ASME stress classification lines though singularities, guidance and examples.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

213 Aufrufe

ASME stress classification lines though singularities, guidance and examples.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- En13445 vs Asme
- wrc 538
- WRC Bulletin 537 With Erratas
- WRC-BULL368_91
- Mechanical Equipment Design
- ASMEed1b1737-8479-20131028110317.pdf
- Compare Codes - Fatigue
- 3 Fatigue Analysis in Pressure
- 130829_Course Syllabus_me5510 me6510_Fall 2013 (1).pdf
- ANSYS Stress Linearization
- Local Stress Analysis by Chris Hinnant
- Wrc 525 (Fabrication and Repair of Low Alloy Steels)
- WRC_510
- FEA Flat Plate Analysis
- 21-ICCSM2011-S0057
- CIRCLY 5.0 User Manual
- 342
- 11 IJAERS
- A Finite Element Study of the Effect of Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing on Bolt Design Stresses in Torque Carrying Bolted Flanges
- expt3

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

July 27-31, 2008, Chicago, Illinois USA

PVP2008-61746

STRESS CLASSIFICATION LINES STRAIGHT THROUGH SINGULARITIES

Arturs Kalnins

Professor Emeritus of Mechanics

Lehigh University

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

E-mail: ak01@Lehigh.edu

ABSTRACT

The paper considers geometries of pressure vessels and

components for which the theoretical models contain sharp

corners, representing singularities. The idea is proposed that a

stress classification line passed straight through the singularity

can yield linearized stresses that are applicable in pressure

vessel design. Using elastic finite element analysis, details of

the procedures by which this result can be achieved are given

for two examples. One is a sharp corner at the toe of a fillet

weld. Membrane and bending stresses are calculated directly in

the toe plane, showing little or no dependence on mesh size.

The other is an axisymmetric shell with a flat head and a sharp

corner at the joint. The objective is to determine the primaryplus-secondary stress intensity on a Stress Classification Line

(SCL) through the joint. Two methods are used. One is by

determining the zone of valid SCLs and extrapolating the

linearized stresses to the joint. The other is by calculating the

linearized stresses directly on the SCL through the joint.

Conditions for the use of the SCL through the joint for the

shell/flat head model are established.

NOMENCLATURE

S11, S22, S12 = in-plane stresses in FEA model of 2-D solid

elements in X,Y,Z coordinate system, as shown in Figure 4

S33 = out-of-plane stress in FEA model, in Z direction, hoop

stress for axisymmetric 2-D elements

NFORC1, NFORC2 = nodal forces of 2-D solid elements

m , b = membrane and bending stress, respectively

P+Q = primary plus secondary Tresca stress

m, b = suffixes for membrane and bending stresses

F = force developed by stresses on SCP

M = moment developed by stresses on SCP

SCP = Stress Classification Plane

SCL = Stress Classification Line, an SCP of infinitesimal width

1 INTRODUCTION

For design-by-analysis of pressure vessels, the leap from

shell analysis to finite element analysis (FEA) about forty years

ago brought much benefit but left some details in a more

difficult position. One of such details is a sharp corner* at a

local structural discontinuity. It plays no role in shell analysis

but influences the stresses in FEA. If the corner radius is

unspecified at the design stage, it is common practice to model

the corner with a zero radius. In that case, these corners

represent a singularity.

The problem with singularities is that FEA-calculated

elastic stresses at the singularity increase without bound as the

mesh is refined. These stress values have no physical meaning

for any mesh size. The question is whether the linearized

stresses acting on planes straight through the singularity are

still meaningful for design. This is addressed in the paper.

2 PREVIOUS WORK

Previous work on the classification of FEA-calculated

stresses goes back to more than three decades. The early papers

are by Kroenke1, Kroenke, Addicott, and Hinton2, Hinton and

Hechmer3, and Gordon4. Hechmer and Hollinger5 extended the

concept to three-dimensional geometries. Hollinger and

Hechmer6 gave a summary of this work. More recent papers are

by Ming-Wan Lu, Yong Chen, Jian-Guo Li7, and by Strzelczyk

and Ho8. The focus of these papers is on the membrane and

membrane-plus-bending stress intensities that are appropriate

for assessing the stress intensity limits involving primary and

secondary stresses.

*

For the purposes of this paper, a sharp corner is one for which the

angle through the material between two intersecting boundary planes is greater

than . In a continuum analysis, the stresses at such corners are infinite. For

angles less than , the stresses at the corners are zero.

2005 by ASME

Copyright 2008

Abaqus). FEA models for two mesh sizes were built, consisting

of 1 and 4 elements through thickness, shown in Figure 2. The

deformed shape that results from this loading and boundary

conditions is shown in Figure 3 for the 4-element model.

relevant to fatigue assessment of welded joints that is based on

the assumption that the controlling stress for fatigue is a

function of the elastic membrane plus bending stress normal to

a hypothetical crack plane. This concept has been developed by

Dong9 and his colleagues at the Battelle Memorial Institute. It

is now included in 2007 Section VIII-Division 2 of the ASME

B&PV Code10.

336

120

12

The paper is concerned with linearized stresses that are

derived from the resultant action (forces and moments) on a

selected plane of a structural element, commonly called stress

classification plane (SCP), or, for 2-D and axisymmetric

models, the stress classification line (SCL).

The objective of the paper is to show that an SCL passed

straight through the singularity can yield results that are not

influenced by the numerical disturbance of the singularity.

Two examples are selected to show how to edit elastic

FEA-calculated stresses obtained from standard FEA output

(no macros) to obtain the stresses needed in design. The edits

are based on the work of Gordon4.

In the first example, Gordons Force and Moment Edit is

used to determine the membrane and bending stresses of a

stress component that is applied to a specified SCP. Two

methods are given by Gordon for this edit, the stress method

and the force method. Both methods are used.

In the second example, Gordons Stress Intensity Edit is

used to determine the primary-plus-secondary (P+Q) Tresca

stress intensity.

Examples of performing these two edits are given next.

P

SCL

Figure 1: Geometry of the example

4.1

MODEL

This is meant to be a simple example to illustrate a case in

which an SCL passes straight through a singularity. Gordons4

edits are performed to calculate the membrane and bending

stresses for the model shown in Figure 1. The dimensions are in

mm. Both the nodal stress and nodal force methods are used.

For the stress method, the nodal stresses are integrated over the

SCL to obtain the forces and moments, while, for the nodal

force method, the internal or reaction forces are summed over

the nodes of the SCL The results are also checked with

Abaqus/Standard11 version 6.7-1 CAE postprocessors stress

linearization option.

The middle node of the left end of the model is restrained

from vertical and horizontal displacement. The middle node at

the right end is restrained from vertical displacement and

subjected to a force of P=1200 Newtons (270 lb). Solutions are

obtained by the Abaqus11 finite element program using 8noded, quadratic, 2-D solid, plane strain elements (CPE8 in

According to Dongs approach9, only the membrane and

bending stresses produced by the force and moment that are

applied to the structural element to the right of the SCL are

considered. The reason for choosing this example is that the

exact values are known. They can be calculated from static

equilibrium and are given by equations (1) and (2).

F = 1200 N

1200 12

M=

120 = 5,143N mm

336

(1)

(2)

The term SCL refers to a line that is used to represent an SCP in a 2-D

model. This justifies the term singularity, which refers to a point on the SCL.

It is understood that stresses are applied to a plane (SCP), not to a line (SCL).

unit out-of-plane length of the plane strain structural element,

are then given by equations (3) and (4).

1200

= 100 Mpa

12

6

b = 2 5,143 = 214.3Mpa

12

m =

(3)

SCL

(4)

equations (1) to (4) with those calculated by FEA. This

objective is achieved based on the FEA results discussed next.

4.2

Abaqus11 finite element program is used to calculate the

stresses (variable name S) and nodal forces (variable name

NFORC) for the element set (ELSET=STACK) on the righthand side of the SCL shown in Figure 4. An important point is

that the nodal stresses not be averaged with those on the lefthand side of the SCL.

The STACK is defined for elements 29, 97, 165, and 233,

as shown in Figure 4. The print command includes the

parameter POSITION=NODES, which does not average the

stresses at the nodes. The resulting output is shown in Table 1.

The node numbers are identified in Figure 5. The results are

shown for the 4-element model. Similar results were obtained

for a 1-element model.

STACK

Figure 4: Zoom of singularity region

SCL

Element

29

29

29

97

97

97

165

165

165

233

233

233

Node

57

257

457

457

657

857

857

1057

1257

1257

1457

1657

S11

-89.34

-40.93

-0.26

-0.18

42.09

83.75

83.49

112.00

155.60

163.60

272.10

477.70

NFORC1

-43.17

-80.79

-6.97

9.54

83.39

34.62

44.18

244.30

77.79

90.60

465.00

281.50

yc

y

The stress S11 and force NFORC1, both per unit out-ofplane length, are normal to the SCL. In the table, the nodes 457,

857, and 1257 have two values, one received from each

adjoining element. The fact that they are not the same indicates

that they have not been averaged. Even though the stresses

could have been averaged between the elements of the STACK,

the integration scheme for not-averaged stresses, given in

subsection 4.4, is convenient for biased nodal distances.

y2

4.3

OBJECTIVE

Two singularity effects are investigated in this subsection.

The first is the behavior of stresses at a singularity. This is

shown in Figure 6 for the stress component normal to the SCL.

For the 4-element model, the stresses for Figure 6 are taken

from Table 1. It is seen that S11 at node 1657 increases from

333 MPa for 1 element mesh to 478 MPs for a 4 element mesh.

This illustrates the main problem addressed in this paper that

stresses at singularity diverge with refined mesh.

Mk =

y1

(6)

hk

[( y yc )1 S111 + ( y yc ) 2 4 S112 + ( y yc )3 S113 )

6

where y is the coordinate with origin at bottom of SCL (see

Figure 5), k denotes the k-th element, y1 and y2 are the y

coordinates at bottom and top of k-th element, hk is its height,

subscripts 1, 2, and 3 refer to the three nodes on the SCL of the

k-th element, and yc is the y value to the centroid of the SCP

represented by the SCL (node 857 in Figure 5). For the 4element model, the membrane and bending stresses acting on

the SCL are then obtained from equations (7) and (8).

500

400

Stress, MPa

( y y )S11dy

1 k =4

Fk

t k =1

6 k =4

b = 2 Mk

t k =1

300

m =

200

100

0

(7)

(8)

-100

4.5

For plane stress and strain 2-D solid elements, standard

Abaqus output gives two internal nodal forces in X and Y

directions. For the 4-element model, the forces in X direction

that are applied to the nine nodes of the elements of the

STACK are listed in the last column of Table 1. Just as for the

nodal stresses, there are 12 forces that represent 3 nodal forces

of 4 elements. The membrane and bending stresses acting on

the SCL are calculated from equations (9) and (10)

-200

0

10

12

1-element

4-elements

Upon broader view, it follows that nodal stresses and

strains obtained by FEA at a singularity have no physical

meaning in any part of pressure vessel design.

The second effect investigated in this subsection is the

dependence of the membrane and bending stresses on mesh

refinement. For the purpose of this paper, the key test is

whether or not these stresses also diverge with refined mesh.

To check on that test, the force and moment that are acting on

the SCL, and the corresponding stresses, are calculated from an

Excel spreadsheet. The basis for the calculation comes from

Gordons4 Effective Force and Moment Edit.

S11dy

y1

hk

( S111 + 4 S112 + S113 )

6

b =

6

t2

m =12

(y

m =1

(9)

yc ) NFORC1m

(10)

NFORCm and

ym are the nodal force and the y coordinate of the m-th node,

respectively, on the SCL.

The integration for the force and moment acting on the

SCL portion of the k-th element was performed by Simpsons

quadratic rule for each element separately using equations (5)

and (6).

y2

1 m =12

NFORC1m

t m =1

4.4

Fk =

m =

4.6

Abaqus/Standard11 version 6.7-1 CAE postprocessors

stress linearization option is used to check the Excel results.

However, the following procedure was found to be necessary to

obtain consistent results. First, when using the CAE, the

ELSET=STACK was selected so that it alone appeared on the

screen, like that shown in Figure 5. Then a PATH was created

over the nodes on the SCL. Finally, the stress averaging box

was switched off on the menu Results/Options. Wrong results

can be obtained if this procedure is not followed.

(5)

4.7

RESULTS

The results are shown in the tables below.

The heading refers to the term used in Gordons paper4.

The objective is to investigate the use of an SCL straight

through the singularity for the calculation of the primary-plussecondary Tresca stress intensity, referred to as P+Q stress. The

general and local primary stress limits are left out of this edit

because they can be easily dealt with by limit analysis (see, for

example the WRC Bulletin #464 by Kalnins12). The edit is

applied to the model discussed next, and conclusions are drawn

for this model. Extensions to other models may be possible but

are left out of the scope of this paper.

Method

Elements

Error %

Nodal Stress

Method

103.2

3.2

100.6

0.6

Nodal Force

Method

100.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Abaqus CAE

Postprocessor

103.2

3.2

100.7

0.7

Exact

n/a

100.0

0.0

5.1

MODEL

The edit is performed for the axisymmetric vessel shown in

Figure 7. To assess divergence with refined mesh, FEA models

with 1, 2, 4, and 8 elements across the shell wall were built.

The 4-element model is shown in Figure 7. The axis of

symmetry is marked by the dot-dashed line and the SCL of

interest by the red line at the joint of the shell and the head.

For the cylindrical shell, the inside and outside radii are 10

and 11.5 inches (254 and 292 mm), respectively, and the length

is 15 inches (381 mm). The flat head is 3 inches (76.2 mm)

thick. Uniform internal pressure is applied. The lower end of

the shell is subjected to a symmetry boundary condition in Y

direction. The nodes of the shell and head are defined

separately and tied together at the joint. The modulus of

elasticity is 30,000 ksi (207 GPa), Poissons ratio is 0.3, and the

design stress intensity S m is 17.5 ksi (120.7 MPa).

Method

Elements

Error %

Nodal Stress

Method

214.2

0.0

217.0

1.3

214.3

0.0

214.3

0.0

Abaqus CAE

Postprocessor

214.4

0.1

217.5

1.5

Exact

n/a

214.3

0.0

Nodal Force

Method

4.8

DISCUSSION OF EXAMPLE

The results of Table 2 and Table 3 illustrate the key point

made in this paper that while stresses at singularity diverge

with refined mesh, the membrane and bending stresses do not.

Comparison of the results of the nodal stress and nodal

force method support Gordons4 finding that the nodal

force method is the more accurate of the two, matching, in

fact, the exact results for both the 1 and 4 element models in

this case. These results support the claim that an SCL passed

straight through the singularity of a finite element model can

yield linearized stresses that do not diverge with refined mesh,

at least for the 2-D solid elements used in the example.

The close agreement of the nodal stress method and the

Abaqus11 CAE postprocessors stress linearization option is

expected because the stress integration rules are essentially the

same as those given by equations (5) to (8). However, the

procedure stated in subsection 4.6 had to be followed to

achieve that result.

For the primary and secondary stress categories, the

calculation of stress intensities is required. This is what

Gordons4 Stress Intensity Edit is meant for. It will be discussed

next.

Figure 7: Model for Shell/Flat Head Example

5.2

stress components may prevent the calculating the P+Q stress

by passing the SCL straight through the joint. This will be

performed by extrapolating the stresses to the joint.

P+Q INGREDIENTS

the P+Q stress for the axisymmetric model shown of Figure 7:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Hoop membrane plus bending stress, S33(m+b)

Average in-plane shear stress, S12(m)

Average through-thickness normal stress, S11(m)

S11, S22, S12 are the in-plane stresses in the X,Y directions

shown in Figure 7, and S33 is the out-of-plane hoop stress in Z

direction. The suffixes m and b denote membrane and

bending stresses, except in S11(m) and S12(m), where the m

has nothing to do with physical membrane action.

Critical SCL

5.3

When discussing criteria for the placement of SCLs,

Hechmer and Hollinger5 recommended certain conditions that

are necessary for a valid SCL. Similar recommendations are

stated in the Informative Annex 5.A of 2007 Section VIIIDivision 2 of the ASME B&PV Code10. The important

conditions for the purposes of this paper are:

Valid SCLs

over the SCL should be linear, with the surface stresses

close to the applied pressure

2. The in-plane shear stress (S12) distribution over the SCL

should be parabolic, with the surface stresses close to zero

Abaqus11 for the 8-element model by passing SCLs at 15

consecutive element boundaries of the shell, at and below that

of the critical SCL in Figure 8, including those in both the valid

and invalid zones. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the S11 and

S12 stresses up to the distance of 1.3125 inches from the joint.

Table 4 lists their values on the ID of the shell. Table 4, Figure

9, and Figure 10 show that the above conditions are satisfied

within a zone beginning somewhere between 0.75 and 1.125

inches and extending further away from the joint. Figure 8

shows the zone of the valid SCLs along the shell.

Distance from

joint, inches

0.000

0.1875

0.375

0.5625

0.75

0.9375

1.125

1.3125

S11

S12

25.97

-1.20

-0.26

-0.87

-0.99

-1.04

-1.01

-1.01

-19.13

1.72

-0.08

-0.66

-0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.02

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

From Joint 0

SCLs at 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) intervals away from joint

5.4

EXTRAPOLATION TO JOINT

The P+Q stress at the joint can be obtained by

extrapolating the stresses from the valid zone to the joint. This

procedure was used in Appendix IV of Hechmer and

Hollingers5 WRC Bulletin No. 429 for a similar geometry.

To see how this would work for the current example, the

linearized stresses on the ID of the shell, which were

determined in subsection 5.3, are plotted in Figure 11 and

Figure 12. In these figures, a valid-SCL limit is assumed at

Y=0.75 from the joint. If the limit were assumed at Y=1.125

inches from the joint, two more points would move from the

valid to the invalid zone.

Figure 11 indicates no problem of extrapolating S22(m+b)

and S12(m) from the valid into the invalid zone and arriving at

the same value at the joint (at Y=0) as that obtained from

placing an SCL straight through the joint. Thus, for the current

example, the validity requirement that the in-plane shear stress

distribution over the SCL appear parabolic and its surface

stresses be close to zero is unnecessary. While the S12 and S22

stresses at the singularity diverge with refined mesh and are

unusable, this is not true for the linearized stresses over the

SCL through the joint.

This behavior of S22(m+b) and S12(m) is attributed to the

fact that these stress components arise from the meridional

force and moment and shear force that are necessary to satisfy

the continuity and equilibrium of the structure at the joint. This

is in line with the results obtained in the Force and Moment

Edit of section 4, confirming the expectation that finite element

stresses satisfy equilibrium of structural elements.

On the other hand, Figure 12 indicates a more uncertain

extrapolation of S33(m+b) and S11(m) to the joint.

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

From joint 0

at 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) intervals away from joint

20

S22(m+b)-valid

15

S22(m+b)-invalid

Stress, ksi

S12(m)-valid

S12(m)-invalid

10

8

7

6

5

Stress, ksi

-5

0.000 0.375 0.750 1.125 1.500 1.875 2.250 2.625 3.000

S33(m+b)-valid

S33(m+b)-invalid

S11(m)-valid

S11(m)-invalid

4

3

2

1

0

-1

0.000 0.375 0.750 1.125 1.500 1.875 2.250 2.625 3.000

shell ID and average in-plane shear stress

ID and average through-thickness normal stress

participate in establishing continuity and equilibrium of the

structure at the joint. By any reasonable extrapolation

technique, it is unlikely that it will arrive at the same value at

the joint (Y=0) as that obtained from placing an SCL straight

through the joint.

Regarding the S33(m+b) hoop stress, examination of the

stress values in Figure 11 and Figure 12 reveals that it plays no

role in the P+Q stress for the current example. The average inplane shear stress (Figure 11) is small (about 2 ksi), and the

highest principal stress remains close to S22(m+b). Since

S33(m+b) is greater than S11(m), as shown in Figure 12, the

lowest principal stress remains close to S11(m).

Thus, whatever S33(m+b) is extrapolated to the joint

(about 3 to 4 ksi in Figure 12), or calculated directly on the

SCL through the joint (7.6 ksi), it will not affect the maximum

Tresca P+Q stress.

However, this is not the case for the average throughthickness normal stress, S11(m), at the joint. If included in

P+Q, it does affect the maximum Tresca P+Q stress for the

vessel. The consequence of that is considered next.

5.5

higher. But how much higher?

0.2

0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

0.75 in. from Joint

-1

-1.2

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

The fact that the average through-thickness normal stress,

S11(m), on the SCL through the joint is 4.4 ksi (Figure 12),

while a rough extrapolated value appears less than 1.0 ksi,

indicates that the former is affected by the purely numerical

disturbance of the singularity. It is easy to see why.

The reason is that it is obtained from the average of the

FEA-calculated S11 stress on the SCL at the joint, which is the

curve marked with red squares in Figure 9. While the curve

should go down to a known value of -1.0 ksi to match the

applied pressure, it goes up to the value of 26 ksi for the 8element model and will diverge with a more refined mesh.

Since all the red squares indicate positive numbers, it is

obvious that the average stress, S11(m), will also diverge with

refined mesh. Therefore, the FEA-calculated value of 4.4 ksi is

wrong.

The conclusion at this point is that if the FEA-calculated

S11(m) stress on the SCL through the joint were used in the

calculation of the maximum Tresca P+Q stress, it would also be

affected by the singularity. This, of course, is the reason why

the SCL through the joint has been marked as invalid. So,

what is the right value of S11(m), extrapolated or determined

otherwise? This will be discussed next.

SCLs at 0.75 (19) and 1.125 inches (33 mm) away from joint

There does not appear to be a direct way to answer that

question. The answer could be estimated by the extrapolation

from the valid-SCL zone, with some uncertainty. According to

Figure 12, the S11(m) value at the joint is estimated at about

0.7 ksi if the SCL validity limit is assumed at 0.75 inches and at

about 0.0 ksi if the SCL validity limit is assumed at 1.125

inches from the joint. The P+Q stresses for these estimates are

listed in Table 5.

Method

Extrapolation

Extrapolation

FEA-calculated

S11(m)

0.7

0.0

4.4

17.5

0.0

18.1

3.4

14.0

-20.0

respect to the extrapolated S11(m) value of 0.7. The positive

error indicates a conservative value and the negative error an

unconservative value with respect to that obtained for

S11(m)=0.7 ksi. The FEA-calculated value, which has already

been established as wrong in subsection 5.5.1, is included for

comparison. When assessing the errors, the potential

uncertainties of the extrapolation should also be considered.

The selection of the estimated value of 0.7 ksi was made to

show that the estimated 0.0 value leads to a higher, thus more

conservative, P+Q stress.

The question now is: How can S11(m) be calculated to

escape the numerical disturbance of the singularity that is

apparent from the FEA-calculated S11 distribution in Figure 9?

It is observed that instead of that in Figure 9, the S11 stress

distribution over the joint SCL ought to be like that shown in

Figure 13, in which the two curves shown represent the S11

stress over the SCLs at the two estimated SCL validity limits.

The S11(m) of the 0.75 inch curve is -0.20 and that of the 1.125

5.5.3

6 CONCLUSIONS

linearization routine includes not only the FEA-calculated

average through-thickness normal stress but also its bending

component. The definition of the bending component includes

the through-thickness normal stress values at the endpoints of

the SCL.

If the selected SCL passes through a singularity, the

bending component will diverge with a refined mesh. The

resulting values of what are output as Tresca Stress and

Mises Stress (i.e., P+Q stresses) on the CAE report file will

also diverge with refined mesh. This linearization routine

should not be used for the calculation of the P+Q stresses over

an SCL that contains a singularity at one of its end points.

These stresses are only valid remote from SCLs passing

through singularities.

simpler alternative to other methods for the determination of

linearized and Tresca P+Q stress intensity at discontinuities

modeled by sharp corners.

2. When an SCL is passed through the weld toe that is

modeled by a sharp corner, the stresses at the singularity

diverge with refined mesh but the membrane and bending

stresses on the toe plane do not and show little dependence on

mesh size.

3. For the weld toe example, Gordons4 nodal force method

and the nodal stress method both give results that agree

closely with available exact results, with the nodal force

method being the more accurate of the two, confirming

Gordons finding.

5.6

DISCUSSION

The two methods considered for calculating P+Q stresses

at a joint with a discontinuity were the extrapolation and the

direct calculation over an SCL through the joint. The former

involved calculation of stresses over many SCLs, a search for

the valid SCL zone, and then extrapolation of the stresses to the

joint. The latter involved the stress calculation over a single

SCL. By any measure, the latter appears preferable. The only

obstacle in its application was the uncertainty in the calculation

of the average through-thickness normal stress.

The question can be raised whether this obstacle is real. It

is not immediately obvious what role, if any, the throughthickness normal stress plays in the P+Q stress. It is not

primary because it does not equilibrate applied loading on

structural elements, and it is not secondary because it does not

participate in satisfying continuity of the shell/flat head

structure. It is neither P nor Q.

Even if this argument is not accepted and convincing

support for its inclusion can be formulated, the results of

subsection 5.5.2 showed minimal effect on the P+Q stress.

Most important, the FEA-calculated S11(m) gave a P+Q stress

20% less than that obtained from the extrapolated values,

rendering it unusable. It also showed that its extrapolated

magnitude, depending on the extrapolation technique, could

vary from zero to 3.4 % of the meridional membrane plus

bending stress, which is the main actor in ensuring continuity

and equilibrium of the joint.

Two other options could be considered for the throughthickness normal stress contribution to the P+Q stress at the

joint, which use its value in the valid SCL zone. Gordons

paper4 sets it equal to the applied pressure on the shell I.D.,

which for this case would be -1.0 ksi. The other is to use the

FEA-calculated -0.5 ksi for its average that is shown in Figure

12. Referring to Table 5, this would increase P+Q to 19.1 ksi

and 18.6 ksi, respectively.

As shown in subsection 5.5.2, the average stress is bound

to be greater than these values, which does not justify the

increased P+Q stress. Setting it to zero seems like a valid

compromise for using an SCL straight through the singularity.

4. For the axisymmetric shell/flat head example, an FEAcalculated average through-thickness normal stress over an

SCL containing a singularity is affected by a numerical

disturbance of the singularity. If used in the Tresca P+Q

stress intensity, it is shown to be unconservative.

5. The results suggest that neither the average throughthickness normal stress nor its bending component (i.e., the

linear part) should be included in the P+Q stress at a joint

with a discontinuity. If accepted, this could result in a simple,

conservative, and justifiable compromise for using an SCL

straight through the singularity.

6. The values of Tresca and Mises P+Q stresses, output by

the Abaqus/Standard11 version 6.7-1 CAE postprocessor

linearization routine should not be used on an SCL passing

through a singularity.

REFERENCES

1

Stresses According to ASME Section III Stress Categories,

Pressure Vessels and Piping, Analysis and Computers, ASME,

New York, NY.

2

Kroenke, W. C., Addicott, G. W., and Hinton, B. M., 1975,

Interpretation of Finite Element Stresses According to ASME

Section III, ASME Paper 75-PVP-Vol. 63.

3

Hinton, B. M., and Hechmer, J. L., 1976, "Secondary Stress

Evaluation at a Singularity," ASME Technical Paper 76-PVP67, New York, The American Society of Mechanical

Engineers.

4

Gordon, J. L., 1976, Outcur: An Automated Evaluation of

Two-Dimensional Finite Element Stresses According to ASME

Section III Stress Requirements, 1976 ASME Winter Annual

Meeting, Paper 76-WA/PVP-16.

Criteria Guidelines for Application, Welding Research

Council Bulletin No. 429, Feb., The Pressure Vessel Research

Council, New York, NY.

6

Hollinger, G. L., and Hechmer, J. L., 2000, ThreeDimensional Stress CriteriaSummary of the PVRC Project,

ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, vol. 122, pp.

105109.

7

Ming-Wan Lu, Yong Chen, and Jian-Guo Li, 2000, "TwoStep Approach of Stress Classification and Primary Structure

Method", Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, February

2000, Vol. 122, pp. 2-8.

8

Strzelczyk, A. T., and Ho, S. S., 2007, Evaluation of

Linearized Stresses Without Linearization, 2008 ASME PVP

Conference Proceedings, Paper PVP2007-26357.

9

Dong, P., 2001, A Structural Stress Definition and Numerical

Implementation for Fatigue Analysis of Welded Joints,

International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 23, pp 865876.

10

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2007, American

Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New

York, NY 10016-5990.

11

Abaqus Finite Element Program, Version 6.7-1, Hibbitt,

Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, R.I., by Educational

License to Lehigh University

12

Kalnins, A., 2001, Guidelines for Sizing of Vessels by Limit

analysis, Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 464, August

2001, The Pressure Vessel Research Council, New York, NY.

10

- En13445 vs AsmeHochgeladen vonjeff501
- wrc 538Hochgeladen vonAlexandru Asmarandei
- WRC Bulletin 537 With ErratasHochgeladen vonDímitra Katsiorchis
- WRC-BULL368_91Hochgeladen vonochable
- Mechanical Equipment DesignHochgeladen vonzuber2111
- ASMEed1b1737-8479-20131028110317.pdfHochgeladen vonsajadranjbaran
- Compare Codes - FatigueHochgeladen vonMPham
- 3 Fatigue Analysis in PressureHochgeladen vonArjun Charan
- 130829_Course Syllabus_me5510 me6510_Fall 2013 (1).pdfHochgeladen vonabdullahaafaq
- ANSYS Stress LinearizationHochgeladen vonTiago Candeias
- Local Stress Analysis by Chris HinnantHochgeladen vonjohnnyr_5
- Wrc 525 (Fabrication and Repair of Low Alloy Steels)Hochgeladen vonBaibur Saladin
- WRC_510Hochgeladen vonCarl duax
- FEA Flat Plate AnalysisHochgeladen vonarunprasath1978
- 21-ICCSM2011-S0057Hochgeladen vonash1968
- CIRCLY 5.0 User ManualHochgeladen vonIkha Arsyikha
- 342Hochgeladen vonNgườiđẹptrai Nhấtvũtrụ
- 11 IJAERSHochgeladen vonmanurung4
- A Finite Element Study of the Effect of Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing on Bolt Design Stresses in Torque Carrying Bolted FlangesHochgeladen vonKarthik Karunanidhi
- expt3Hochgeladen vonDebmalya1997
- FEM IA -1 QPHochgeladen vonHari Krishnan
- Gate Min 2016Hochgeladen vonVidya Sagar
- ANSYS Assign 1-Transmission Tower.pdfHochgeladen vonTON
- RMHochgeladen vonalma.gagon8440
- TRANSFORMING PCOMP TO PSHELL.pdfHochgeladen vonManoj Kumar
- FEM analysis of pavement linear and non linear.pdfHochgeladen vonHanamant Hunashikatti
- Chapter 4 - Pure BendingHochgeladen vonAqil Afham
- 150374Hochgeladen vonsagar1503
- LM8.pdfHochgeladen vonJuan Camilo Charris Hernández

- SolidWorks Simulation - Avoiding SingularitiesHochgeladen vonAnonymous P8Bt46mk5I
- Solidworks Non Linear Tips and TricksHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- How to Troubleshoot Model is Unstable ErrorsHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Zyg-Anodic-Index.pdfHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- CMI Level 7 ExamplesHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- momi_table.pdfHochgeladen vonEbru Önlü Dural
- ORING hand book handbook.pdfHochgeladen vonBandarSWCC
- circlip_data.pdfHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Ta Elastomer Cure DatesHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- LM6Hochgeladen vonKaio Dos Santos Silva
- Parker O-Ring Handbook[1]Hochgeladen vonhlusk9neogas
- buckling of columnsHochgeladen vonSamul Tyagi
- 19 Rack DesignGuideHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- ANSYS ConvergenceHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Mesh ControlsHochgeladen vonFernando Marquez
- Galvanic_Relationship_Of_Metals.xlsHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Galvanic Corrosion ChartHochgeladen vonakalp1005
- Screw TorqueHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Dnv Bolts Failure Analisys Marine ApplicationHochgeladen vonBrian Chmeisse
- Torque SettingsHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Euler s BucklingHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- LS-PrePost Intro 2016Hochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Zero PivotHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Linearized Stress – Using Nodal Locatio...Echanical 14.5 _ PADT, Inc. – the BlogHochgeladen vonRay Faiers
- Example Galvanic DesignHochgeladen vonJoel Guiao
- (16) Subsea Production 05-SC 17Hochgeladen vones_kike
- Outokumpu Stainless Steel HandbookHochgeladen vonPhred Cayetano
- Technology QualificationHochgeladen vonRay Faiers

- Pre-treatment of Textile Wastewaters Containing Chrysophenine Using Hybrid MembranesHochgeladen vonnimzai
- 11_g4_coolant_fan_double_speed.pdfHochgeladen vonAurelNechita
- Epoxy Inlays.pdfHochgeladen von88No1Fan
- Bright Annealing Copper and Its AlloysHochgeladen vonmp87_ing
- Combined Heat and Power Design GuideHochgeladen vonTrong Hieu Nguyen
- ch12Hochgeladen vonddubbah
- IndexHochgeladen vonstephanoupolus
- FSV831-PriceSheetHochgeladen vonSheikh Shoaib
- Automation Technology for the Food Industry Catalogue 2015/2016Hochgeladen vonifm electronic
- Ph MeterHochgeladen vonlazytinku
- Two Phase Horizontal Separator - Design Procedure.ppsxHochgeladen vonchipiloo
- PerforationsHochgeladen vonSikander Mushtaq
- SB Drill CollarHochgeladen vonJeff Zhang
- AbhinavHochgeladen vonhimanshuchaudhary5
- Shand&Jurs Safety Equipment in Methanol SystemsHochgeladen vonDiegoJavierJuradoRamirez
- AP Human Geography Chapter 14 NotesHochgeladen vonSeth Adler
- cnn401.pdfHochgeladen vonzulaffan zairifli
- heat treatment processHochgeladen vonபத்மநாபன் நடராஜர்
- A_160Hochgeladen vonAnuranjan
- 2004rp058-Effluent Color RemovalHochgeladen vonkasliwalrajesh
- Microsoft Word - TREX_50&110&125&150_OWNERHochgeladen vonwmfadzli7265
- n867Hochgeladen vonAnaSiPutriSulung
- flotexHochgeladen vonnit_xlri
- Waterproofing of Structures as Recommended in Indian Railways Unified Standard Specifications (Works & Materials)Hochgeladen vonpradhish
- Eccentric Reducers and Straight Runs of Pipe at Pump SuctionEccentric reducers and straight runs of pipe at pump suctionHochgeladen vonSudha Samant
- Ceramic Membrane MarketHochgeladen vonphaniraj_c
- Electrical MEO Class 2 NOTESHochgeladen vonManuj Patel
- NALCOHochgeladen vonsrinibashb5546
- MOTOR CATERPILLAR C175Hochgeladen vonJc Vera
- MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF DOUBLE-SKINNED COMPOSITE STEEL TUBULAR COLUMNS.pdfHochgeladen vonsaeed-21