mechanical load.
This ratchetting will be com
pressive if thermal downshocks are applied.
For thermal up
shocks, this ratchetting can be either tensile or compressive
depending upon the variation of yield stress with temperature.
As a result of this, compressive ratchetting can occur for small
tensile mechanical loads when the plate is subjected to thermal
downshocks applied on one surface of the plate or both surfaces.
 54
For thermal upshocks the occurrence of compressive ratchetting in
the presence of small compressive mechanical loads, depend on the
variation of yield stress with temperature.
The former case
occurs when the variation is small.
(6)
These results indicate the importance of taking the variation of
yield stress with temperature into account.
Any analysis ignoring
this effect may lead to erroneous predictions of structural
behaviour.
(7)
For transient thermal loadings a critical plate thickness may be
evaluated as a function of mechanical load by use of the Fourier
number concept, which should result in a safe performance.
All these calculations were carried out using conservative assumptions about
the material behaviour.
They display the type of behaviour which may occur
and indicate that thermal transient effects can be significant.
55 
Appendix
Proof of inequalities (5) and (7)
The maximum work principle [8] requires that for any stress state a. .
which satisfies the yield condition
(a*. a?.)de?. o
ij
where
c
de.. and
c
a. .
ij
xy
(Al)
K
ij
denote the plastic strain increment and associated
*
ij
yield point stress. For the component strains
write
1
de.. and
(*k a*.)de*. * 0 ,
2
de. . we may
(A2)
where
*k
a. .
ij
.9
a . . + a:.(tj
+ K p. . ,
v
y
ij
ij
ij
'
k = 1,
2
'
(A3)
* *
and
de. . = de. . + de. . ,
ij
ij
ij
summing (A2)over k, integrating over the volume
V and applying the
principle of virtual work to the resulting term involving
P.du?
+
1
1
S
, yields
e
(\ij.(t,)de*.
v
V 13 + i.(tOde?.)dV
j v 2J i j J
2
(CT?.(0
)deK
+ a?.(9_)de
.)dV
+
* ij * V 1
ij
i j v 2J
ijJ
as
*P
a..
de., are compatible and
p..de?.dV $ 0
ij
ij
(A4)
p.. is a residual stress field, the last
term in (A4) is zero, yielding inequality (5) of the main text.
When
a. . (t) cannot be contained within the yield surface by a rigid
body translation in stress space in volume
V n , it is necessary to assume
r
that the extreme stresses are related to each other by a relationship such
as equation (16), which was the form used in the calculations.
56
The residual stress
p.. is divided into two components
1
* p.2 .
p.. +
p. . =
where
CA5)
p.. = 0 in V_ and Mp.. is chosen so that a., ft) + p.. satisfies
ij
F
i]
il
il
A
the equation (16) (or any other appropriate relationship), as a result the
1
deviatoric component of p.. is 'determinate in V p . We assume that where XP
H
is applied forms part of the surface
ii
As
V , and hence apply inequality
A4 to V ,
6
2
(?.(tjde}.
.(t02'
)de?.)dV
_ Jf(<,?.
.)dV
+
J
v
^ i;p V i] + i;p
i]J
ij v(ejde*.
V ij + a?.
ij *(902)de
ijJ
V
V
P.du?
+
i i
p}. de?.dV +
p?. de?. dV $ 0
iJ
13
J il il
s
V
p . . = 0 in
(A6)
t h e corresponding i n t e g r a l i n
p\.
d?.dV
il
A6
is zero.
Further
(A7)
il
and hence
( p i . d C . dV =
] il
V
il
p}.de?.dV
il
Vr
which is a known quantity.
If we use the isothermal condition
(5?.(tJ + 9l. .)
a. . ( t j + p. .
13
then
f 1 c
p7.de?.dV
. il
V
F
il
(A8)
il
ij
in V n
F
+ 5?.(tJ)de?.dV
K
= ' 2^(5?.(tJ
13v r
ij v 2
ij
V
(A9)
(AIO)
Combination of (A6), (A7), (A8) and (AIO) yields inequality (7). For
the case of a temperature dependent yield value,
7^^r
o (91)
(a..(t,)
+ Mp..)
1
i ] 1'
ir
(a,,(t + p..)
a y (9 2 ) * i j ^ 20
*ij
replaces (A9) and the inequality (7) may easily be extended to this case.
57
Parameter
Value
Density, p
7980 kg/m3
Specific Heat, c
556 J/kg C
Conductivity, K
24.7 W/m C
Heat Transfer Coefficient, h
2 x 105 W/m C
Modulus of elasticity, E
195 GN/m2 at 20C
170 GN/m2 at 370C
Coefficient of thermal expansion
16.39 x IO"6 1/C at 20 C
ex
16.71 x IO"6 1/C at 370 C
Table (1)
: Material Parameters
Temperature C
Table (2)
MN/m2
20
205
50
179
100
155
150
142
200
132
250
121
300
113
350
106
370
104
400
101
450
97
500
95
550
92
600
90
: Yield strength
58
values for type 316 SS [2 ]
Plate Thickness
[m]
en
to
Bree [4 ]
with
ay(eR)+ay(eR+A9)
p
Allowable Mechanical Load \o /a (370C)
0.0756
0.24
0.04
Thermal Upshock
p
P
a > 0
a <0
0.16
0.06
0.0213
0.25
0.13
0.10
0.165
0.0169
0.26
0.17
0.14
0.185
0.0084
0.29
0.27
0.27
0.24
Thermal Downshock
P
P
a > 0
a < 0
Table (3) : Variation of Allowable Mechanical load with Thickness for Single Sided
Thermal upshock and Thermal downshock (Material of Tables
(2) , 5.75 second Cooling Ramp,
=3.16,
B = 810)
(1) and
0.28
Plate thickness
[m]
Double Sided Thermal Downshocks
Allowable Mechanical Load \o? \/o
Tension
Compression
0.302
0.22
0.08
0.1512
0.225
0.12
0.0426
0.31
0.28
0.0338
0.385
0.35
0.0238
0.54
0.50
0.0168
0.68
0.67
0.0016
0.86
0.86
Table (4)
(370 C)
Bree [4 ]
with a =
loy C e R ) + a y ( e R + W 2
0.28
Variation of Allowable Mechanical Load with Thickness for a
Double sided downshock (Material of Tables
a
5.75 second Cooling Ramp,
=3.16,
(1) and
B = 810).
(2)
References
[1]
HOLMES, J.A.G.
"High temperature problems associated with the Design of the
Commercial Fast Reactor", in "Creep in Structures", Ponter, A.R.S.
and Hayhurst, D.R. (eds), 3rd IUTAM Symposium, Leicester, 1980:
PP279286.
[2]
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Nuclear Power
Plant Components, Division 1, 1974.
[3]
GOODMAN, A.M.
"The influence of rapid thermal transients on elasticplastic
ratchetting", CEGB, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, Report no.
RDB/N4492, 1979.
[4]
BREE, J.
"Elasticplastic behaviour of thin tubes subjected to internal
pressure and intermittent highheat fluxes with application to
FastNuclearReactor fuel elements", J. Strain Analysis, 1967:
2, No.3, pp226238.
[5]
PONTER, A.R.S. and KARADENIZ, S.
"An extended shakedown theory for structures which suffer cyclic
thermal loading", Part I: Theory. Journal of Applied Mechanics,
Trans. ASME, 1985: 52, pp877882 and Part II: Applications, Journal
of Applied Mechanics, Trans. ASME, 1985: 52, pp883889.
[6]
KARADENIZ, S.
"The development of upper bound and associated finite element
techniques for the plastic shakedown of thermally loaded structures",
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Leicester, February 1983.
[7]
CARSLAW, H.S. and JAEGER, J.C.
"Conduction of Heat in Solids", 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press,
1959, Chapter 3.
[8]
MARTIN, J.B.
"Plasticity", MIT Press, Boston 1975.
61
Part III
The plastic ratchetting of thin cylindrical shells
subjected to axisymmetric thermal and mechanical loading
S. Karadeniz, A.R.S. Ponter, K.F. Carter
1.
INTROD UCTION
An entirely different class of problems occur when the temperature
gradient occurs along the surface of a shell structure rather than through
the shell thickness.
The thermoelastic stresses involve a significant
membrane component and a situation can easily occur where the reverse
plasticity region, volume
Vp , can contain an entire cross section of a
cylindrical or axisymmetric shell.
likely to be of type
B where no
As a result these problems are more
P
region exists.
A full understanding
of such problems, however, requires a consideration of both the ratchet
boundary and the sensitivity of the boundary to various material effects.
This part of the report provides an introduction to the class of problems
by studying a cylindrical tube subjected to a variety of simple axial tem
perature histories.
Some comparisons with experimental data is possible
for these problems and two sets
[7,8] of experimental data are used for
this purpose.
The essential feature of this type of problem is shown in Figs. (1),
(2) and (3) where an axially loaded tube is subjected to a temperature
discontinuity of amount
A0
which moves over a very short distance
Ax
The temperature discontinuity generates a discontinuity in the hoop stress
of magnitude
A A = EaA
As this discontinuity traverses the length
Ax
each material element ex
periences a variation of stress of the same magnitude.
Hence when
A8
exceeds the value
A oc = EaA = 2a y
the entire thickness of the tube over the length exceeds the reverse plas
ticity limit.
The volume
Vp
is, therefore, a hoop of material which
can deform under the action of the axial load and hence no
region
exists; ratchetting can occur once the reverse plasticity limit is exceeded
65
Fig. 1
Geometry of an axially loaded tube
Temperature
General condition
e,
Axial distance
9 1 Temperature
0 O+ A9
Simplified cases
AX1
8,
a  Moving temperature front
Axial distance
9 1 Temperature
9 R +A0
o<t^
T
/2^t^T
e(
b Stationary thermal cycling
Axial distance
F[g^2 Thermal loadings
66
and the problem is of type
B .
The mechanism of ratchetting consists of
a reverse plasticity mechanism where plastic strains occur at two points on
the yield surface and tends to form net axial strain per cycle.
The evaluation of the ratchet limit for this class of problems involves a totally different type of numerical technique to the simple method
discussed in Part II for the transient Bree problem.
The optimal mech
anism is not known a priori and must be found by some means.
used has been discussed by Karadeniz and Ponter
The method
[3] and consists of a
combined finite element/linear programming technique where the optimal
mechanism is formed from amongst a class of displacement fields described
by a finite element spatial description.
In the following section the finite element method and the shakedown
theory are briefly discussed.
In Section 3 a sequence of diagrams are
presented for an axially loaded tube and for moving and stationary temperature distributions. We find that the ratchet limit can vary markedly
depending upon the details of the loading history.
In addition, inclusion
of the variation of yield stress with temperature can have an amplified
effect for small applied loads, so that it is possible for ratchetting to
occur at zero applied load.
In many realistic circumstances with moving
temperature distributions the exact history of temperature is not known and
in this case it seems unwise to exceed the elastic limits.
The effect of cyclic hardening of the material is also discussed.
In some circumstances it seems likely that ratchetting is suppressed by
the development of cyclic hardness.
However, there are definite ranges
of loading where ratchetting occurs without reverse plasticity so that
cyclic hardening may be expected to have no effect. In particular it is
possible for ratchetting at zero applied load to occur even for strongly
hardening materials such as annealed 316 stainless steel.
Some experi
mental evidence is present in support of this conjecture.
To further demonstrate that the degree of severity of thermal loading
67
is not easy to predict without fairly detailed calculations, solutions are
presented for tests conducted by INSA at Lyon, France, where a hot gas jet
was diverted by a system of baffles along a narrow length of an axially
loaded tube.
Although the thermal loading appears to be severe, the
interaction diagram demonstrates that it is less likely to produce ratchetting than a less severe moving temperature field.
Finally the interaction between concentrated loading, and a thermal
field is demonstrated by the solution of a tube problem involving a moving
temperature front and a ring of loading.
It is shown that quite sudden
transitions occur as the thermoelastic stresses approach the region of the
applied load.
2.
FINITE ELEMENT TECHNIQUE
The shakedown theory and finite element techniques are discussed in
detail elsewhere
[3,4,5]
and here we briefly summarize the essential
features of the techniques.
The upper bound shakedown theorem
[2,4,5]
allows the evaluation of
an upper bound to the applied load, i.e. the axial load on the tube,
corresponding to the boundary of the region
temperature.
for a prescribed history of
p
We define a cycle of plastic strain ij(t) which gives rise
to an accumulated strain over the cycle of thermal loading, t0< t < t 0 + At
Ae
,tn+
j  [
J
t
o
j(t)dt
which is compatible with a displacement field
(D
Au
The finite element
method is developed for a Tresca type yield condition where the yield surface is composed of a sequence of planes in stress space.
The upper bound
can then be expressed in terms of. the plastic multiplyers associated with
these planes so that the formulation reduces to the minimization of a linear
cost function, a load parameter, where the variables are the values of the
68
plastic multiplyers at a sequence of nodal points. The compatibility of the
strain field (1) and the relationship between the plastic multiplyer and
assumed displacement field is assured provided a number of linear constraint
equations are satisfied.
The upper bound technique then reduces to a
linear programming problem where we seek the mechanism amongst a class
defined by the finite elementapproximation which minimizes the applied load
parameter.
The material is assumed to obey a Tresca yield condition and
the displacement field is chosen so that axial bending occurs at a discrete
set of nodal points
[3].
If the class of displacement field includes the
exact shakedown mechanism then we find the exact value of the load parameter
at shakedown.
In practice the solutions are first produced for a fairly
crude distribution of elements which is subsequently subdivided until no
change in the load parameter occurs.
As a result the computed values may
be expected to be close to the exact solution provided it is within the
general range of displacement fields adopted.
A computer programme has been written for axisymmetric loading of thin
walled tubes which takes as input an axial temperature distribution at a
sequence of times during the cycle at a sequence of points along the tube.
The thermoelastic stress history is then computed using linear interpolation spatially and a convolution integral formed from the analytic solution
for a step discontinuity in temperature.
In addition the variation of
yield stress with temperature is provided in the form of a table of values.
As a result the programme is capable of providing interaction diagrams for
any history of thermal loading by scaling of the temperature history.
As
output the programme produces a sequence of diagrams which gives, in
graphical form, the extremes of the thermoelastic stresses, the interaction diagram and the optimal mechanism corresponding to a sequence of
points along the shakedown boundary.
69
a/EaA9/2
x=n/2
"*
X=IT/
Fig. 3 Elastic thermal stress distribution for a tube subjected to a step change in temperature A8
3.
VARIATION OF TEMPERATURE ALONG THE LENGTH OF A TUBE
A simple but not uncommon problem Involves a tube which is periodically
subjected to an increase in temperature along part of its length, so that it
is subjected to a history of temperature of a type shown schematically in
Fig. (2), where an increase of temperature
A9
occurs in a fairly uncon
trolled manner over part of the tube so that the temperature front may
fluctuate axially as well as occasionally reducing to a uniform temperature.
We study this problem by looking at two simplified cases, the first shown in
Fig. (2a) where a sharp discontinuity in temperature
over a distance
Ax
A0
moves cyclically
(a moving temperature front) and the second, shown in
Fig. (2b) where the discontinuity is imposed and then removed (stationary
thermal cycling).
tinuity
A0
The thermoelastic stresses due to a temperature discon
at x = 0
hoop stress component
is shown in Fig. (3), where it can be seen that the
QQ has a maximum value of
(EA0)/2
where
and
are Young's modulus and the linear coefficient of thermal expansion respectively.
The interaction diagrams for the two problems, assuming a constant
value of the yield stress are shown in Figs. (4a) and (4b).
In these
diagrams and all subsequent diagrams the axes are given by
P = P/pL
where
PL is the plastic limit load value of the axial load
from a yield stress value
and
where
ay
at
at
at a reference temperature
0R
P , computed
,
2 ay(0R)
is the maximum thermoelastic shear stress.
In figure (4a) a sequence of shakedown boundaries are shown corresponding to a range of values of the
Ax
variable.
 71
in the form of the nondimensional
3
e
itr
?
E
Elastic region (E)
0.5
Mechanical Load
Fia. U a
P=
PR
2hay(0R)
Bree type diagram for a tube subjected to a steady
axial mechanical load and moving temperature fronts
with temperature independent yield stress cr=o~(8R)
 72
Temperature independent yield stress
ay=y(9R)
Temperature dependent yield stress
Hardening models
a t =o corresponds to 8R=150C
2.25
Plastic
2.00
C
\
1.75
Shakedown
(F)
1.50
Ratchetting
(R)
1.00
Elastic
Behaviour
(E)
l
Fig. b
0.5
r
1.0
Modes of behaviour for a tube subjected to constant
axial load and stationr y thermal cycling
73
Ax = Ax.
(2)
where V 3 is a characteristic decay length of the tube and given by
3 = [3<lv2)/R2h2]*
In both cases the boundary between the shakedown region and the ratchetting region can be divided into segments, along which the mechanism of
deformation remains of constant type.
These mechanisms represent the mode
in which the structure would begin to ratchet if the load were increased
above the shakedown limit.
In Fig. (4a) the segments are given by regions
of the diagram labelled as Mode I, II and III.
The corresponding mech
anisms are shown in Fig. (5) together with a schematic representation of the
regions of the yield surface where the plastic strains occur.
The thermo
elastic stress history at a point within the mechanism is shown as translated, by the development of residual stresses and by the applied loads, so
that the stresses at a certain instant touch the yield surface.
If we compare the boundary for small Ax
in Fig. (4a) with stationary
cycling in Fig. (4b) we see that the principal difference is that the
boundaries cross the
P = 0
lines at
t = 1 and 2 respectively. The
difference can be understood from Fig. (3).
When the stress distribution
moves, the variation of stress at a material point becomes
as the variation of stationary cycling is
stress at each point.
2(EocA0/2) where
(E<xA0/2) i.e. the range of
In reality, of course, the temperature would not be
discontinuous and a more gradual change would take place.
In this case a
moving front would correspond to the movement of the temperature profile over
a distance which is greater than the length of the temperature change.
As a
result a problem can only be regarded as stationary cycling if the temperature
is maintained sufficiently stationary for this condition not to occur.
In
most applications it seems unlikely that such a high degree of control can
 74
MODE I
s
Region LO
' ^
localized thinning
due to Ae occurring
on o"x = o~y
MODE n
Line CB
localized thinning
due to Ae x occurring
as a resultant of plastic
strains on CT =CTWand
e
*
=
a
u
\"e
o*
hinge  cone mechanism
with axial strains
MODE m
Region GL
Fig. 5
a0(n
,J
Schematic representation of shakedown states and corresponding
mechanisms of deformation for a tube subjected to a steady
axial mechanical load and axially moving temperature fronts
for regions of Fig. 4a.
75 
be maintained.
This argument indicates that it is possible to seriously
underestimate the effect of temperature variation by using an inappropriate
simplified form of the temperature history, and it seems unlikely that the
stationary cycling approximation would have much relevance to practical
circumstances.
If we now include the effect of temperature on the yield stress, the
general feature of the diagram remains unchanged, but the boundaries
corresponding to the various mechanisms are moved by differing amounts,
depending upon the temperature at which the plastic yielding occurs.
In
Fig. (6) the boundaries for the moving temperature fronts are shown, using
a variation of yield stress with temperatures which correspond to the 0.2%
proof stress of Type 316 Stainless Steel.
Plastic strains in Mode III
occurs in a material element when the temperature is at maximum whereas in
Mode II plastic strains occur at both the maximum and minimum temperature.
As a result the shakedown boundary corresponding to Mode III occurs at a
reduced level of A9
of Ax
compared with Mode II.
Mode III boundaries cross the
For sufficiently large values
P = 0 axis, i.e. the tube would
ratchet in Mode III at zero applied load.
These calculations are for a
perfectly plastic model which exclude the effects of strain hardening.
We
now look into the effect upon this diagram of its inclusion.
4.
THE EFFECTS OF STRAIN HARDENING UPON THE RATCHET BOUNDARIES
Referring again to Fig. (5) we see that for Mode I and Mode III all the
plastic strain occurs on a single part of the yield surface.
If the
applied load was raised above yield, strain hardening would occur in a monotonic fashion as the mechanism deformed.
As a result the shakedown
boundary gives the load level at which the tube begins to exhibit significant plastic yielding in the form of a mechanism and may be regarded as an
estimate of the yield point of the structure in the presence of thermal
76
a, so corresponds to 6R=150C
1.00.,
075.
A
0.501
0.25.
Elastic
Behaviour
(E)
0.00
0.5
Fig. 6
p*
1.0
Bree diagram for a tube subjected to a steady axial mechanical
load and axially moving temperature fronts with the temperature dependent yield stress
77
loading.
For Mode II, however, the situation is rather different as plastic
strain occurs, within each cycle, on two sectors of the yield surface, i.e.
p
reverse plasticity takes place. The hoop component of plastic strain o
cancel over the cycle but a net increase
compression.
P
Ae x
occurs due to yielding under
In many alloys cyclic hardening would occur in these circum
stances which would tend to suppress this type of mechanism. We can estimate
an extreme mode of behaviour by assuming that the yield surface increases
in size to accommodate the variation in thermoelastic stress thereby completely suppressing reverse plasticity mechanism.
This was done by adopting
two assumptions, isotropic and nonistropic hardening as shown in Fig. (7).
With this adaptation the structure can only ratchet in mechanisms of the type
of Mode I and III. In practice, Mode III mechanisms always occurred.
The
resulting new ratchet boundary for the two models are shown in Fig. (8) for
the moving temperature front with a temperature independent yield stress.
The difference between the two solutions is not great and it implies that the
real ratchet boundary lies somewhere between two extreme assumptions i.e. for
Ax = 0.6, between
Ax
RS
and
RT . This argument indicates that for a given
there exists a particular load
p* with a corresponding value of A6*
which divides the behaviour of the structure into two distinct regions.
A8 < A6* and
P > P*
For
then the ratchet boundary can be expected to give a
good indication of the load level at which substantial plastic strains begin
to occur.
For A9> A0* and
P < P*
the behaviour is very sensitive to
the detail of the material behaviour and the structure may or may not ratchet.
Certainly below the perfectly plastic line there is no danger of ratchetting.
Despite this uncertainty we can, however, show that under some circumstances
ratchetting will certainly occur at zero applied load even for a cyclically
strongly strain hardening material such as 316 SS.
plotted from Fig. (4a) and Fig. (6) the variation of
78
In Fig. (9) we have
p* with
Ax
For a
 Partial
isotropic hardening model
Fig. 7Nonisotropic
hardening model
79 
'Partial isotropic
hardening model
'Non isotropic
hardening model
Rate netting
(R)
Ex
Fjg._8
1:
0.60
2:
1.20
3:
2.10
Effects of material hardening on the shakedown
limits for a tube subjected to an axial mechanical
load and axially moving temperature fronts with
temperature independent yield stress o~y=cry(9R)
80
1.0
0.9
0.8
Temperature independent yield stress
Temperature dependent yield stress
(eR = 150 C)
0.7
0.6
Ratchetting
(Global mechanism)
0.5
0.4
.C
L)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Distance of travel
3.5 4.0
Fig._9 Effects of AX on P *
81 
4.5 5.0
AX
5.5
temperature independent yield stress
P*
goes to zero as
infinity, i.e. ratchetting will certainly occur at
large
Ax
Ax
1.8
increases to
only for very
However, for a temperature dependent yield stress
P* = 0 when
for material data which is typical of type 316 Stainless Steel.
With Poissons ratio
Ax
P* = 0
Ax
= 0.17R.
V = 0.3 and
= 400
then this value corresponds to
Therefore, any movement of the temperature front over a
length of the order of the radius of the tube well certainly give rise to
radial plastic displacement.
These calculations indicate that quite small movements of a temperature
front will cause ratchetting of a tube even at zero applied load.
In a
practical circumstance, the temperature front would involve a temperature
gradient over a length of the tube.
The effect of this would be to reduce
the maximum thermoelastic stress to
kE<xA0/2
in experiments described in the next section
two effects, it increases the range of
A0
where
k < 1 .
0.14 < k < 0.48.
For example,
This has
required to cause ratchetting
and, at the same time, increases the difference between the yield values at
the two temperature levels
0R
and
0R
+ A0.
The latter effect increases
the tendancy for ratchetting to occur at zero applied load and as a result
the estimate of Ax =1.8
will be reduced in most practical circumstances.
In the following section we describe some experimental results due to
Bell [19] and compare them with shakedown prediction for a moving temperature
front. The experimental results confirm that ratchetting will occur even
when the thermal loading exceeds the shakedown limit by only a small amount.
5.
EXPERIMENTS ON THIN CYLINDERS SUBJECT TO AXIALLY MOVING TEMPERATURE
FRONTS [7]
The experiments consisted of two types:
a) Cold Front Experiment
A cylinder of 316 Stainless Steel of outer diameter 140mm and wall
82
thickness 0.381mm was heated over a length of 165mm using
RF
heating. The
tube was then lowered into water at room temperature at a rate which allowed
the formation of a steep temperature front along the length of the tube but
almost uniform temperature through the thickness.
We discuss two of their tests, Experiments 1A and 2, which were conducted under near identical conditions with
A9
of 530C and 515C except
that in experiment 2 the tube was subjected to an axial load of 20MN/m
whereas in experiment 1A the tube was load free.
The value of
k , the
reduction in maximum thermoelastic stress compared with a temperature discontinuity, lay within the range
0.31 < k < 0.46
depending upon the instant during the cooling of the cylinder.
The shake
down boundary was evaluated using the more severe temperature front throughout the movement of the cylinder and the result is shown in Figure (10)
assuming both temperature independent yield stress (taken as the 0.2% proof
stress of the lower temperature) and a linear variation of yield stress with
temperature.
As
A0
was relatively larger than the cases discussed in the
previous solution the difference between the solutions is much larger and the
ratio of the values of
for zero applied load for the two calculations is
given approximately by the ratio of the yield stresses at the two extreme
temperatures.
The operating points of the experiment are also shown and can
be seen to be far in excess of the shakedown limit.
The tubes showed
excessive ratchetting showing a hoop plastic strain of 0.47% strain in the
first cycle and a mean constant rate 0.16% strain/cycle from the 5th to the
25th cycle when the experiment ended with a noticably misshapen cylinder.
Experiment 2 showed similar behaviour.
In both cases the rachetting was
outwards, whereas the mechanism from the shakedown calculation was inwards.
However, the loading was far in excess of shakedown and, perhaps, it is no
surprise that the mechanism has changed.
83
1A (SE)
2 (SE)
1.50 Temperature independent yield stress
y=CTy(8R) for both hot & cold fronts
1.375
++
1.25
1.125 
Temperature dependent yield stress
Experiment(1A)
Temperature dependent yield stress
Experiment (5)
Operating points
Severe extreme temperature profile
Gentle extreme temperature profile
1.00
!
'
oy(20C)
0.875
0.75 .
Ratchetting
(R)
0.625
Shakedown
(S)
Fig JO Operating points and calculated shakedown
limits for tests (1A). and (5).
84
b)
Hot Temperature Front, Experiment 5
A front of increasing temperature was induced by moving a cylinder
initially at room temperature through a high power single turn
a speed of about lOmm/sec.
RF
coil at
The increase of temperature was about 600C
but the shape of the temperature profile was less severe than in the cold
front experiments so that less severe thermoelastic stresses were induced
with a factor
k = 0.14.
The shakedown boundaries are shown in Fig. (11), again for a temperature
independent and temperature dependent yield stress.
In this case the
operating point lies only 12.5% in excess of the predicted shakedown limit.
The experiment was continued for 60 cycles during which a total hoop strain
of 2.5% occurred with an assymptotic rate over the final 40 cycles of .01%
per cycle.
The mode of deformation was very similar in form to the shake
down mechanism.
The experiment confirms that ratchetting of a significant
magnitude occurs at zero applied load, once the shakedown limit has been
exceeded.
6.
OTHER TYPES OF THERMAL LOADING OF CYLINDERS
A sequence of ratchetting experiments have been carried out by Cousin
and Julien, at INSA [8] .
In the tests a cylindrical tube of ICL/67SPH
Stainless Steel (similar in composition to 316 Stainless Steel) of diameter
400mm, wall thickness 2mm and lm in length was used.
An axial temperature
profile over a short length of the tube was induced by circulating combustion gas from a burner past a sequence of baffles.
By spraying water over
a section adjacent to the hot gases, high axial temperature gradients could
be induced.
A complete cycle of temperature for a particular experiment is
shown in Figure (12).
A very high temperature gradient is induced over a
short length of tube; with the temperature varying over the cycle between
room temperature and 480C.
Although this type of cycling appears to be
85 
Temperature
independent yield stress
Temperature
dependent yield stress
Operating point for test (5) 6 R = 20C
100
075.
Ratchetting
CD CD"
<
050J
>^
CSI
Shakedown
II
025
Elastic region
ao
^F
"
P=PR/2hoy(0R)
Fig. 11
Operating
points and computed shakedown
boundaries for test(5)
 86
very severe we find, in fact, that it is less likely to induce ratchetting
than the temperature histories discussed in the last section.
The interaction diagram was constructed from the temperature history of
Figure (12) by linearly scaling the entire history.
The yield stress
variation with temperature was given by the 0.2% proof stress. The resulting
diagram is shown in Figure'(13) which includes the operating point of the
experiment.
The shakedown boundary
consists of two parts, each of which
involve a particular mechanism.
Section AB:
Axial strains occur over a short length of tube near the
position of the maximum temperature due to the presence of a large variation
in the thermoelastic axial bending moment at this point.
The ratchetting
is induced, therefore, by linear throughthickness thermoelastic stress in
the same manner that ratchetting occurs in the Bree plates problem [1],
although in that case the stresses arise from a throughthickness temperature
difference.
The boundary
AB
can be seen to be very close to the Bree
solution.
P + \ t = 1
(3)
and the deviation from the formula arises from the decrease in yield stress
with increasing maximum temperature.
Section BC:
Axial strains occur over a short length of tube adjacent
to the step temperature gradient due to a large value of hoop stress inducing
reverse plasticity.
As a result the behaviour has features of both the classic Bree problem
(axial ratchetting induced by linear throughthickness stresses) and
stationary cycling (line BC of Fig. (4b)).
front Fig. (4a) the value of
But for a moving temperature
at the ratchet limit is reduced by a
factor of 2.
87
500
9 ra
450
165s
150s  " " " ~ " I
400
135s
180s
\\____195s
350 
Affli
210s
300
120s
250
\/V\VOK
200
90s
150
60s
100
285s

30s
_1258s
50
^ %
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
METERS
Fig. 12 Temperature distributions for Lyon test
88
Temperature dependent yield stress
T
a n0.1
i (UC)
Fig. 13
Bree diagram for Lyon test
89 
It can be seen that the operating point of the experiment was in the
ratchetting region
R .
An estimate of the assymptotic plastic strain over
many cycles can be obtained for the mechanism which occurs on section
AB
by
using the approximation [6] .
Ae P = KAcTp
where
P/2irRh
= (a D
S
aD )
s
where <j
is the value of the mean applied stress
da
at the shakedown limit and K =
, the slope of the uniaxial stressdeP
ACT D
strain curve above yield.
The material data allows the calculation of
which is reasonably independent of temperature.
Ae
Contours of constant
= 0.5% and 1% are shown indicating that about 1% accumulated strain
might be expected after a number of cycles.
a similar value [9] .
Full inelastic analysis yields
The experiments showed a larger amount of plastic
strain which may be attributable to the fact that the cycle time was quite
large (two cycles per 24 hours).
As a result some logarithmic creep will
have been induced as this material shows such creep in the temperature range
0OC < e < 350C .
This example further demonstrates that the precise behaviour depends
upon the details of the thermal loading history.
7.
TUBE SUBJECTED TO A BAND OF PRESSURE AND AXIALLY MOVING TEMPERATURE
FRONTS
The limit load analysis of an infinitely long isotropic thin tube of
perfectly pastic material obeying the Tresca yield criterion has been given
by Drucker [10].
Insofar as the authors are aware no attempt has been made
to investigate the behaviour of cylindrical tubes under a band of pressure
or a ring of force in the presence of thermal loads, although such loading
situations are encountered in .structures operating at elevated temperatures.
In this section we discuss the behaviour of a thin cylindrical tube under
a band of pressure
and a temperature front of magnitude
 90
A6
which travels
repeatedly in alternating directions over a length of tube as shown in Fig.
(14).
The problem is an interesting one and yet is sufficiently simple to
serve as an example of problems involving thermal loading interacting with a
localised mechanical load.
The computer programme used is a modified form of that used in the
analysis of the problem of a tube under axial load.
The assumptions made
about material constitutive relations are identical to those described in the
previous sections but the effects of temperature on the material properties
are ignored here for simplicity.
The calculations are carried out in two phases.
First we assume that
a band of pressure was being applied at a distance from the temperature discontinuity (Case I).
Then we considered that the band of pressure was being
applied within the sweep of the moving temperature front (Case II).
The
Cases I and II are illustrated in Fig. (14).
For Case I the computations were performed for differing values of the
length of travel
Ax with the aim of providing some information to assess
the effects of the variation of distance between the traversed region and the
section of the tube which is subjected to the band of pressure loading.
To
compare the predictions of the limit load given by Drucker [10] and that
predicted by the present technique, the calculations were carried out with
t = 0 .
It was found that the difference between the predictions was less
than one per cent.
The interaction diagram for a range of values of
shown in Fig. (15).
Ax
is
As it is seen, if the temperature front moves a small
amount, i.e. the traversed region is far away from the region where a band of
pressure is applied, the thermal loads have little effect on the load carrying
capacity of the tube.
As a result the nonratchetting lines are insensitive
to the length of the front and the magnitude of thermoelastic stress
For intermediate values of
of travel
Ax
Ax
at .
the sensitivity of the boundaries to the length
and the magnitude of thermoelastic sress
91
at
increases with
AX
Temperature
9R+A9
Cold Front
Hot Front
_L
9R
a Axially Moving
Temperature Fronts
Uf
,, ,
Casei
,~T Case II
co
Ab 1=03 j
2R
f 4
i
Al=135f
'
:iQ
iAf.
bBandof
Fiq. 14
LU
Pressure Loadings
Geometry and loading programme
= [3(
1V2)/RV]
25
1.0
Mechanical
Fig. 15
Load
PR
2.0
=p
2hy
The interaction diagram for a tube under a band of
pressure and QXiallv moving temperature fronter Q s e D
93 
increasing
Ax
up to a certain value, i.e. the boundary of the traversed
region coincides with a boundary of the region on which the band of pressure
is applied.
For values of
Ax
larger than this value the sensitivity to the
length of travel reduces with increasing
a range of values of
mechanical load axis.
Ax
Ax .
It can also be seen that for
, the nonratchetting lines become horizontal to the
The reason for this sharp reduction in the allowable
mechanical load component can be explained in terms of the location of the
hinge circles.
For
t > 1.0
the shakedown condition demands that the
material within the traversed region must satisfy the reversed plasticity
condition.
However, if one of the side hinge circles forms within this
volume, or in a region beyond the traversed region, the contributions to
the load carrying capacity of the tube from such a hinge will be zero since
no mechanical load can be transmitted through this volume without causing
ratchetting.
Similarly if all the hinge circles form within the traversed
region or in a region where the thermoelastic stress history cannot be
accommodated within the yield surface, which contains a mechanism of
deformation, then there exists no reversed plasticity region since the
behaviour above the shakedown limits is determined by whether there exists a
region capable of transmitting the applied loads through the structure.
If
t <
3.0 is considered to be a realistic limit to the thermal loads,
the reversed plasticity region may be divided into three subregions from
consideration of the locations of the hinge circles.
fall within the region marked
If the operating points
I in Fig. (15) then all the hinge circles form
on the same side of the traversed region and contribute to the load carrying
capacity.
If an operating point lies within the region marked II then one
of two side hinge circles forms within the traversed region, whereas if the
operating point falls within the region marked III then one of the side hinge
circles and the central hinge circle form within or beyond the traversed region.
As a consequence of this, the ratchetting lines which cross the line dividing
94
region II from region III will have a horizontal section corresponding to the
reduction in load carrying capacity of the tube due to the formation of the
central hinge circle within the traversed region, as shown in Fig. 15.
The computations were repeated for the Case II.
The resulting interaction
diagram is shown in Fig. (16) for a range of values of Ax
It can be
readily seen that for this case there exists no reversed plasticity region.
In this case, unlike in the previous cases, the length of the region in which
a global mechanism forms increases with increasing magnitude of the thermal
load
There exists only one type of mechanism of deformation, that is
a global mechanism, i.e. three hinge circles separating cone like regions of
radial deformation.
In order to assess the effects of hardening above the shakedown limits
the calculations were carried out assuming that the material behaved in a
manner similar to that described in section 4 and Fig. (7) in the reversed
plasticity region and obeyed the Tresca yield condition elsewhere. The
results of such calculations for various values of
schematically in Fig. (16).
Ax
are also shown
As is seen, this set of solutions show a
similar characteristic to those obtained in the previous tube problems and
requires no further comment.
The only difference that occurs is in the
length of mechanism of deformation which increases with increasing
8.
at.
CONCLUSIONS
There has been increasing reliance upon full inelastic analysis in
nuclear industry for the validation of structural designs using available
nonlinear finite element codes.
However, such solutions do not directly
help the designer to understand the nature of complex loading systems such
as severe thermal loading, as the answers are specific to a particular
circumstance and give no general picture of structural response.
In this
section we have described the use of a simplified shakedown technique to
95
1.25.
\

f Plastic
, Shakedown
. . \\
((hardening mfcdels)
\ \
\\
\\
1.00
0.7S
Elastic Behaviour
CD
<
Rate h et ting
Ib*
TD
050
E
c_
0.25
0.00
Fig. 16
1:
AX
0.30
2:
0.60
3:
0.90
4:
1.50
5:
2.10
6:
2.40
1
2.70
8:
6.00
1.0
Mechanical Load
Bree diagram for a tube subjprtpfi t n hand of
pressure and axially moving temperature fronts
96
compute interactive diagrams for certain important types of loading.
Such
information provides, in a simple and graphic form, the entire range of
ratchetting response of the structure for varying severity of themal loading.
By combining a number of particular cases it is then possible to draw some
general conclusions^about the influence of thermal loading of thin circular
cylinders.
The most significant conclusion to these calculations was that the
variation of yield stress with temperature and cyclic hardening can significantly effect structural response.
For tubes subjected to moving temp
erature fronts over very short lengths of tube structural ratchetting can
occur in the absence of applied loads even when the material is strongly
cyclically hardening.
Some experiments conducted by Bell [19] give re
sults which are consistent with our calculations.
On the other hand, a
history of temperature which involves the near proportional increase and
decrease of a temperature distribution is far less likely to produce structural ratchetting.
Comparison between our calculation and tests carried
out by Cousin et al
[8] give support to the conclusion.
As a result, we
conclude that in validating experimental work on thermal loading, care must
be taken that the history of temperature is of the same type, in some detail,
as that in the industrial application.
occur.
Otherwise, significant errors can
In addition, it seems that the simplified forms of analysis des
cribed here can give a better insight into the nature of the problem than
full inelastic analysis.
Further solutions have been presented which show the interaction between localised forces, in our example a ring of load on a tube and localised
thermal loading.
The two forms of loading begin to strongly interact when
the high thermal stresses occur within the plastic collapse mechanism of
the localised load.
In the process, the mechanism itself changes to
include the high thermal stresses within its volume.
Shakedown analysis
demonstrates these interactive effects in a very clear and simple manner.
97 
References
[1]
BREE, J.
"Elasticplastic behaviour of thin tubes subjected to internal
pressure and intermittent highheat fluxes with applications to Fast
Nuclear Reactor Fuel Elements", J. Strain Analysis, 1967: 2, No. 3,
pp226238.
[2]
KOITER, W.T.
"General theorems for elasticplastic solids", Progress in Solid
Mechanics, Hill, R., and Sneddon, I., (eds), North Holland Press,
Amsterdam, 1960: 2, ppl67219.
[3]
KARADENIZ, S. and PONTER, A.R.S.
"A linear programming upper bound approach to the shakedown limit of
thin shells subjected to variable thermal loading", J. Strain Analysis
for Engineering Design, 1984: 19, pp221230.
[4]
PONTER, A.R.S. and KARADENIZ, S.
"An extended shakedown theory for structures that suffer cyclic
thermal loading, Part I: Theory", J. of Applied Mechanics, Trans.
ASME, 1985: 52, pp877882.
[5]
PONTER, A.R.S. and KARADENIZ, S.
"An extended shakedown theory for structures that suffer cyclic
thermal loading, Part II: Applications", J. of Applied Mechanics,
Trans. ASME, 1985: 52, pp883889.
[6]
COCKS, A.CF. and PONTER, A.R.S.
"Accumulation of plastic strain in thermal loading problems for a
linear hardening material", to appear.
[7]
BELL, R.T.
"Ratchetting experiments on thin cylinders subjected to axially
moving temperature fronts", UKAEA, Risley Nuclear Power Development
Establishment, Report NDR835(R), Risley, October, 1980.
[8]
COUSIN, M. and JULIEN, J.F.
"Specifications de l'essai pour step II benchmark calculations",
Institut National des Sciences Applique de Lyon, France, May, 1983.
[9]
CORSI, F.
Private communication.
[10] DRUCKER, D.C.
"Limit analysis of cylindrical shells under axially symmetric
loading", Proc. 1st Midwest Conf. Solid Mechanics, Urbana, II, 1953:
PP158163.
98
Part IV
Interaction diagrams for axisymmetric geometries
K.F. Carter, A.R.S. Ponter
1.
INTRODUCTION
Previous sections of this report have been concerned with the applica
tion of the upper bound techniques to particular types of structures and
thermal loading by using special features of the geometry with the results
presented in the form of Brussels diagrams.
A computer code, EECS3, has now
been generated at the University of Leicester which is capable of producing
such diagrams for a wide range of axisymmetric thin shells subject, in
principle, to an arbitrary history of thermal loading.
The method used is
based upon the technique described by Karadeniz and Ponter [1] and a full
description is given in the appendix to this section.
In this section we
give results for a range of cases, typical of fast reactor design, which
demonstrate the effects of variations in shell thickness, axial and throughthickness temperature gradients and geometries composed of cylindrical,
spherical and conical sections.
In all cases continuity of the tangent angle
to the shell midsection is maintained.
The cases chosen are based upon a
set suggested by WG2 of the EEC Fast Reactor Coordinating Committee under the
chairmanship of Dr Tonnorelli to which have been added further cases,
including a problem suggested by Guy Baylac of EDF (the Baylac test).
Their
assistance in this matter is gratefully acknowledged.
The cases in this section demonstrate the type and range of information
which may be gained through the application of these new numerical techniques.
The information is broader in scope and more easily understood in terms of
design restrictions than conventional finite element methods.
A typical
design question, such as the amount the pressure or temperature distribution
needs to be changed to avoid excessive deformation, can be more easily
answered through a technique which concentrates on the problem of finding the
load levels at which significant deformation begins to occur.
As far as the
authors are aware, this is the first time classical shakedown theory has been
successfully employed in this way and it seems likely that there will be many
101
other applications in the future of this type of technique.
In the following section the general form of the component parts of EECS3
are described.
This is followed by a description of Brussels diagrams and
associated mechanisms for a set of cases.
We then conclude that, despite
many differences in detailed behaviour, there are general trends which
suggest that certain master diagrams may cover ranges of useful cases.
2.
EECS3
The program takes as input the basic physical dimensions of the axisym
metric shape, the material data (including yield stress as a function of
temperature) and the temperature distribution.
The thermoelastic stress for
the temperature distribution, which can vary axially and through the thickness
of the shell anywhere within the material volume, is calculated by a finite
element elastic stress program CONIDA [2], supplied by the United Kingdom
Atomic Energy Authority.
The program then calculates the Brussels diagram
for the shell subject to a proportional temperature history and constant
mechanical load, which can be axial loading (tension or compression), internal
or external pressure, or a band of internal or external pressure.
The
solution is subject to boundary constraints such as zero displacements normal
or tangential to the midsurface or axisymmetric axis (as required by loading
type) at the ends of the body.
The program initially establishes a finite element structure based on a
minimum number of elements in each geometrical section, and then increases the
density of elements, by bisection, at positions where the thermoelastic
stress is largest. For the solutions discussed here, a maximum of 40 elements
were used.
The entire Brussels diagram is obtained by linear scaling of the
temperature history
0(x,t) = g(x.t)(0max_0o^ ^ y
factor
to
produce a
sequence of distributions 9^(x,,t) differing only in magnitude;
e X (x,t) = e 0 + x g ( x , t ) ( 6 m a x  e 0 )
 102 
(1)
ec
Fig. la  Yield surface showing plastic multiplier directions
Solid line  Tresca yield condition
Dashed line  12 A yield condition
600DCWG [] Recommended values
316 Stainless steel
500
oo
300
200
100 0
0
Fig. lb
50
100
150
200
ay(MPa)
Yield stress values vs temperature for Type 316 Stainless
Steel from DCWG recommended data (4)  See Table 1
103
where
0O
is the initial temperature and
6max
(or 0 m i n for downshocks) is
the temperature having the largest difference from
0O .
The function
g(x,t) is the normalized shape function of the temperature distribution.
For
experimentally obtained temperature distributions the correct solution will
correspond to the value of
at/y(0o) = t
obtained when
X = 1 where
is the maximum shear stress in the thermoelastic distribution.
the plastic yield stress at
0O .
at
ay(0o) is
The temperature distribution can then be
characterized by its knockdown factor
k , which is defined as the maximum
thermoelastic stress of the temperature distribution divided by the maximum
thermoelastic stress for a step discontinuity having the same maximum temperature difference
A0 = (0max~0o)
k = at(0max)/(EaA0/2)
The value
for
lie in the range
(2)
0 < k < 2 .
The program incorporates the same extension to the upper bound shakedown
theorem as discussed in Section 2 which allows calculation of the shakedown/
ratchetting boundary in the
region where the thermoelastic stress cannot
be contained within the yield surface within a volume
VF
In this case
The mean value of the thermoelastic stress history is set to zero within the
volume
Vp
, and then the calculation for the shakedown boundary is carried
out using this assumption in the region
Vp .
The method is discussed in
detail in the appendix to this section.
Throughout these calculations the yield criteria used is based on the
Tresca yield surface (illustrated in Fig. 1) in terms of the meridional and
circumferential stress components.
The yield stress values are calculated by
linear interpolation within a table of data values of yield stress against
temperature.
The program is also capable of using a 12 X yield surface which
has only a 3% error in comparison with the Von Mises yield surface, however the
increased accuracy results in a significant increase in computer time and
104
storage required.
Curvature in the meridional direction is concentrated at plastic hinges
at the nodal points between elements and linear variation in
between nodes.
A^
is assumed
As the structure and loadings are both completely axisymmetric,
there is no curvature in the circumferential direction.
Consistancy between
the displacement components and plastic strains expressed in terms of the
plastic multiplyers
relationships.
is assured by integration of the straindisplacement
As a result the meridional curvature, when derived from the
displacement fields, is small but nonzero.
However, the energy dissipated
due to curvature within elements is assumed zero as, in terms of the
curvature is calculated in the plastic hinges.
usually only found at high values of
at
varying this effect can be significant.
A's
In certain exceptional cases,
or where the geometry is very rapidly
However, as the program does not
account for this mode of energy dissipation the resultant mechanical load will
always be less than the true value.
Thus this method is always conservative
in these conditions.
The cases studied in this report are based on a set of typical thermal
loading problems in reactors, known as the Bergamo set, proposed by Working
Group 2 of the Fast Reactor Coordinating Committee.
Throughout this report
the Case Numbers correspond to those of the Bergamo set.
Case 1, not dis
cussed in detail in this report, is sphere with a through thickness temperature gradient.
The Brussels diagram for this case is exactly the same as for
the Bree problem and a representative mechanism is shown by Case 5 which
involves a spherical end section.
with an axial temperature gradient.
Case 3 of the Bergamo set is a cylinder
Examples of this type have been
discussed in great detail in Section 3 of this report.
105
jh=.020
jh=.oii
1
.35m
.2275m
.045
.2275m
.5m
Geometry and temperature distributions for Baylac tests
See Table 1
max
UPSHOCK
J .063
Fig._2
106
3.
CYLINDRICAL SHELLS
The program EECS3 is capable of calculating Brussels diagrams for all the
cylindrical cases discussed in Section 3, with the exception of cases
containing multiple temperature distributions, although a small modification
to include such cases can easily be incorporated.
However the program can
also handle cases for any geometry which involves changes in shell thickness
and also temperature distributions including linear changes in temperature
across the shell wall.
^in(z*t)
an
This is accomplished by specifying the temperatures
6 o u r (zi,t) on the inner and outer surfaces respectively at a
number of specific points
along the axisymmetric axis, and using linear
interpolation to deduce the temperature between these points and through the
thickness.
When changes in thickness are incorporated, the thickness is
assumed to vary linearly along the length of an element.
The thermoelastic
stress for the temperature distribution and specific geometry is calculated
by CONIDA, and is then used in the calculation of the Brussels diagram.
4.
BAYLAC TESTS
A simple example of a cylindrical tube with a change in thickness subject
to an axially varying temperature distribution (Type B) is provided by the
'Baylac' tests, the geometry of which is illustrated in Fig. (2).
This con
figuration is particularly suitable as it shows competition between mechanisms
involving the thin cold part of the tube and the thicker hot part, with the
thermoelastic stresses determining the locality of the mechanism.
The
Brussels diagrams for four cases of this type have been calculated involving
two separate temperature gradients, shown in Fig. 2, with either an axial load
or internal pressure.
The geometric and material data and the temperature
distributions being given in Table 1.
For axial loading the mechanism is localized in the thin section of the
tube for
j < 1.2 , where the Brussels diagram is almost exactly that of a
107 
1.0..
ks 0.915
k= 0.680
l9ox9o) = 2oyieo)/E*
ay(f0)
1.0
\
0.0
0.50
Maximum and mimimum thermoelastic stresses for the Baylac tests
in the meridional (axial) direction a. for temperature difference
1.0
k* 0.915
^
k=0.680
9  J20L(S 0 )/E
cr0
ay(80)
LO
0.25
0.0
0.50
Fig. 2 b
Maximum and mimimum thermoelastic stresses for the Baylac tests
in the circumferential (hoop) direction aQ for temperature
108
2.0
o y (e 0 )
io 
Axial loading k=.915
Axial loading k=.68
Internal pressure k=.915
Internal pressure k=.68
\\\'
V\\
o.o.
0.0
Fig. 3
Master diagram for Baylac tests
 109
Wlz)
tt<T
L
U(z)
H
TRI ni m n^
<j t =0
9 max = 20
P/PL=1.0
1 IllIllllllHHWl
HI
HH
Fiq. 3a
Deformation mechanism for the Baylac Test  See Table 2
Internal Pressure  k=0.680
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
^1
w(z)
'L
U(z)
M
1
CTt=0
9max = 20
P/PL = 0.577
1 lltlllllllBIWIiiimi
Fig. 3b
Deformation mechanism for the Baylac Test  See Table 2
Internal Pressure  k=0.680
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
110
W(z)[
cjt = 1.69
S max = 338
P / P L / 0.273
U(z)
11
i iimiuiiHmwr^^ I
l^
Fiq. 3c
Deformation mechanism for the Baylac Test  See Table 2
Internal Pressure  k=0.680
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
W(z)l
L
U(z)
M
1
CT,= 0.11
e
= 1
max M '
f^PL= 0.979
/miniiimmm
i 11
Fig. 3d
Deformation mechanism for the Baylac Test  See Table 2
Axial Loading  k=0.680
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
111 
W(z)
(7t = 1.38
9mox = 2.13
P/PL=0.785
U(z)
l i
HttWIIIH+
Fiq. 3e
Deformation mechanism for the Baylac Test See Table 2
Axial Loading k=0.915
U(z) Axial displacement
W(z) Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
W(z)
irriT.
crt = 1.69
mox = 338
P/P L = 0.135
U(z)
HIIIMil Mimmi
I MM
Fig._3f
Deformation mechanism for the Baylac Test See Table 2
Axial Loading k=0.680
U(z) Axial displacement
W(z) Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
112
W(z)[
r
IP^
^ui
o, = 124
e max
_ = 254
P/PL= 0.777
U(z) f
I inniii 1
Deformation mechanism for the Baylac Test  See Table 2
Axial Loading  k=0.680
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
113 
tube with temperature independent yield stress, subjected to a step temperature
distribution whose thermoelastic stress has the same knockdown factor, k
For internal pressure the behaviour at low
at is progressively compromised by
incursion of the hinge/cone mechanism into the hot part of the tube, and
localization of the mechanism towards the position of the change in thickness.
The mechanisms from these Baylac tests are summarized in Table 2.
At the top
of the Brussels diagram two distinct types of behaviour are seen.
For the
sharper temperature distribution
mechanism
cases
(k = 0.915) the usual reverse plasticity
(Xi = X2//2) is encountered.
However, the lower knockdown factor
(k = 0.680), result in a four hinge mechanism involving a Xi hinge/
cone mechanism in the thin section of the tube changing to a X3
hinge/cone
mechanism with associated axial stretching, located across the change in
thickness and into the thick part of the tube.
The relative ratios of this
composite mechanism changes between the axial loading and the internal pressure
cases.
This composite mechanism occurs below the reverse plasticity line.
The master diagram for the Baylac tests is shown in Fig. (3), together
with illustrative examples of typical mechanisms reported in Table 2.
All
these cases can be be shown to be conservatively bounded by the following
equations.
Axial Load
Internal Pressure
where
ay
i
1
P/P!+ at/4CTy = 1
P/2PJ + at/2av = 1
P/P!
(3)
+ at/4CTy = 1
PMPi + a t /2 G y = 1
is taken to be the yield stress at the maximum temperature, P is
the mechanical load at the ratchetting boundary and
limit load.
Pi
is the corresponding
In addition, Brussels diagrams for this problem is conservatively
approximated by the Brussels diagram for a Type B step temperature distribution
of the same knockdown factor in a tube whose thickness is given by the thin
section of the Baylac test geometry, again assuming a constant yield stress
 114
corresponding to the value of the maximum temperature.
CASE 2  THE BREE PROBLEM
The ratchetting boundary for cylindrical tubes with through thickness
temperature distributions has been calculated by Bree [3] for the simplified case
of a thin cylinder subjected to a temperature distribution given by
e
where
= e0 + ( e m a x  e 0 ) ( i / 2  h )
(4)
is the normalized distance across the thickness of the cylinder
1/2 < h < 1/2.
Thus the inner surface cycles between
the outer surface remains at
0O.
0O
and
6 m a x while
The thermoelastic stress in this case is
given by
<b
= a
hEa(0maxeo)/(lv)
(5)
The solution diagram found by Bree is shown in Fig. (4), for a temperature
independent yield stress.
The Bree solution for a cylinder under internal
pressure predicts that the ratchet boundary varies as
P/Pj + a t / 4 a y = 1
at
< 2ay
(6)
(P/P1).(at/ay) = 1
a t > 2a y
The Bree problem for a tube whose geometrical and material properties are
given in Table 3 has been solved using EECS3.
The solution for internal
pressure loading is a A, 3 hinge mechanism shown in Fig. (5) for all values
of
at .
This mechanism is caused by the boundary condition of zero radial
displacement at the ends of the tube.
The resultant Brussels diagram for a
temperature independent yield stress using uniaxial
(QQ only) or biaxial
thermoelastic stress is within 1% of the analytic solution of Bree.
The
difference is due to the contribution of the hinges to the deformation
mechanism, caused by the boundary conditions.
The mechanism for axial loading
cases with biaxial thermoelastic stress is a single node
115
X 2 axial stretch
a.1
1 P/P L
Fig.
4 Analytic ratchetting boundary calculated by Bree (3) for a
tube with temperature independent yield stress under internal
pressure
W(z)
^rrrrTtTmTTTTTr.
(Jt=0
9mox=20
L.
z
M z j
P/PL=1.0
Axisymmetric axis
n i n n i ni min n i munit
In 1
Fig.
5 Deformation mechanism for Bree problem (Case 2) See Table 3
Internal pressure with end
U(z) Axial displacement
W(z) Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
116
ay(90)
5.0Analytic bree line [3]
Case 2 cr(8)=316SS
Case 2 cry (8) = cry(T0)
.0
3.0
2.0
LO
CO
0.0
_Fig. 6a
Master diagram for Bree problems (Case 2)  o./olQ)
vs P/P,
Brussels diagrams for axial loading or internal pressure, with a
linear through thickness temperature distribution, using
temperature independent and temperature dependent yield stress
Coincident lines for a
= 316 Stainless Steel
Internal Pressure  Uniaxial Thermoelastic stress
Internal Pressure  Biaxial Thermoelastic stress
Axial Loading  Biaxial Thermoelastic stress
Same lines coincident for a
= a (8 )
117
8Analytic Bree line [3]
Case 2 cr (9) = 316SS
Case 2 cry(e) = oy(80)
4
2
0.0
P x oy(80)
Fig. 6b
PLxy
Master diagram for Bree problems (Case 2) renormalized with
respect to mean yield stress  o./~a
Key as for Figure 6a
118
vs P.CT (0 )/(p.,. )
at an arbitary node, all nodes being equivalent, and gives the exact solution.
A basic master diagram composed of temperature independent and temperature dependent yield stress cases is shown in Fig. (6a).
The same calcula
tions but with both axes renormalized with respect to the mean yield stress is
shown in Fig. (6b).
The mean yield stress is defined as
=
y
1
[0max~0oJ
max
e0
ay(0) d
(7)
It can be seen from the basic master diagram that all six cases lie on two lines
corresponding to the temperature independent and dependent solutions.
The
analytic Bree solution, given by Equation (4), is also drawn and is coincident
with the temperature independent line.
The renormalized master diagram shows
that the temperature dependent lines are shifted outside the analytic solution
at all temperatures, and thus this renormalization constitutes a conservative
rule for Type A (through thickness only) temperature distribution within tubes,
where the thickness is constant and the temperature varies linearly throughout
the thickness.
6.
CASE 7  CYLINDRICAL TUBE WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS AND VARIABLE
THROUGHTHICKNESS TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
Another example of a tube with varying thickness is Case 7 of the Bergamo
set, the geometry for which is illustrated in Fig. (7) and tabulated with the
temperature distribution and the material properties in Table 4.
Case 7 has
been solved as a thermal upshock under internal pressure loading, with one
end of the tube acting as an enclosing plate giving an axial component to the
internal pressure.
The temperature distribution along the tube has been
estimated using a simple formula which relates the temperature at the inner
and outer surfaces.
This can be expressed as
9out  O m
+ B
6ex)/(l + B)
119
(8)
h=0.02
h=0.01
h=0.01
E^
SI
35m
LL
.2275m
.045
.135m
05
.2275m
.68m
8max
Inner surface
Outer surface
" " _
^ " " ^
2/3
8,
1/2
max
2/3
9
max
UPSHOCK
max
Geometry and temperature distribution for Case 7 See Table 4
120
a r e t ie
inner
an
Qn
and
0Out
tively and
0ex
is a fluid temperature adjacent to the outer surface of the
where
tube.
d outer surface temperatures respec
The Biot number B is a measure of the relative resistance to heat flow
of the tube metal to the adjacent fluid, and is defined as
B = W.H/K
where
(9)
is the heat transfer coefficient of the surface interface, K is
the conductivity of the tube metal and
is the thickness of the tube.
large Biot number implies that the resistance to heat flow is principally
within the tube metal whereas a small Biot number indicates that the greater
resistance to heat flow is in the tube/fluid interface.
Thus
B = 1 implies
that the surface and the tube transfer the same amount of heat per unit area
for identical temperature differences.
case are
The values chosen in this particular
B = 1 for the thicker section and
B = 1/2
for the ends of the tube
where the thickness is half that of the middle section.
The essential assump
tions are that the tube is filled with liquid sodium, which being a very good
heat conductor, means that the inner surface of the tube can be regarded as
being at the same temperature as the liquid sodium.
The Biot numbers chosen
approximately correspond to the outer surface being in contact with air, and
for simplicity of calculation of the thermoelastic stress
0ex = 0
is chosen.
This results in the upshock temperature distribution shown in Table 4, for
which the axial and hoop components of the thermoelastic stress envelopes,
calculated by CONIDA, are shown in Figs. (8a) and (8b) respectively.
The resultant Brussels diagram is very similar to that of the Bree problem.
The master diagram for Case 7, renormalized with respect to the mean
yield stress is illustrated in Fig. (9) and the associated mechanisms tabulated in Table 5.
It can be seen from the master diagram that the renorm
alized ratchetting boundary for Case 7 again lies outside the analytic Bree
line for all values of
at , and that the changes in mechanism have little
121
1.0 
I ,1
CT,
0.0
iem,xeol=2cry(eo)/Ect
1.0
0.20
0.40
r
0.60 z
Fig. 8a
Maximum and mimimum thermoelastic stresses for Case 7 in the
meridional (axial) direction a, for temperature differenc:e given
Fig. 8b
Maximum and mimimum thermoelastic stresses for Case 7 in the
circumferential (hoop) direction cr. for temperature difference
given by
J 9 = 2 a ( 0 ) / Ea
y o
122
H
'y
8
Analytic bree line [3]
Case 2
Case 7
6"
t*
2
0.0
P x <ry(80)
P L x cry
Fig^9
Master diagram for Case 7 renormalized with respect to mean yield
stress  <*t/
vs P. a ( 0Q)/( P^^ . )
Internal Pressure with End Plate
Included for comparison
Analytic Bree line given by equation (6)
Case 2  a
= 316 Stainless Steel
 123
W(z)
t =0
max =20
P/PL=1.0
U(z)
Axisymmetric axis
l l l l l I I I I I III
II
I HIM I I
HH4
Fia 9a
W(z)
er,=2.11
9max=322
P/P L = (U24
Axisymmetric gxis
U(z)
HH
1 I I I MUH M l I MII  H
H4+4
Fiq. 9b
s
W(z)
o, = 3.21
9max^81
P/PL=0.2^1
Axisymmetric axis
U(z)
+fH
1 I III llllll
IUI I Mill I I
H+++
Fiq. 9c
Deformation meclianisms for Case 7
Description of individual figures given in Table 5
Internal Pressure with End Plate
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
 124
effect on the shape of the ratchetting boundary.
CONICAL TUBES
The program is able to calculate the ratchetting boundaries for all types
of conical sections.
As a comparison with other upperbound and lowerbound
techniques, the limit load has been calculated for the geometry and material
properties given in Table 6a.
The resultant mechanism is shown in Fig. (10),
compared with that calculated by Morelle [5] and Franco [6].
\l
All three
hinge/cone mechanisms in the wider part of the cone are nearly identical.
Comparative values for the limit load are given in Table 6b.
It can be seen
that the present technique gives the lowest upper bound consistant with being
above the highest lower bound.
The result by Morelle, while being a lower
upper bound is below both lower bound loads.
The calculation of Brussels diagrams has been carried out for two representative conical shapes, the geometry of which is given in Table 6c and the
material properties are as given in Table 6a.
The temperature distribution
and thermoelastic stress are the same as those used in the Bree problem.
The mechanisms along the ratchetting boundaries are the same as the limit load,
except at the very top of the Brussels diagram where very high curvature
collapse mechanisms occur, which is because EECS3 does not account for the
energy dissipated by changes of curvature within elements.
isms are not valid and show the limits at high
Thus these mechan
cr^ of the technique.
The
master diagram renormalized with respect to mean yield stress is shown in Fig.
(11).
Again the diagrams for both Cones A and B are both outside the
analytic Bree line in this renormalized plot.
the Bree problem for a tube (Case 2) are shown.
For comparison the results of
It would appear that as the
cone angle changes from a tube towards a plate geometry, the mechanical load
for a given thermal load decreases slightly, as the Case 2, Cone B and Cone A
rachetting boundaries indicate.
125
resent technique
[5]
Fig. 10
Comparison of the mechanism of deformation of the
present technique with those obtained by Morelle[5]
and Franco [6]
 126 
PLXCTy
Master diagram for Cones (See Table 6c) renormalized with respect
to mean yield stress  <**./<*
s P.ff (9 )/(P,.a )
Pure Internal Pressure
Included for comparison
Analytic Bree line given by equation (6)
Case 2  a
316 Stainless Steel
127
8.
SPHEROIDAL AND COMPOSITE SHAPES
To illustrate the ability of the program to calculate Brussels diagrams
for a wide variety of composite axisymmetric cases, a few particular examples
have been chosen, based on the Bergano set.
For these spheroidal shapes
three characteristic distances, shown in Fig. (12), are defined as follows
r
 Radius perpendicular to the axisymmetric axis
 Radius of curvature of element midsurface
 Distance from the axisymmetric axis perpendicular to the midsurface
alomg a radius of curvature
 Distance of the centre of curvature of
axisymmetric axis
perpendicularly to the
Where a spherical cap meets the axes of symmetry special boundary conditions
can be analytically derived and included in the present upper bound formulation.
The essential requirement is that the strain increments in the
meridional and circumferential directions,
EA
and
CQ
respectively, become
equal as a point approaches the axis and zero on the axis itself.
It is'worth noting that under certain circumstances it is not possible
to recover known analytic solution mechanisms, even though the mechanical load
at the ratchetting boundary is computed accurately.
This is due to a number
of mechanisms having the same or near identical mechanical loads.
Approxima
tions in the finite element method, including the use of axisymmetric assumptions for a spherically symmetric geometry provide sufficient perturbations to
the problem to change the optimal mechanisms.
This is illustrated by the
solution for a perfect sphere (Case 1) where the technique used does not have
sufficient plastic multipliers to give the analytic solution.
Thus the
solution shows the correct limit load and ratchetting boundary, but the
mechanisms are not those of the analytic solution.
128 
Fig. 12
Characteristic radii for Spheroidal and Composite Shapes
W(z)
,TTTTrr
U(z) "
(T t =0
L
+H
9
=20C
max
P/PL = 1.0
1 I I II I I
1 I I II I I I I I I I I
1H
Rg.J3
Deformation mechanism for Case 4 See Table 7
Pure Internal Pressure
U(z) Axial displacement
W(z) Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
129
5.0cry(60)
.01
3.0..
Master diagram for Spheroidal and Composite Shapes  a./a (6 ) vs
P/P,
t y o
Brussels diagrams for linear through thickness temperature
distribution, using temperature dependent yield stress a  316SS
Case 4  Pure Internal Pressure
*
Case 5  Pure Internal Pressure  See Table 8
ASME Torispherical Head  Pure Internal Pressure  See Table 9
Case 6  Internal Pressure with End Plate  See Table 10
Case 9  Internal Pressure with End Plate  See Table 11
Included for comparison
Analytic Bree line given by equation (6)
Case 2  a = 316 Stainless Steel
130
i
f
9.
max
600
CASES 2 and L
ASME TORISPHERICAL HEAD
ff,3BSS
CASE 5 IUPSHOCK)
CASE 6
CASE 9
00 
200
0.0
p/p,
FigJ
Diagram of maximum temperature in temperature distribution 0,
max
plotted against normalized mechanical load P/P, for Spheroidal
and Composite Shapes
Key as for Figure 14
Analytic Bree line not shown
131
Pxo y (8 0 )
PLXCTy
Fig 16
Master diagram for Spheroidal and Composite Shapes renormalized
with respect to mean yield stress  <*t/J
Key as for Figure 14
 132
vs P. a {Q0)/(?i
%)
9.
CASE 4  CYLINDRICAL TUBE WITH SPHERICAL CAP OF SAME THICKNESS
The first spheriodal shape is a simple tube with a spherical cap end under
internal pressure (Case 4), the geometry of which is given in Table 7 together
with the boundary conditions and the material properties.
Again the tempera
ture distribution and the thermoelastic stress are those used in the Bree
problem (Type A) and given in equations (4) and (5) respectively.
The solution mechanism, a \ 1
hinge/cone in the tube part, is shown in
Fig. (13), and is exactly the same as that obtained for Case 2 (Bree problem)
for all values of t .
The Brussels diagram normalized with respect to the
limit load is shown in Fig. (14) with those for other spheroidal and composite
shapes discussed below.
The corresponding diagram of maximum temperature 0 m a x
against mechanical load normalized by the limit load is shown in Fig. (15).
Finally the master diagram renormalized with respect to the mean yield stress
is shown in Fig. (16) for all these cases.
In all three of these figures the
ratchetting boundary line for Case 4 is exactly coincident with that for Case
2 which is also shown for comparison.
10.
CASE 5  CYLINDRICAL TUBE WITH SPHERICAL CAP OF HALF THICKNESS
This example from the Bergamo set combines a tube of one thickness with a
spherical cap of half the thickness, illustrated in Fig. (17) and given with
boundary conditions and material properties in Table 8.
This has been solved
under internal pressure for the temperature distribution which is also given in
Table 8.
These values have been calculated using the same assumptions for the
Biot numbers as in Case 7.
The thermoelastic stress envelopes for this
temperature distribution, as calculated by CONIDA, are shown in Figs. (18a) and
(18b).
To a good approximation the thermoelastic stress envelope is the
same as that given by equation 5 in terms of the local thickness and throughthickness temperature gradients.
The resultant Brussels diagram is again included in Figs. (14), (15) a
 133 
h=.0050
h=.0025
Geometry and temperature distribution for Case 5
emax
Inner surface
Outer surface
2/3
1/2
9
e max UPSHOCK
emax
Fig. 17
134
1.0'0
S^o)
Maximum and mimimum thermoelastic stresses for Case 5 in the
meridional (axial) direction a. for temperature difference given
9
by AT = 2ff(0 O ) / Ea
1.0
0"
e
9
^ o) +
0.0
J~
le^ej^iej/E 4
1.00.0
r I
1.0
Fig. 18b
2.0
z
Maximum and mimimum thermoelastic stresses for Case 5 in the
circumferential (hoop) direction a Q for temperature difference
given by T = 2 t T v ( 6 o ) ^ E a
 135
Axisymetnc
axis
Fig. 19a
Deformation mechanisms for Case 5
Pure Internal Pressure
U(z) Axial displacement
W(z) Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
W(z)f .rTTTr...
Axisymetric
axis
U(z)
Fig. 19b
136 
(16).
There are two mechanisms along the ratchetting boundary.
At
gt
less
than 0.4 the mechanism is a spherical cap deformation shown in Fig. (19a) for
which the mechanical load is exactly that of a sphere (Case 1).
than or equal to 0.4 the mechanism changes to the
Xi
At ^jt greater
hinge/cone mechanism in
the tube part, shown in Fig. (19b), as in Case 2 and Case 4. However the
thickness is increased in the tube part, and thus the ratchetting boundary lies
outside the line of Case 2 for the hinge/cone mechanism at
at > 0.4 .
Thus
the ratchetting boundary for this case also lies outside the analytic Bree line
when renormalized with respect to the mean yield stress.
11. ASME STANDARD TORISPHERICAL HEAD
The ratchetting boundary has been calculated for the ASME Standard Toris
pherical Head under internal pressure, for which independent calculations of
the limit load by Drucker and Shield [9] are available. The geometry, boundary
conditions and material properties for a particular torispherical head are
given in Table 9.
The limit load collapse mechanism is shown in Fig. (20a)
which is very similar to the mechanism given by Drucker and Shield.
The only
substantial difference is that the mechanism of Drucker and Shield extends
slightly into the tube section, whereas in the present calculation the mech
anism starts at the boundary between the tube section and the spheroidal
knuckle section.
This seems a more likely mechanism as a tube requires more
energy to distort than the weaker knuckle section.
by the yield stress at
The limit load, divided
0 O , for the present calculation is
whereas the Drucker and Shield result gives
.626 x 10~3
.675 x 10~ 3 .
The Brussels diagram for the Type A temperature distribution of equation
(4) and the thermoelastic stress given in equation (5), is shown in Figs.
(14),(15) and (16).
The associated ratchet boundary mechanisms from 0 to
2.5 o'. are virtually identical to the limit load mechanism.
At higher
the hinge/cone mechanism at the knuckle becomes progressively sharper as seen
137
Wlz)
, = 0
L
U(z)
ax = 20
m
max
=
P/P L = 1.0
<IIIIH
1IIH#
Fig. 20a
W(z)
L
Ulzl
t=2.63
emax=257
P/P, = 0.249
IlIH
1 1 1KW
Fig. 20b
W(z)
(Tt= 3.40
L
U(z)
<
1I
max=326
P/PL= 0.075
Fig. 20c
Deformation mechanisms for ASME T o r i s p h e r i c a l Head
Pure I n t e r n a l Pressure
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  R adial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element s t r u c t u r e
138
in Figs. (20b) and (20c) which are typical examples.
The work done by these
mechanisms is principally in the movement of the spherical cap in the direction
of the internal pressure, enabled by the knuckle deforming, being the weakest
part of the structure.
The master diagram renormalized with respect to the mean yield stress
Fig. (16) shows that the ratchetting boundary lies outside the analytic Bree
line except for
at > 4.0 which corresponds to an upshock of 270C.
mechanisms in the high
at
The
region are substantially sharper and the changes
in curvature within the knuckle elements are an order of magnitude larger
than those at low
12.
at
CASE 6  CYLINDER TO CONE TO CYLINDER (CONTINUOUS ANGLE)
This example from the Bergamo set shows the ability of EECS3 to cope with
composite axisymmetric shapes where the angle defining the geometry is continuous.
This case consists of a tube connected by a short spheroidal
section to a cone, which leads to a tube of twice the diameter of the previous
tubular section via another short spheroidal section.
The geometry, boundary
conditions and material properties are given in Table 10.
The ratchet
boundary has been solved for Type A thermal loading, the temperature distribution being given by equation (4) and the thermoelastic stress by equation
(5) as in the Bree problem.
The mechanical loading is internal pressure with
an end plate at the end of the larger tube section giving an additional axial
component to the mechanical loading.
The resultant Brussels diagram is again illustrated in Figs. (14),(15)
and (16).
The limit load mechanism is shown in Fig. (21a) and shows remark
able similarity to the ASME Standard Torispherical case, the work done by the
mechanism being in the movement of the end plate in the direction of the
internal pressure.
Again the knuckle with the largest radius deforms as it
is the weakest part of the structure.
As the thermal load increases the
139
W(z)
e'max
mnv =20
P/PL=1.0
U(z)
++*
1 Hm
1 1 1 y^m
<illllll I I
1 HHH
Fiq. 21a
W(z)
Qmax =89
P/P L = 0.853
i
U(z)
< + m i i \ m i i i num i iimw+
Fiq. 21b
W(z)
U(z)
<rt = 3.95
9max=376
P/P L =0.U
m\ii
f mim i i i m m 
M
Fiq.21c
Deformation mechanisms for Case 6
Internal Pressure with End Plate
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
140
mechanism remains that of the limit load to approximately
0.75at at which
point the mechanism starts to become progressively sharper as shown in Figs.
(21b) and (21c).
At the highest value of
at
(4.28) the change of curvature
within the knuckle elements is an order of magnitude larger than for the limit
load.
The master diagram, shown in Fig. (16), which has been renormalized with
respect to the mean yield stress shows that the ratchetting boundary lies outside the analytic Bree line except at very high
at > 4.0
(which corresponds
to an upshock of approximately 350C) where the mechanisms involve large
changes of curvature within the elements.
13.
CASE 9  CYLINDER TO CYLINDER BY SPHEROIDAL SECTIONS (CONTINUOUS ANGLE)
In this case the geometry is similar to that of Case 6, consisting of a
tube connected to a tube of twice the radius by two spheroidal sections of the
same curvature.
The geometry, boundary conditions and material properties are
given in Table 11.
The thermal loading is again Type A, and is given by
equations (4) and (5).
The mechanical loading is the same as Case 6, i.e.
internal pressure with an end plate.
Here the structure does not contain a weak knuckle section, thus the limit
load mechanism illustrated in Fig. (22a) is a
Xi
hinge/cone entirely local
ized in the section of tube with the larger radius.
to approximately
0.7at .
This mechanism persists
Above this value an interesting composite mechanism
takes place, shown in Fig. (22b), where there is an axial stretching mechanism
at the boundary between the small radius tube and the first spheroidal section,
which results in work done by end plate extension, and a much smaller
hinge/cone mechanism in the larger radius tube section.
mechanism continues from 0.7 ot
Xi
to approximately
Xi
This composite
1.5 at , during which the
hinge/cone part becomes smaller and smaller, so that at
1.5 at
the
mechanism only involves the axial stretch at the boundary between the smaller
141
Z
Fig. 22a
e max = 89
P/P L = 0.753
U(z)
Hill I I t l * T
1lHHI
1 I I I 1 I mi
Fig. 22b
cjt=1.5A
mox=158
P/P L =CU98
U(z)
Hill
U M '
1I
I MM
II
M I M
I I
Fig. 22c.
Deformation mechanisms for Case 9
Internal Pressure with End Plate
U(z)  Axial displacement
W(z)  Radial displacement
Tick marks denote the axisymmetric element structure
142
radius tube and the first spheroidal section.
This mechanism is shown in Fig.
(22c), and is the mechanism of the ratchetting boundary up to
3.4 at
where
mechanisms involving large changes in curvature within elements start to occur.
The Brussels diagrams for Case 9 are again shown in Figs. (14),(15) and
(16).
The associated master diagram renormalized with respect to the mean
yield stress (Fig. (16)) shows that the renormalized ratchet boundary lies
outside the analytic Bree line except at very high
at
(corresponding to an
upshock of approximately 300C) where the mechanisms become unreliable as' they
involve large changes of curvature within elements.
14.
CONCLUSION
In the final section of the report we have given Brussels diagrams for a
range of geometries, from solutions generated by a finite element method
incorporated in a computer code EECS3.
We observe that the mechanisms assoc
iated with the ratchet boundary take a wide variety of forms, but some general
conclusions can be drawn.
For all these problems where the thermal gradient
is through the shell thickness, the classical Bree solution for a uniform
cylindrical tube yields a safe bound when the uniform yield stress in that
solution is chosen as the mean yield value, defined by equation (7).
comparison for a range of cases is shown in Fig. (16).
The
For cases where the
temperature gradient is entirely axial along a cylindrical tube, there is some
evidence from the Baylac tests and from other tests not reported here, that
the Brussels diagrams can be approximated by the diagram for a linear axial
gradient in a uniform term, where the gradient is chosen so that the knockdown
factor coincides.
These solutions begin to yield an insight into the range of Brussels
diagrams which may be of use in design.
At the present time the results of
these and many other calculations are being used to define a set of master
diagrams which encompass a range of practically useful cases as the basis for
design code rules in Fast Reactor design.
 143 
Table 1
Baylac Tests
Geometry
Axial Position (m)
Radius (m)
0.0
0.2275
0.2725
0.5
Thickness (m)
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.011
0.011
0.020
0.020
Temperature Distributions
Temperature
Axial Position (m)
k = 0.680
Axial Position (m)
k = 0.915
0.0
0.0
0.2185
0.2365
emax
0.2815
0.2635
emax
0.5
0.5
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
Radial Displacement set to zero at extremes of tube.
Axial Displacement set to zero at end of tube (z = 0),
Material Properties
0O
20C
.195 x 10+12 N/m2
.1639 x IO"1* /C
.3
av(0o)
.205 x 10+9 N/m2
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4]  see Fig. la
6 C
0y(6) MPa
20
50
100
150
200
250
300
205
179
155
142
132
121
113 ""
8 C
Oy(0) i
106
104
101
97
95
92
90
350
370
400
450
500
550
600
Limit Load
Axial Loading
Internal Pressure
.242 x IO"1 ay(60)
.407 x IO"1 ay(80)
144
Table 2
Summary of Mechanisms for Baylac
Tests
k = 0.680
Axial Loading
0  1.2 at
X2 single node axial
stretch in thin part
of tube
Figure 3d
1.2  1.6 ot
A3 hinge/cone mechanism
(axial stretch) across
change in thickness
Figure 3g
1.6 at 4 hinge/cone mechanism
Ai hinge/cone in thin part
(small)
A3 hinge/cone across change
in thickness into thick
part (large)  Figure 3f
k = 0.680
Internal Pressure
0  1.2 at
Ai hinge/cone in thin
part  Figure 3a
1.2  1.6 ot
Ai hinge/cone around
change in thickness
Figure 3b
1.6 at 4 hinge/cone mechanism
Ai hinge/cone in thin part
(large)
A3 hinge/cone across change
in thickness into thick
Part (small)  Figure 3c
k = 0.915
Axial Loading
0  1.3 at
A2 single node axial
stretch in thin part
1.3  1.8 ot
single node (A1/A2/2)
reverse plasticity at
start of change in
thickness (thin end)
Figure 3e
1.8 at single node (A1/A2/2)
reverse plasticity at end
of change in thickness
(thick end)
k = 0.915
Internal Pressure
0  1.3 at
Ai hinge/cone in thin
part
1.3  1.9 at
Ai hinge/cone around
change in thickness
1.9 at single node (A1/A2/2)
reverse plasticity at end
of change in thickness
(thick end)
01
Table 3
Bree Problem (Case 2)
Geometry
Axial position (m)
Radius (m)
Thickness (m)
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0025
0.0025
Temperature Distribution
As given by equation (4) in text.
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
Radial Displacement set to zero at extremes of tube.
Axial Displacement set to zero at end of tube (z = 0)
Material Properties
e0
20C
.195 x 10 + 1 2 N/m2
.1639 x 10lt /C
.3
ay(90)
.205 x 10 +9 N/m2
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4]
Limit Load
Axial Loading
Internal Pressure
.157 x 10 1 ay(80)
.253 x 10~2 ay(60)
146
Table 4
Tube with Variable Thickness and Through Thickness Temperature Gradient (Case 7)
Geometry
Axial Position (m)
Radius (m)
Thickness (m)
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.0
0.2275
0.2725
0.4075
0.4525
0.68
Temperature Distributions
Axial Position (m)
Initial
Inner
Surface Temperatures
Upshock  Case 7
Inner
Outer
Outer
0.0
e0
e0
"max
26
max/ 3
0.2275
e0
e0
"max
20
max/ 3
0.2725
e0
6o
"max
iax'2
0.4075
e0
e0
^max
iax'2
0.4525
e0
e0
max
2e
max/ 3
0.68
e0
e0
"max
26
max/ 3
6n = 20C
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
Radial Displacement set to zero at extremes of tube.
Axial Displacement set to zero at end of tube (z = 0)
Material Properties
Upshock  Case 7
E
N/m2
.195 x 10 + 1 2
/C
.1639 x IO"1*
.3
V
ay(0o)
N/m2
.205 x 10+9
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4]
Limit Load
Internal Pressure
.363 x 10"1 ay(80)
147
Table 5
Ratchetting Boundary Mechanisms for Case 7
0  2.1 at
Xi hinge/cone in thin part of tube  Figure 9a
2.1  3.2 O
X2 single node axial stretch in thin section of tube,
just after change in thickness  Figure 9b
3.2  4.5 a t
Xi hinge/cone in thin part of tube localized towards
the change in thickness  Figure 9c
Table 6a
Cone Test
Geometry
Axial Position (m)
Radius Perpendicular to
Axisymmetric axis (m)
Thickness (m)
0.0
1.0
0.05
0.05
0.0
2.5
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
Displacement normal to the midsurface set to zero at the extremes of
the tube
Displacement tangential to the midsurface set to zero at the end of
the cone (z = 0)
Material Properties
E
N/m2
.195 x 10 + 1 2
/C
.1639 x 101*
.3
ay(60) N/m2
.205 x 10 +9
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4],
148
Table 6b
Limit Load for Cone
Reference
Type of Formulation
Present
Upper Bound
0.0518
Morelle [5]
Upper Bound
0.0A82
Franco [6]
Upper Bound
0.0521
Biron et al [7]
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
0.0532
0.0504
Nguyen et al [8]
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
0.0541
0.0496
Pi/cry(eo)
Table 6c
Geometry
Cone A
Axial Position (m)
0.0
1.0
Geometry
Radius Perpendicular to
Axisymmetric Axis (m)
1.25
0.125
Thickness (m)
0.05
0.05
Cone B
Axial Position (m)
0.0
2.25
Radius Perpendicular to
Axisymmetric Axis (m)
1.25
0.125
Thickness (m)
0.05
0.05
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
Displacement normal to the midsurface set to zero at the extremes of
the tube
Displacement tangential to the midsurface set to zero at the end of
the cone (z = 0)
Limit Load
Pure Internal Pressure
Cone A
1
.506 x IOl
ay(0o)
149
Cone B
.518 x 10 i
Table 7
Parameters for Case 4
Geometry
Radius (m)
r0
rx
Axial Position (m)
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
Thickness (m)
r2
1.0
1.0
0.0025
0.0025
1.0
0.9925
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
3)
Displacement normal to the midsurface set to zero at the end of the
tube (z = 0)
Displacement tangential to the midsurface set to zero at the end of
the tube (z = 0)
Spherical Cap
a)
Displacement tangential to the midsurface set to zero at the
centre of the cap (z = L)
b)
e  e*
c)
deQ/dsq>= de^/ds = 0.0
Material Properties
e0
20C
N/m2
.195 x 10 + 1 2
/c
.1639 x 101*
.3
V
ay(90)
N/m2
.205 x 10 +9
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4]
Limit Load
Pure Internal Pressure
,2z
.253 x 10"
ay(0o)
150
Table 8
Parameters for Case 5
Geometry
Axial Position (m)
Radius (m)
0.0
1.0
r
1.0
1.0
1.174
0.985
0.0
2.0
Thickness (m)
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
r2
1.0
1.0
0.005
0.005
1.0
0.0025
1.0
0.0025
Temperature Distributions
Axial Position (m)
Initial
Inner
0.0
e0
1.0
Surface Temperatures
Upshock  Case 5
Outer
Inner
Outer
e,
e.max
e0
'max
"max' 2
1.174
e0
2.0
e0
max
"max
max/ 2
20
max/ 2
20
max/ 2
0 n = 20C
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
3)
Displacement normal to the midsurface set to zero at the end of the
tube (z = 0)
Displacement tangential to the midsurface set to zero at the end of
the tibe (z = 0)
Spherical Cap
a)
Displacement tangential to the midsurface set to zero at the
centre of the cap (z = L)
de/dsT= de<j)/ds = 0.0
c)
Material Properties
6
20C
N/m 2
.195 x 1 0 + 1 2
/C
.1639 x 10_,f
.3
v
a y (6 0 )
N/m2
.205 x 1 0 + 9
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4]
Limit Load
Pure Internal Pressure
.500 x 1 0 _ z a y (9 0 )
151
Table 9
Parameters for ASME Standard Torispherical Head
Geometry
Axial Position (m)
Radius (m)
*i
r0
0.0
1.0
1.161
1.0
0.88
0.12
1.267
0.936
0.0
2.0
1.5
0.0
Thickness (m)
r2
1.0
1.0
0.0025
0.0025
2.0
0.0025
2.0
0.0025
Boundary Conditions
1) Displacement normal to the midsurface set to zero at the end of the
tube (z = 0)
2)
Displacement tangential to the midsurface set to zero at the end of
the tube (z = 0)
3)
Spherical Cap
a)
Displacement tangential to the midsurface set to zero at the
centre of the cap (z = L)
b)
CQ = fy
c) de/ds = de^/ds =0.0
Material Properties
e0
20C
N/m2
.195 x 10 + 1 2
/c
.1639 x 10_lt
.3
a y (e 0 )
N/m2
.205 x 10 +9
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4]
Limit Load
Pure Internal Pressure
.626 x IO13
' Cfy(60)
152
Table 10
Parameters for Case 6
Geometry
Axial Position (m)
r
0.0
0.450
0.5
0.5
0.535
0.965
0.535
0.965
1.050
1.5
1.0
1.0
radius (m)
r0
ri
0.62
0.12
0.88
0.12
Thickness (m)
r2
0.5
0.5
0.0025
0.0025
0.757
1.365
0.0025
0.0025
1.0
1.0
0.0025
0.0025
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
Displacement normal to the axisymmetric axis set to zero at the ends
of the structure
Displacement tangential to the axisymmetric axis set to zero at the
end of the tube (z = 0)
Material Properties
20C
e0
E
N/m 2
.195 x 1 0 + 1 2
/c
.1639 x IO1*
.3
V
av(90)
N/m2
.205 x 1 0 + 9
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4]
Limit Load
Internal Pressure
.110 x 10~ 2 a y (9 0 )
153'
Table 11
Parameters for Case 9
Geometry
Axial Position (m)
Radius (m)
r0
r!
r
0.0
0.317
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.183
1.5
Thickness
r2
0.5
0.5
0.0025
0.0025
1.5
0.0025
1.0
1.0
0.0025
0.0025
Boundary Conditions
1)
2)
Displacement normal to the axisymmetric axis set to zero at the ends
of the structure
Displacement tangential to the axisymmetric axis set to zero at the
end of the tube (z = 0)
Material Properties
20C
6o
E
N/m2
.195 x 1 0 + 1 2
/c
.1639 x I O  4
.3
V
ay(60)
N/m 2
.205 x 1 0 + 9
Yield values vs. temperature given by DCWG[4]
Limit Load
Internal Pressure
.275 x 102 0"y(6o)
154 
References
[1]
S. KARADENIZ & A.R.S. PONTER
An extended shakedown theory for structures that suffer cyclic
thermal loading, Parts 1 and 2, J. Appi. Mechanics, Trans. ASME,
1985: 52, 877.
Ibid. 1985: 52, 883.
[2]
P.W. CLARKE
CONIDA: A finite element program for the stress analysis of
axisymmetric thin shells, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority,
1974: HMSO Report 2382(R).
[3]
J. BREE
Elasticplastic behaviour of thin tubes subjected to internal
pressure and intermittent high heat fluxes with application to fast
nuclear reactor fuel elements, J. Strain Analysis, 1967: 2, 226.
[4]
Interim D.C.W.G. recommendation note on allowable design limits for
type 316 stainless steel in the treated solution condition, UKAEA,
Risley Nuclear Development Estalishment, Report no. CFR/DCWE/P(80)
269.
[5]
P. MORELLE
Numerical shakedown analysis of axisymmetric sandwich shells,
To be published.
[6]
J.R.Q. FRANCO
Ph.D thesis, Leicester University 1987.
[7]
A. BIRON & U.S. CHAWLA
Numerical method for limit analysis of rotationally symmetric shells,
Bulletin de l'Acadmie Polonaise des Sciences, 1970: 18, 109.
[8]
D.H. NGUYEN, M. TRAPELETTI & D. RANSART
Bornes quasiinferieures et bornes superieures de la pression de
ruine des coques de revolution par la methode des elements finis et
par la programmation non limeaire, Int. J. Nonlinear Mechanics,
1978: 13, 79.
[9]
R.T. SHIELD & D.C. DRUCKER
Limit strength of thin walled pressure vessels with an ASME standard
torispherical head, 3rd Congr. of Appi. Mech., 1958: 665.
[10]
Limit analysis of symetrically loaded thin shells of revolution,
ASME J. Appi. Mech., 1959: 26, 61.
 155
Appendix
Extended upper bound shakedown theory and the finite
element method for axisymmetric thin shells
1.
INTRODUCTION
The method developed to establish the position of the shakedown/rat
chetting boundary is based upon the upperbound shakedown theorem [6].
This theorem bounds the magnitude of the mechanical load for a prescribed
temperature cycle by equating the internal rate of plastic energy dissipation to the rate at which the applied mechanical loads do work on mechanisms
of deformation of the body.
The optimal mechanism of deformation is chosen
by linear programming methods to be that which has the lowest energy
dissipation for a given load within the constraints of the structure.
Thus the upperbound estimate of the shakedown/ratchetting boundary will be
either correct or high by the least possible amount within a class of
mechanisms.
2.
UPPERBOUND THEORY
The upperbound theorem [6] relates the energy dissipated by a mech
anism of deformation to the work done by the thermal and mechanical loads,
where the material is assumed to be perfectly plastic.
The energy dissi
pated by the mechanism is the total plastic energy dissipated over the
loading cycle which is given by
,c
'T
( [ aj(x,t) ij(x.t) dt dV
where
(D
denotes the volume of the body and the superscript
that the stress
OM
associated flow law.
and
strain rates
denotes
are related through the
The work done by the mechanical load
\>p on dis
placement can be written as
*
where
P.AUC ds
J
(2)
S denotes the surface area of the body and
159
AU
the plastic dis
placements of the deformation mechanism.
The mechanical load is assumed
to be constant throughout the thermal loading cycle
(t = 0 to t = T) .
c
The displacement AU
is related to the history of Btrain
the condition that the accumulated strain
AU
(3)
e. . dt
Aeij
is compatible with
through
ij
The work done by the thermal loads is an
integral over the thermoelastic stresses
O.. (x,t) in the body,
.(x,t) ijx.t) dt dV
(4)
In terms of these quantities the upper bound theorem is expressed in the
inequality
,T
aJjU.t) J.(x,t) dt dV > ip
'ij
P.AU
ds
(5)
a, ,(x,t) .c
(x,t) dt dV
V
1J
1J
i.e. the energy dissipated must be greater than or equal to the work done
by the system.
The equation (5) may now be rearranged to give a form
suitable for minimization
[a.(x,t)  a,(x,t)] .c (x,t) dt dv > \>
p.AU
ds
(6)
If we now require that
P.AU
ds = 1,
(7a)
inequality (6) simplifies to
[a(x,t) 
(x,t)] ljj(x,t) dt dV > \t
(7b)
Thus the problem can be reduced to a minimization over the volume of the
body throughout the loading cycle.
The problem is reduced to a linear programming problem by first ex160
pressing both
^j
an
Ae^
in terms of the magnitude of the plastic
multipliers corresponding to the surfaces of the Tresca or
12X
surface
of Fig. 2,
k
Lj = Nj^j X k
and
k
Ae^j = N ^ X k , k = 1 to 6
(8)
where the yield surfaces are given by
(9)
Substituting in (7b) yields
f f faij  ij)
ij *k dt dV >  {(a 5(t k )  a lj (t k )N 1 ^} Xk dV > $ (10)
'v o
where
tv
tk
is chosen so that
{(crj(tk) j (t k )) N ^ } < {(aj(t) Sij(t)) NJ} for 0 < t < T
A finite element approximation to the total
Xk
ma
now De
(ID
introduced,
reducing (10) to a linear form in terms of nodal values of the
Xk
The
linear constraint equations are then provided by equation (7a).
This is
achieved by integrating the strain displacement relationships.
D isplace
ment boundary conditions and continuity conditions between elements of
differing geometric types provide further linear constraints which form
part of the linear programming formulation.
For axisymmetric shell problems discussed here the following assump
tions were made;
(a)
The
Xk
varied linearly between nodal points with no through
thickness variation,
(b)
midsection values of
Xk
were continuous between nodes,
161
(c)
at nodal points a concentrated curvature could occur in the form
of a plastic hinge.
When the plastic behaviour of a single element is investigated in
terms of generalised stresses and strains, the behaviour is identical to
the noninteractive yield surface of Drucker and Shield [2], as membrane
action and curvature in the meridional direction are uncoupled by concentrating the curvature at plastic hinges.
Improvements on this approxima
tion are currently under development.
3.
UPPERBOUND METHOD FOR AXISYMMETRIC SHELL ELEMENTS
The structure is divided into a series of finite elements.
Four
types of elements can be so defined for axisymmetric shapes; cylindrical,
conical, toroidal and inverse toroidal.
The strain/displacement relation
ships within such elements are given by
_ dq(s) B(s)
<t> " ds
" rx
(12)
a(s)Cot(>  (s)
(13)
Similarly, the curvatures are given by
H
o
where
d
d^
r q(s)A d(s)i
~7^ + "s  '
d 1 )
otj rojll + d(s)
l
r
r,
ds J
2
(15)
<f denotes the meridional direction and 6
direction and s
is the midsurface coordinate.
the circumferential
O(s) is the displace
ment tangential to the midsurface and (s) is the displacement normal
to the surface towards the axisymmetric axis.
curvature of the element midsurface,
to the axis of rotation, and r
of
rx
r2
rx
defines the radius of
the distance along the radius
the distance of the centre of curvature
to the axis of rotation as illustrated in Fig. 1.
162
For a Tresca yield condition the plastic strains determining the
mechanism are a linear combination of the plastic multipliers, which are
assumed to vary linearly throughout an element, hence the strains in this
approach also vary linearly.
throughout the structure.
terms, particularly
<,
The displacements must also be continuous
It is further desirable that the two curvature
should be small or zero.
Work in bending in the meridional direction are accomodated by the use
of plastic hinges at the nodal points between elements.
The energy dissi
pated by changes in curvature within elements is thus transferred to the
energy dissipated by changes of angle in the plastic hinges.
In certain
exceptional cases, usually only found at high values of the thermal load
or where the geometry is very rapidly varying, it is necessary to specifically account for the energy dissipated caused by changes in curvature
within elements.
In these circumstances the mechanisms found by this
technique would no longer be the lowest upper bound if the curvatures
within the elements were found to be very large.
As the present method
does not account for this mode of energy dissipated the resultant mechanical
load will always be less than the true value.
Thus this method is always
conservative in these conditions.
The plastic hinge angle can be expressed as
=
Lim +
s+s^
d(s) _ Lim _ d(s)
ds
s^Sj^
ds
(l6)
This gives a constraint at each node relating positive hinge angle to the
normal displacements at the node.
It is possible to increase the accuracy
of the yield surface by increasing the number of basic plastic multipliers
from 6 (Tresca) to 12 which decreases the error compared with the Von Mises
ellipse from 15? to 3%.
The constant mechanical load can be separated into an axial load component and a pressure component acting normal to the surface.
163
This allows
a variety of differing loading situations to be studied, namely; axial
loading (tension and compression); pure internal/external pressure;
internal/external pressure (with end plates); bands of internal/external
pressure.
Cylindrical Elements;
The expressions for the strains and curvatures reduce to
e e = B(s)/r2
"
da(s)
ds
KQ = d 2 (s)/ds 2
=
:<
t>
which implies that
a(s)
(17)
(18)
K = 0
varies quadratically and
(19)
3(s) varies linearly
within the element.
Conical Elements:
Here the expressions for the strains and curvatures become
_ a(B)Cos() + g(s)Sin()
9 "
r2Sinc>
=
e
da(s)
ds
K<j, = d 2 (s)/ds 2
Cosd) dg(s)
r Sin<j) ds
As the strains are linear functions of
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
s , then the displacements must
both vary quadratically along the element.
Toroidal Elements:
For toroidal elements the equations for the strains (12) and (13) can
be separated giving a first order differential equation for the displace
ments, which can be solved to give
164
a (s) = C Sin<) + Sint)
ds [e^  ei^/rJD/SirKj)
(s) = C Cos<))  eg r 2 + Cos(J)
where
(24)
ds [e^  eg(r 2 /r 1 ) ]/Sin<>
is a constant determined by the boundary conditions.
(25)
The
strains and plastic multipliers remain linear determining the analytic form
of the displacements.
Inverse Toroidal Elements:
In this case the equations for the strains and curvatures are slightly
different due to redefining the displacement directions to be consistant
with the previous element types.
Again the strain/displacement relations
can be separated giving a first order differential equation for the displacements , which can be solved to give
a(s) = C Sin<t> + Sin(J> I ds [e^ + e (r 2 /r 1 ) ]/Sin<t>
3(s) = C Co8(>  G r 2 + Cost
the constant
ds [E<J, + e 0 (r 2 /r 1 ) ]/Sln<
(26)
(27)
being determined by the boundary conditions.
Minimisation of the Upper Bound by Linear Programming Techniques
The upper bound method is then the straightforward translation of the
strain/displacement relations above into the energy dissipation and work
terms, giving in linear programming terms, a cost function and a general
constraint respectively.
The minimisation takes place to find the
mechanism of smallest cost (plastic energy dissipation less thermal work
done) for a given amount of mechanical work done, subject to the boundary
constraints, mechanical work done constraint and hinge angle constraints.
It can be shown that there is no need for matching constraints between
different element types as the displacements are continuous, if and only
if the tangent angle determining the geometry is continuous.
165
The cost function is evaluated by calculating the left hand side of
equation (10).
The upper bound solution determines the closest solution
to the correct solution within the class of solutions defined by the
various approximations made.
In addition a consequence of the upper
bound theory is that the elastic modulus
expansion
and the coefficient of thermal
are assumed to be constant at values corresponding to the
initial temperature.
The procedure for evaluating the cost function may be summarised as
follows :
1)
For each of the plastic multipliers, corresponding to a face of the
yield surface, find the minimum of the stress difference through the entire
loading cycle, for a given point in space as expressed in inequaltity (11).
This gives a set of times in the loading cycle at which the minima occur.
These times may not coincide for adjacent material points in the structure.
2)
Integrate through the volume of each element using the stress differ
ence minima determined above.
It should be remembered that both the thermoelastic stress and the yield
stress vary throughout the loading cycle as the temperature of the material
changes.
The procedure for calculating the cost function for the plastic hinges
is slightly different.
In order to facilitate linear programming in which
all the variables must be positive, the hinge angle at each node is expressed as the sum of two positive contributions
6i = 6i  dl
(28)
at each hinge the plastic strain rate can be expressed as the sum of
meridional and circumferential contributions
. c,
r .c
ijix.t) = (jjx.t) , e(x,t))
166
(29)
The work dona by the circumferential term can be shown to be zero, and the
strain in the surface meridional direction can be deduced from the elongation of different fibres, initially undistorted, through the thickness.
These elongations vary linearly from the midpoint
h = 0
so that the
layers above are in tension and those below in compression.
e
where
H^
r^
= %
h/rj
(1/2
< h < 1/2)
is the thickness at the
dgx
node.
axis.
0^
and
The hinge point on the yield
Thus for the Tresca yield condition the
plastic hinge is on the junction between
.
(30)
is the radius of curvature corresponding to the angle
surface is along the
This gives
and
and between
and
However, in the limit of small hinge angles, it can be shown that
the hinge involves the plastic multipliers
2).
The hinges are such that
de^
and
only (see Figure
is positive on the outer surface, zero
on the midsurface and negative on the inner surface for positive hinge
angles
(h > 0)
t.
is
Thus the active plastic multiplier above the midsurface
, and below
(h < 0)
is
for
5
way round for negative hinge angles
t.
This is the other
1
The concept of the active
plastic multiplier associated with the plastic hinge is required in order
to apply the extended upper bound method.
The hinge angle is assumed to
be small, which gives the cost function for plastic hinges in the
to be
2Hi0iSint>i
V.2
0i
dh [ r j + H h] h Aox ( x , t )
(3D
/O
case
dh [r* + H h] h Aax5(xi,t)
2TTHi0iSin<J)i
Vi
The procedure for calculating the cost function for the plastic hinges
follows the same method as for the elements, namely;
167 
1)
Search through the loading cycle for the minimum of the stress
difference at a given node and point through the thickness.
2)
Integrate through the thickness changing the sign of the plastic
strain, corresponding to the hinge angle at the midpoint.
The mechanical work done can be be expressed as the sum of contribu
tions from the plastic multipliers within each element, taking account of
the different geometries of the element type.
This forms a general con
straint to the linear programming method determining the size of the mech
anism of deformation.
The upperbound mechanism is thus the solution to the linear program
ming problem above, giving the mechanical load required to reach the
shakedown/ratchetting boundary for a given thermal loading cycle.
4.
EXTEN
D D
E
UPPERBOUND METHOD
The upperbound shakedown theorem only applies when there exists a
residual stress field p^* so that the sum with the thermoelastic history
a
i1
Pii
l l e s within the yield surface.
If, at some point, there exists
no local value of p^j which satisfies this criterion then the shakedown
limit has been exceeded and localized reverse plasticity will occur.
The extension to the shakedown theory employed in EECS3 allows an estimate
of the primary load
\;p which will cause general ratchetting by allowing
localized reverse plasticity to occur.
and Karadeniz [6].
into a region
VF
The theory is described by Ponter
We subdivide the total volume of the structure
where the thermoelastic solution cannot be translated
by the addition of p ^ so that it lies entirely within yield; and its
complement
that
Vo .
cjji + p;M
is
Within
Vp we define a residual stress field
p^* so
contained within the Tresca yield condition for in
creased values of o ^ , k = 1 .. 6.
The particular
one which requires the smallest increase in
168
p^ chosen is the
a k , assuming that the
yield value for each pair of yield surfaces of opposite sign have equal
This means that the sum o^*
yield values.
+ pi
has equal and opposite
values of shear stress corresponding to a pair of yield surfaces.
In
this way we define an assymptotic (in terms of cyclic behaviour) stress
history which assumes complete cyclic hardening of the material.
Ponter and Karadeniz argue that the assumption is conservative.
chet limit is then defined as the load level
shakedown limit in
i>
P Au
^j
also for
ds <
\jp corresponding to the
[crLj (x,t)  Gij (x,t)  PiJ] J dt dV
(32)
VC
is defined in the usual way for the entire volume
Vc
The rat
Vg , given by the upperbound.
where
In [6]
As
p.. i
is a residual stress field in
Pij ij dt dV =
J
Pij ij
dt dv
,T
Pij ij
and hence
then
dt
dv
Vs o
(33)
e
Pij Ae<
i jA dV = 0
Hence the inequality (32) may be written as
P Au
[Oij(x,t)  j(x,t)] ij
ds <
dt dV +
Pij AsijdV (34)
Vs o
As
p^*
is defined in terms of o^* within
Vp
its value may be calculated
without difficulties.
There are two underlying problems in the argument.
calculating
within
Vg
p^
within
Vp
which ensures that
assuming that there exists a distribution
p^
is a residual stress field.
shells this does not present a problem as
VF
p^
can be con
Perhaps a more significant point occurs when the loads
169 
For thin
consists of regions adjacent
to the shell surfaces, and a proof of the existance of
structed.
The method of
\jp are
applied on the surface of
Vp
itself.
In these circumstances we need to
construct, conceptually, a hydrostatic stress field within
translates the surface traction from the surface of
Vg
Vp
Vp which
to the surface of
Again formal proof can be constructed which demonstrates that (32)
remains unchanged when this occurs.
5.
COMPUTATIONAL METHOD
The upperbound method is implemented by the programs EECSHAKEDOWN 1
(EECS1) and EECShakedown 3 (EECS3), both of which take as input the basic
physical dimensions of the axisymmetric shape, the material data (including
yield stress as a function of temperature) and the temperature distribution.
EECS1 calculates the Brussels diagrams for cylindrical tubes subject
to single or multiple stationary axial temperature distributions or a
single moving axial temperature distribution.
The thin shell thermo
elastic stress in this case is calculated assuming uniform temperature
through the thickness and linear temperature variation between specified
points.
EECS3 finds the Brussels diagrams for axisymmetric geometries in which
the tangent angle defining the geometry is continuous, subject to a single
upshock or downshock temperature distribution, which can vary axially or
through the thickness of the shell anywhere within the material volume.
The thermoelastic stress is calculated by a finite element elastic stress
program CONIDA [3] supplied by the UKAEA.
Both programs choose a suitable finite element structure of axisymmetric elements.
This is accomplished by first Inserting nodes at the
ends of the geometrical sections, then giving a minimum number of nodes to
each section.
This is supplemented by adding nodes at the edges and
170
centre of any band of pressure and/or moving temperature front, together
with additional nodes at, and bisecting, the elements either side of any
particular point of stress maxima or minima.
Finally, further nodes are
added up to the required total in areas where the nodes are most sparse.
The energy dissipation or cost function contribution for each node is
then calculated using linear variations of the strains and plastic multipliers within the elements by the method discussed above.
The coeffic
ients of the constraint equations are also calculated, there being one
constrain equation for each plastic hinge (i.e. each node) and one constraint equation for each boundary condition.
There is also one general
constraint equation governing the size of the mechanism, obtained by
setting the work done by the plastic multipliers to a constraint as in
equation (7a).
a)
The boundary constraints are usually:
Displacement normal to the axisymmetric axis (or shell midsurface
depending on mechanical loading type) at one or both ends of the structure
 set to zero
b)
Displacement tangential to the axisymmetric axis (or shell midsurface
depending on mechanical loading types) at one or both ends of the structure
 set to zero
c)
Spherical Cap Elements
Special analytic boundary conditions can be shown to apply at the
centre of the cap.
Displacement tangential to the shell midsurface is set
to zero and,
e
e  e(>
deg/ds = de^/ds = 0
The minimum cost (energy dissipation) is found within the system of
constraints by a sparse matrix linear programming package known as XMP [4],
kindly supplied by Professor Roy Marston of the University of Arizona.
The resultant minimum cost is then the mechanical load at the ratchetting
 171 
boundary and the plastic multipliers active in the solution give the mechanism of deformation.
The maximum number of plastic multipliers active
in the solution is equal to the total number of distinct constrain equations.
In one or two special cases this can produce an incorrect result
as there are insufficient plastic multipliers to give the true mechanism.
However, the value of the mechanical load at the ratchetting boundary remains accurate.
Having solved the linear programming problem the finite element mesh
can be refined by bisecting about the positions of hinges or distinct
plastic multipliers active in the solution.
The problem can then be
resolved to give increased accuracy of solution.
This may be repeated as
often as required, consistant with the cost function and constraint matrix
not becoming illconditioned; twice is usually sufficient for the accuracy
wanted for most problems (greater than 2 significant figures).
Finally, from the plastic multipliers and hinges active in the solution, the deformation of the structure is calculated as well as any changes
or curvature within elements.
The solution process for the mechanical load at the ratchetting boundary is repeated for varying values of the thermal load, until a Brussels
diagram is calculated containing sufficient points.
This is achieved by
linear scaling of the temperature history 0(x,t) = g(x,t) (8 m a x  60)
factor
to produce a sequence of distributions
by a
6^(x,t) differing only
in magnitude
e x ( x , t ) = e0 + x g ( x , t ) ( 6 m a x  e0)
where
60
is the initial temperature and
8max
(35)
(or 0 m l n
is the temperature having the largest difference from
for downshocks)
0O .
The function
g(x,t) is the normalized shape function of the temperature distribution.
172
For experimentally obtained temperature distributions the correct solution
will correspond to the value of
at/cry(0o) obtained when
\ = 1 .
at
is
the maximum shear stress in the thermoelastic distribution, used with the
quantity
Oy(Q0)
at/ay(0o)
denoted by
t >
is the plastic yield stress at
to
characterise the thermal load.
.
The temperature distribution
can then be characterised by its knockdown factor
k , which is defined as
the maximum thermoelastic stress of the temperature distribution divided
by the maximum thermoelastic stress for a step discontinuity having the
same maximum temperature difference
A0 = (max ~ ^ 0 )
k = a t (0 m ax)A E aA0 /2)
The values of
lie in the range
0 < k
< 2 .
(36)
The concept of the
characteristic length or gradient of the temperature distribution
x = AX//(RH)
is not very useful in cases where either the radius
the thickness
magnitude.
R or
vary when the thermoelastic stress is of a significant
During the calculation of the Brussels diagram, at the onset
of the region
V p , where the stress first exceeds twice yield, the pro
gram bisects the thermal load points for increased accuracy.
Both programs thus accurately calculate a sequence of points on the
shakedown/ratchetting boundary, together with their associated deformation
mechanisms, to form a complete Brussels diagram.
6.
THERMOELASTIC STRESS DUE TO AN ARBITRARY AXIAL
TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION ALONG A CYLINDRICAL TUBE
Assuming uniform temperature through the thickness, any axial temp
erature distribution may be represented as the sum of a number of discrete
temperature increments (steps) of height
A0
over length
Ax
Boundary
effects are not included as the tube is assumed to be continuous within the
range of the thermoelastic stresses.
The thermoelastic stress due to a
discrete temperature increment (step) of
173
A0
at a
point
x0
is given by
[ 5 ] as
a<j)(x) = a p + ha t exp(e(xx 0 )/o)) Sin( (xx 0 )/)
(37)
a(x) = ( e / 2 ) a t exp(e(xx 0 )/o)) Cos ( ( x  x 0 ) / u )
(38)
+ iivat exp(e (xx 0 )/(D) Sin ((xx 0 )/w)
where
is the constant axial load, v
is
Poissons Ratio, h
is the
normalized distance across the thickness,  0.5 < h < 0.5, and
= /(3/(iv2))
e = 1
a t = EaA
for
(xx0) < 0
e = 1 for
(xx0) > 0
0)
= /(RH)/V(3(1V2))
is the modulus of elasticity and a is the coefficient of thermal ex
pansion.
R is the radius of the cylinder and H
is the thickness.
The stresses for the temperature distribution are now given by
CtyU) = L CF^UXQ) Ai/Axi
(39)
cr(x) = Z Q Q ( X  X 0 ) A6i/Ax
(40)
This approximation becomes exact as the interval
AXJ becomes infinitely
small and the summation becomes an integration over the length of the
temperature distribution
W .
<V x)=
Q(x) =
d8
<V M o> T dxo
(41)
W
(42)
For computational purposes the temperature distribution is given by the
174
temperature at a number of discrete points
(0j at
Xj, j = 1 * N ) .
Between these points the temperature is assumed to vary linearly.
Thus
the integration may be split into a sum of integrations over segments
t
j+l
In
each segment
(0j+l 0j) / (*j+i Xj).
d8/dx0
Xj
is then a simple constant given by
It should be noted that the term
equations (37) and (38) changes sign at the point
in
x , giving an extra sub
division within that particular segment, using equations (37) and (38) ,
results in simple analytic integral forms.
These expressions may then be
summed over the segments specifying the temperature distribution to produce
the thermoelastic stress at that point in the structure.
175
References
[1]
S. KARADENIZ and A.R.S. PONTER
A linear programming upper bound approach to the shakedown limit of
thin shells subjected to variable thermal loading.
J. Strain Anal.
1984, 19, 221.
[2]
D.C. DRUCKER and R.T. SHIELD
Limit analysis of symetrically loaded thin shells of revolution.
ASME J. Appi. Mech., 1959, 26, 6lb.
[3]
P.w. CLARKE
CONIDA: A finite element program for the stress analysis of
axisymmjetric thin shells. United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority,
197^, HMSO Report 2382(R).
[4]
R.E. MARSTEN
The design of the XMP linear programming library.
 Trans. Math. Soft. (ACM TOMS), 1981, 7, 481.
[5]
Asse. Comp. Mach.
F. ARNAUDEAU, J. ZARKA and J. GERIJ
Thin circular cylinder under axisymmetric thermal and mechanical
loading.
Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Struct. Mech. in React. Tech., San
Francisco, USA, 1977, Vol. L, Paper L6/5.
[6]
A.R.S. PONTER and S. KARADENIZ
An extended shakedown theory for structures that suffer cyclic
thermal loading, Part I and II. J. Appi. Mechanics, Trans ASME,
1984, 52, pp877882 and pp883889.
176
Fig. 1
Characteristic radii for Spheroidal and Composite Shapes
Tresca yield surface
Fig. 2
MIM W ^MMM
177
European Communities Commission
EUR 12686 The computation of shakedown limits for structural
components subjected to variable thermal loading
Brussels diagrams
A.R.S. Ponter, S. Karadeniz, K.F. Carter
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
1990 X, 177 pp., tab., fig. 21.0 x 29.7 cm
Nuclear science and technology series
EN
ISBN 9282613402
Catalogue number: CDNA12686ENC
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 15
Structures submitted to a constant primary load and a cyclic (thermal)
secondary load may for certain combinations of load ratio, geometry and
material properties undergo ratchetting, i.e. a situation where the strains
increase at each cycle of the applied thermal load until failure or
prohibitively large accumulated deformations occur. This report resulting
from CEC Study Contract RAP054UK having mainly fast breeder reactor
applications in mind, discusses the socalled Brussels diagrams which are
a practical tool for the designer for assessing a particular design situation
with respect to ratchetting. Brussels diagrams show four regions: elastic,
shakedown, reverse plasticity and ratchetting.
The theory of Brussels diagrams is presented. It is the upper bound
shakedown theory, specialized for axisymmetric shell elements and in
which the upper bound is minimized by linear programming techniques.
This theory is extended to the reverse plasticity region and has been
implemented in two finite element axisymmetric shell programs which
calculate a sequence of points on the ratchetting boundary. Three classes
of problems are discussed:
(i) The uniaxial transient Bree problem.
(ii) The cylindrical tube subjected to axial load and stationary or moving
temperature discontinuity,
(iii) A range of Brussels diagrams for axisymmetric geometries and thermal
loadings typical of LMFBRs.
The discussion includes comparisons with some experiments and considerations on the sensitivity of the diagrams to the material assumptions.
Venta y suscripciones Salg og abonnement Verkauf und Abonnement nuArjoeiq Kai ouvopouq
Sales and subscriptions Vente et abonnements Vendita e abbonamenti
Verkoop en abonnementen Venda e assinaturas
BELGIQUE/ BELG I
Moniteur belge / Belgisch Staatsblad
Rue de Louvain 42 / Leuvenseweg 42
1000 Bruxelles/ 1000 Brussel
Tl. (02) 512 00 26
Fax 511 01 84
CCP / Postrekening 000200550227
Autres distributeurs / Overige verkooppunten
Librairie europenne /
Europese Boekhandel
Avenue Albert Jonnart 50 /
Albert Jonnartlaan 50
1200 Bruxelles/ 1200 Brussel
Tl. (02) 734 02 81
Fax 735 08 60
Jean De Lannoy
Avenue du Roi 202 /Koningslaan 202
1060 Bruxelles/ 1060 Brussel
Tl. (02) 538 51 69
Tlex 63220 UNBOOK B
CREDOC
Rue de la Montagne 34 / Bergstraat 34
Bte 11 / Bus 11
1000 Bruxelles/ 1000 Brussel
FRANCE
UNITED KING DOM
Journal officiel
Service des publications
des C ommunauts europennes
26, rue Desaix
75727 Paris Cedex 15
Tl. (1) 40 58 75 00
Fax (1) 40 58 75 74
HMSO Books (PC 16)
HMSO Publications Centre
51 Nine Elms Lane
London SW8 5DR
Tel. (01) 873 9090
Fax G P3 873 8463
IRELAND
Government Publications Sales Office
Sun Alliance House
Molesworth Street
Dublin 2
Tel. 71 03 09
or by post
Government Stationery Office
EEC Section
6th floor
Bishop Street
Dublin 8
Tel. 78 16 66
Fax 78 06 45
ITALIA
DANMARK
J. H. Schultz Information A/S
EFPublikationer
Ottiliavej 18
2500 Valby
Tlf. 36 44 22 66
Fax 36 44 01 41
Girokonto 6 00 08 86
BR DEUTSCHLAND
Bundesanzeiger Verlag
Breite Strae
Postfach 10 80 06
5000 Kln 1
Tel. (0221) 20 290
Fernschreiber:
ANZEIGER BONN 8 882 595
Fax 20 29 278
G.C. Eleftheroudakis SA
International Bookstore
Nikis Street 4
10563 Athens
Tel. (01) 322 63 23
Telex 219410 ELEF
Fax 323 98 21
ESPANA
Boletn Oficial del Estado
Trafalgar, 27
28010 Madrid
Tel. (91) 446 60 00
MundiPrensa Libros, S.A.
Castell, 37
28001 Madrid
Tel. (91) 431 33 99 (Libros)
431 32 22 (Suscripciones)
435 36 37 (Direccin)
Tlex 49370MPLIE
Fax (91) 275 39 98
Sucursal:
Librera Internacional AEDOS
Consejo de Ciento, 391
08009 Barcelona
Tel. (93) 301 86 15
Fax (93) 317 01 41
Generalitt de Catalunya:
Llibreria Rambla deis estudia
Rambla. 118 (Palau Moia)
08002 Barcelona
Tel. (93) 302 68 35
302 64 62
Licosa Spa
Via Benedetto Fortini, 120/10
Casella postale 552
50125 Firenze
Tel. (055) 64 54 1 5
Fax 64 12 57
Telex 570466 LICOSA I
CCP 343 509
Subagenti:
Libreria scientifica Lucio de Biasio  AE
Via Meravigli, 16
20123 Milano
Tel. (02) 80 76 79
Herder Editrice e Libreria
Piazza Montecitorio, 117120
00186 Roma
Tel. (06) 679 46 28/679 53 04
Libreria giuridica
Via 12 Ottobre, 172/R
16121 G enova
Tel. (010) 59 56 93
GRANDDUCH DE LUXEMBOURG
Abonnements seulement
Subscriptions only
Nur fr Abonnements
Messageries Paul Kraus
11, rue Christophe Plantin
2339 Luxembourg
Tl. 499 88 88
Tlex 2515
CCP 4924263
NEDERLAND
SDU uitgeverij
Christoffel Plantijnstraat 2
Postbus 20014
2500 EA 'sG ravenhage
Tel. (070) 78 98 80 (bestellingen)
Fax (070) 47 63 51
PORTUGAL
Imprensa Nacional
Casa da Moeda, EP
Rua D. Francisco Manuel de Melo, 5
1092 Lisboa Codex
Tel. (01) 69 34 14
Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand, Ld. a
Grupo Bertrand, SARL
Rua das Terras dos Vales, 4 A
Apartado 37
2700 Amadora Codex
Tel. (01) 493 90 50  494 87 88
Telex 15798 BERDIS
Fax 491 02 55
Subagent:
Alan Armstrong Ltd
2 Arkwright Road
Reading, Berks RG 2 0SQ
Tel. (0734) 75 18 55
Telex 849937 AAALTD G
Fax (0734) 75 51 64
SCHWEIZ / SUISSE / SVIZZERA
OSEC
Stampfenbachstrae 85
8035 Zrich
Tel. (01) 365 51 51
Fax (01) 365 52 21
STERREICH
Manz'sche Verlags
und Universittsbuchhandlung
Kohlmarkt 16
1014 Wien
Tel. (0222) 531 610
Telex 11 25 00 BOX A
Fax (0222) 531 6181
TURKIYE
Dnya super veb ofset A..
Narlibahe Sokak No. 15
Cagaloglu
Istanbul
Tel. 512 01 90
Telex 23822 DSVOTR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNIPUB
4611F Assembly Drive
Lanham, MD 207064391
Tel. Toll Free (8001 274 48e0
Fax (301) 459 0056
Telex 7108260418
CANADA
Renouf Publishing C o., Ltd
61 Sparks Street
Ottawa
Ontario K1P 5R1
Tel. Toll Free 1 (800) 267 41 64
Ottawa Region (613) 238 89 856
Telex 0534936
JAPAN
Kinokuniya C ompany Ltd
177 Shmjuku 3Chome
Shiniukuku
Tokyo 16091
Tel. (03) 354 01 31
Journal Department
PO Box 55 Chitse
Tokyo 156
Tel. (03) 439 01 24
SVERIGE
BTJ
Box 200
22100 Lund
Tel. (046) 18 00 00
Fax (046) 18 01 25
AUTRES PAYS
OTHER COUNTRIES
ANDERE LNDER
Office des publications officielles
des C ommunauts europennes
2, rue Mercier
L2985 Luxembourg
Tel 49 92 81
Tlex PUBOF LU 1324 b
Fax 48 85 73
CC bancaire BIL 8109/6003/700
(D
NOTICE TO THE READER
PO
All scientific and technical reports published by the Commission of the European Communities
are announced in the monthly periodical 'euro abstracts'. For subscription (1 year: ECU 84)
please write to the address below.
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 15
* **
*__*
* Of> *
***
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
COMMUNITIES
0 F T H E EUROPEAN
L2985 Luxembourg
ISBN l E  a s b  i a i D  E
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.