1

DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.1

4 Illustrative Example

4.1 Introduction
A simple illustrative example is described in this Section - a circular plate under the action of a
uniform pressure action which varies between zero and a maximum value.
This Section should be read in conjunction with prEN13445-3, Annex B. The checks which have to
be considered according to this are the check against global plastic deformation (GPD), the check
against progressive plastic deformation (PD), the fatigue (F) check, the check against instability (I),
and the static equilibrium check (SE).
In the following the maximum admissible pressure according to the GPD-check and the maximum
pressure for shakedown of the structure, with a load variation between zero and this maximum, are
determined. If the structure shakes down under a given action cycle, the admissibility of this action
cycle against PD is proven – see subsection 3.3.2.1 of section 3 – Procedures. For the calculation of
the allowable number of action cycles, in the F-check, an upper value for the pressure equal to 90%
of the maximum allowable pressure (given by the other checks) is used: see also subsection 5.1 of
section 5 – Case Specification. For this structure and the specified action cycle, the I-check and the
SE-check are not required.

4.2 Problem Specification

The dimensions of the plate are: diameter 500 mm, thickness 25 mm. The design temperature is
specified as 20°C. The plate is assumed to be clamped at the edge.
The material of the plate is the ferritic steel P265GH according to EN 10028-2, the surface is
assumed to be machined with RZ = 50 µm . The material strength parameter is RM = 255 MPa , it
corresponds to the upper yield strength of P265GH at room temperature for a thickness range of 16
mm to 40 mm according to EN 10028-2.
The modulus of elasticity is given by E = 212 GPa (see subsection 5.4 of section 5 – Case
Specification).

4.3 Finite element model and boundary conditions

Since the radius to thickness ratio of the plate is relatively small, and since the application of the
checks can be shown more clearly, 2-D axisymmetric solid elements are used instead of plate
elements for the finite element model: see Figure 4.1. The mesh is fairly dense, and would be
expected to yield accurate solutions for elastic and inelastic analysis without further refinement.

The commercial finite element analysis system ANSYS© is used here.

 2
DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.2

Figure 4.1: Finite element model

The boundary conditions require some thought. In the technical theory of structures (beams, plates
and shells) the notion of a “clamped edge” of a plate has a specific meaning – displacement in
thickness direction and tangent rotation of the mid-plane at the plate’s edge are zero.
In a solid model a “clamped edge” has to be modelled appropriately and suitable boundary
conditions chosen. In the present example, which of course is chosen just to illustrate DBA and not
modelling, the vertical and horizontal displacements in the nodes at the plate’s edge were
constrained to zero. These boundary conditions seem to be fairly reasonable, but they create a
localised stress concentration near the clamped edge.

4.4 Determination of the maximum admissible pressure according to the GPD-Check

In general terms, the principles specified in DBA, as given in prEN 13445-3, Annex B, require that
the design effect of actions does not exceed the corresponding design resistance.
The design effect of actions is the relevant response of the model, with a specified material model,
to the relevant design actions. What the relevant effect actually is depends on the design check
under consideration. The design actions are products of specified characteristic values of actions
and corresponding partial safety factors of actions. Which design actions are relevant depends on
the load cases that have to be considered:
In the GPD-check it is the carrying capacity of the model that matters, that is, the carrying capacity
in terms of actions. Therefore, the design effects are the design actions themselves.
In the simple example considered here there is only one action – pressure - and only one load case
to be considered – maximum allowable pressure. In this specific case the design principle can here
be rephrased to read:
The design action, given by the product of the maximum allowable pressure and the corresponding
partial safety factor, shall not be larger than the design resistance which is given by the ratio of the
maximum pressure the model can carry to the partial safety factor of the resistance.
Following the proposal for change in this check, as stated at the beginning of Annex 2 of this
manual, there is a side-condition to be taken into account when determining this maximum
pressure: the side-condition is that the maximum absolute value of the principal strains for this
maximum pressure must not exceed 5%.
 3
DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.3

4.4.1 Approach using Mises yield criterion

In the GPD–check, Tresca's yield criterion is specified. Depending on the analysis software being
used, if no subroutine for this yield criterion is available, or if it is available but shows bad
convergence, Mises’ yield criterion can be used instead:
Since the maximum ratio of the Mises equivalent stress to the Tresca equivalent stress for the same
load is 2 3 , a GPD-check with Mises' yield criterion, with the design material strength parameter
multiplied by 3 2 , will always lead to conservative results.

Furthermore, if the result of the check against PD (where Mises’ yield criterion is allowed) is used
in the check against GPD (instead of a separate calculation) and if, like in this problem, there is only
one partial safety factor of the resistance γ R , multiplication of the limit pressure, from the check
against PD, with 3 2 leads to the same result as the multiplication of the material strength
parameter. Of course, since no partial safety factors are used in the check against PD, they have to
be taken into account by scaling down the PD-check results.
As stated in the application rule in prEN 13445-3 Annex B.9.2, the maximum absolute value of the
principal strains must not exceed 5%. To fulfil this requirement in cases where the results from the
PD-check are used, a value of the pressure from the check against PD shall be used such that the
maximum absolute value of the principal strains calculated with this pressure (and the material
strength parameter used for the check against PD) does not exceed 5 %.
Since in the final loadstep
the maximum principal
strain of the elasto-plastic
calculation for the PD-
check, which corresponds
to a pressure of 8.48 MPa,
was about 11%, a lower
pressure value had to be
used in the GPD-check.
Figure 4.2 shows the
principal strain distribution
for a pressure of 8.43 MPa
- the maximum value is
approximately equal to the
allowed 5%.

Figure 4.2: Distribution of

principal strain

The partial safety factor for the resistance γ R according to prEN-13445-3 Annex B, Table B.9-3 is
1.25 , and the partial safety factor for pressure action without a natural limit is given by γ P = 1.2 ,
according to prEN-13445-3 Annex B, Table B.9-2.
 4
DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.4

Thus, the maximum pressure according to the GPD-check is, in this approach, given by

8.43 3 8.43 3
PS max GPD = ⋅ = ⋅ = 4.87 MPa .
γ P ⋅ γ R 2 1.2 ⋅ 1.25 2

4.4.2 Approach using Tresca’s yield criterion

In prEN 13445-3 Annex B, Tresca’s yield criterion is prescribed. Unfortunately most commercial
software does not include this criterion in elasto-plastic calculations (although this could be
available in future releases). The approach given in Sec.4.4.1 is a simple work-around, but one
which leads to conservative results.
To show the possibilities given by the Standard, an analysis was performed with Tresca’s yield
criterion – the special routine was provided by an ANSYS© distributor:
The design material strength parameter is given by 255 / γ R = 255 / 1.25 = 204 MPa .
In this analysis, a first order theory and a linear-elastic ideal-plastic material with design material
strength parameter of 204 MPa were used. The pressure was increased until either an absolute
maximum was obtained or the maximum absolute value of the principal strains reached 5%.
In this example the second condition governed – at a pressure of 6.07 MPa the maximum absolute
value of the principal strains reached 5%.
Therefore, the maximum allowable pressure according to this approach for the GPD-check is given
by
PS max GPD , T = 6.07 / γ p = 6.07 / 1.2 = 5.06 MPa.
This value is about 4% larger than the one obtained in Sec.4.4.1.
Finally, it should be noted that since most commercial software do not offer this approach directly,
the result obtained in Sec.4.4.1 is used in the F-check.

4.5 Check against PD

The PD-check was performed by way of a shakedown check using Melan’s shakedown theorem –
see subsections 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.5 of Section 3 (Procedures) for further details.
The elasto-plastic finite element analysis was carried out as required in prEN 13445-3 Annex B,
Sec. B.9.3.1, using Mises’ yield condition and associated flow rule, a linear-elastic ideal-plastic
constitutive law with a design material strength parameter of 255 MPa, and first order theory.
By defining and using load cases in ANSYS®, the superposition of stress fields can be done easily.
Therefore, the first load step of the analysis was defined to be at a very low load level (0.1 MPa), so
that there was a linear-elastic response of the structure. All other linear-elastic stress fields can then
be determined easily by multiplication with a suitable scale-up factor.
 5
DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.5

The analysis was carried out using the

arc-length method, using a maximum
vertical displacement of 25 mm in the
middle of the plate as termination
criterion.

The termination criterion was fulfilled

for a pressure of 8.48 MPa , and this
pressure was used as limit pressure.
Figure 4.3 shows the elasto-plastic
Mises equivalent stress distribution
for the limit pressure of 8.48 MPa .

Figure 4.3: Elasto-plastic Mises‘ equivalent stress distribution

Figure 4.4 shows the linear-

elastic Mises’ equivalent stress
distribution for the limit
pressure – the stress maximum
is located near the edge of the
plate.

Figure 4.4: Linear-elastic Mises’ equivalent stress distribution for the limit pressure
 6
DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.6

Figure 4.5 shows the Mises’

equivalent stress distribution of
the corrected residual stress
field, the scaling factor β is
given by 0.719 (see subsection
3.3.2.5 of section 3 –
Procedures).

Figure 4.5: Mises‘ equivalent stress distribution of the corrected residual stress field

Figure 4.6 shows the Mises’

equivalent stress distribution at the
lower bound shakedown limit. The
scaling factor α is given by 0.854
(see subsection 3.3.2.5 of section 3 –
Procedures).

Figure 4.6: Mises’ equivalent stress distribution at the lower bound shakedown limit
 7
DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.7

Thus, the shakedown limit pressure is given by

PS max SD = 8.48 ⋅ 0.854 = 7.24 MPa .

This value is already well above the value of the maximum allowable pressure of 4.87 MPa, given
in Sec.4.4.1, or 5.06 MPa in 5.2. Thus, a further (complicated) investigation of the PD behaviour is
not required.
A simulation with pressure cycling
between 0 and 8.0 MPa has shown
that the model shakes down under
this cyclic action to steady-state
behaviour after four action cycles,
within the numerical accuracy that
can be expected. Of course, since the
maximum pressure, 8.0 MPa, is
larger than 7.24 MPa, the value
obtained for elastic shakedown, the
model does not shake down to elastic
behaviour, but to a purely cyclic
behaviour, where at the end of each
cycle the stress distribution is equal
to the one at the beginning, and
where in two distinct and non-
connected regions alternating
plasticity occurs such that the strain
increment over one cycle is zero in
every point – within the numerical Figure 4.7: Steady state equivalent stress distribution
accuracy.
Figure 4.7 shows this steady-state σ hoop
Mises equivalent stress distribution for
maximum pressure, and Figure 4.8 the
deviatoric mappings of the stress state
in the node of maximum accumulated
plastic strain, for maximum and
minimum pressure. The connection line
already passes close to the origin – an minimum
pressure
indication that steady-state behaviour
with alternating plasticity is almost
reached.
maximum
pressure

Figure 4.8: Deviatoric map σ normal σ radial

 8
DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.8

Figure 4.9 finally

shows the evolution,
over four cycles, of
the radial strain, for
maximum pressure
and for minimum
pressure,
respectively.

Figure 4.9: Total radial strain versus load history

Note: Within the framework of the technical theory of plates the model does sustain theoretically
pressure cycles from zero to the limit pressure (according to the GPD-check) without progressive
plastic deformation.

4.6 Fatigue (F) – Check

The number of allowable action cycles has been determined for a lower value of the pressure equal
to Pop, inf = 0 MPa and an upper value of Pop, sup = 0.9 ⋅ PS max GPD = 0.9 ⋅ 4.87 = 4.38 MPa .

The location where the linear-elastic

stress maximum occurs is near the
edge of the model. The structural
equivalent stress range at this point is
obtained by quadratic extrapolation.
Figure 4.10 shows the corresponding
pivot points: node 65, node 67 and
node 69, the stress shown in this plot is
Mises’ equivalent stress for a pressure
of 0.1 MPa .
The details of the fatigue calculation
are given on the pages 4.9 and 4.10 –
the fatigue calculation sheets.
 9
DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.9

Data
tmax = 20°C Rz = 50 µm (table 18-8)
tmin = 20°C en = 25 mm
t* = 0,75 tmax + 0,25 tmin = 20°C ∆σD = 279.3 MPa (table 18-10 for N ≥ 2.106 cycles)
Rm = 410 MPa N = 100 000 (for the first iteration)
Rp0,2/t* = 255 MPa ∆σR = 407.8 MPa (allowable stress range for N< 2.106 cycles)

Stresses
∆σeq,t (total or notch equivalent stress range) = 344.5 MPa
∆σstruc (structural equivalent stress range) = 312.3 MPa (obtained by quadratic extrapolation)
ó = 172.75 MPa (mean notch equivalent stress σeqmax = 344.5 MPa (maximum notch equivalent stress)
eq
Theoretical elastic stress concentration factor Kt Effective stress concentration factorKeff
− 1)
Kt =∆σeq,t / ∆σstruc = 1.1031 K = 1 +
1,5 (K
t = 1 . 0957
eff  Äó struc 
1 + 0,5 K
t
 
 
Äó
D
but not largen than Kt

18.8 Plasticity correction factor ke

mechanical loading Thermal loading
If ∆σstruc > 2 Rp0,2/t*
 Äó  If ∆σstruc > 2 Rp0,2/t*
k = 1+ A0  − 1
struc 0,7
e  2 R p0,2/t *  k =
υ 0,4
0,5 +
0,5 for 800 MPa ≤ Rm ≤ 1000 MPa  Äóeq, l 
with A0 = 0,4 for Rm ≤ 500 MPa  
 R − 500   R p0,2/t * 
0,4 +  m for 500 MPa ≤ R m ≤ 800 MPa
 3000 
A0 = …..
ke = ….. kυ = …..
∆σtotal = ke.∆σeq,t = ….. MPa ∆σtotal = kυ.∆σeq,t = ….. MPa
Else ∆σtotal = ∆σeq,t = 344.5 MPa Else ∆σtotal = ∆σeq,t = ….. MPa

If both mechanical and thermal loadings are to be considered, the correction has to be made on each component of the
stress tensors. Ke and kí are to be calculated with the above formulas where Äóeq,l is the full mechanical and thermal
equivalent stress range. The factor ke is applied to the mechanical stress tensors and the factor kυ is applied to the
thermal stress tensors. Then both tensors are added and the new stress range is calculated.

∆σeq,struc = Äó K (for usage in 18-11-3 and 18-11-2-1) = 312.3

total t

18-10-6-2 Temperature correction factor ft* 18-11-1-1 Surface finish correction factor fs

For t* > 100 °C fs = Fs[0,1ln(N)-0,465] if N < 2.106

ft* = 1,03 – 1,5 10-4 t* -1,5 10-6 t*2 = ….. fs = Fs if N ≥ 2.106
Else ft* = 1 with Fs = 1- 0,056 [ln (Rz)]0,64[ln(Rm)] +0,289 [ln (Rz)]0,53 = 0.7889
fs = 0.8539
 DBA Page
Design by Analysis Illustrative Example 4.10

18-11-1-2 Thickness correction factor fe

en ≤ 25 mm 25 mm ≤ en ≤ 150 mm en ≥ 150 mm
fe = Fe[0,1ln(N)-0,465] if N < 2.106 fe = 0,7217[0,1ln(N)-0,465] if N< 2.106
fe > Fe if N ≥ 2.106 fe = 0,7217 if N ≥ 2.106
with Fe = (25/en)0,182 = .....
fe = 1 fe = ….. fe = …..

18-11-1-3 Mean stress correction factor fm

If ∆σstruc < 2 Rp0,2/t* If ∆σFig.4.10:
struc < 2 Rp0,2/t* If ∆σstruc >2 Rp0,2/t*
Pivot points for quadratic interpolation
and σeqmax < Rp0,2/t* and σeqmax > Rp0,2/t*

∆σ eq, t
> 0 then ó
2 = 82.75
If ó = Rp0,2/t* -
eq eq, r
∆σ eq, t
If ó < 0 then ó =
eq eq, r 2 - Rp0,2/t*
and ó = ó = 82.75 MPa
eq eq, r

For N ≥ 2 106 cycles For N ≤ 2 106 cycles

See figure 18-14 M = 0,00035 Rm – 0,1 = …..

Äó Äó
if –Rp0,2/t* ≤ ó ≤ R then R ≤ ó ≤R
2(1 + M )
if p0,2/t* then
eq 2(1 + M ) eq

 M(2 + M )  2ó 
0,5  2ó 
1 + M 3 M  eq 
fm = 1 -  eq  f = − = ….
= 0.9826 3  ÄóR 
m
1+ M
fm = …..  1 + M  ÄóR   
fm = 1
  

18-11-2-1 Overall correction factor fu

f .f .f .f
fu = s e m t * = 0.7658 Äó /f = 407.8
K eff eq, struc u

18-11-3 Allowable number of cycles N

2
 4, 6⋅10 4

N =  ∆σ eq , struc  if N ≤ 2 106 cycles N = ∞ if Äó /f ≤ ∆σ
 f u − 0 , 63 ⋅ R m + 11, 5  eq, struc u D

N = 81600

N is obtained by iterations. If the value of N oscillates, a difference equal to 1 % between

two iterations is acceptable. If the values decrease monotonously, the difference must be
less than 0,001 % between two iterations.