International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 2733 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ijpvp

Analysis of cyclic creep and rupture. Part 2: calculation of cyclic reference stresses and ratcheting interaction diagrams
P. Carter
Stress Engineering Services, Inc., Mason, OH 45040, USA Received 14 June 2003; revised 28 May 2004; accepted 17 June 2004

Abstract Part 1 gives the basis for the use of cyclic reference stresses for high temperature design and assessment. The methodology relies on elasticplastic calculations for limit loads, ratcheting and shakedown. In this paper we use a commercial non-linear nite element code for these calculations. Two fairly complex and realistic geometries with cyclic loads are analysed, namely a pipe elbow and a traveling thermal shock in a pressurized pipe. The special case of start-up shut-down cycles is also discussed. Creep and rupture predictions may be made from the results. When reference stresses can be economically calculated, their use for high temperature design has the following advantages. Accuracy. Limit loads, shakedown and ratcheting limits are based on detailed analysis, and do not rely on rules or judgement. Efciency. Use of shakedown and ratcheting reference stresses to predict rupture and creep strain, respectively, allowing details of time and temperature to be dealt with as material data, not affecting the analysis. Factors of safety. For both low and high temperature problems, factors of safety can be determined or applied, based on the real failure boundaries. Conservatism. The rupture and strain calculations reect the limit of rapid cycle behaviour. Cycles with relaxation will be associated with longer lives. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cyclic loading; Pipe bend; Thermal shock; Shakedown; Ratcheting; Cyclic reference stress

1. Introduction 1.1. Design code approaches for creep and rupture A number of different methodologies are evident in high temperature codes. ASME Sections I [1] and VIII Division 1 [2] have design rules, and ASME Section IID [3] has design data, for materials and temperatures well into the creep range. The rules giving stress, which must be compared with an allowable, are clearly intended and applicable for steady loading. ASME VIII Division 2 [4], BS5500 [5] and ASME IIINH [6] refer to stress ranges and cyclic loading and make use of elastic nite element analysis with a stress classication scheme and allowable stresses, for low and high temperatures, where applicable. As noted in Part 1,

E-mail address: peter.carter@ses-oh.com. 0308-0161/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2004.06.010

de-coupling the analysis technique from the material properties for structural failure modes is reliable if the analysis can reect real structural failures. This approach implicitly relies on a reference stress argument. The analysis essentially gives a reference stress, which must be compared with an allowable stress to assess the design. The methodology described in these papers is that for cyclic loading, creep strain accumulation is conservatively dened by the ratcheting reference stress, and creep damage is conservatively dened by the shakedown reference stress. (In part 1, it was noted that a ratcheting reference stress which tends to zero for nite thermal stress cycles could be misleading.) ASME IIINH [6] uses a creep-fatigue damage calculation and avoids the problem of distinguishing between creep effective stress (or reference stress) for strain and for creep damage. Linking creep strain accumulation and rupture or damage as in API 579 [7] is only possible for steady loading.

28

P. Carter / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 2733

2. Estimation of shakedown and ratcheting boundaries We will use conventional elasticplastic analysis to determine shakedown and ratcheting reference stresses and boundaries. There are techniques to calculate shakedown and ratcheting without resorting to cyclic elasticplastic analysis such as rapid cycle analysis [8] and the linear matching technique [9]. Usually these techniques are benchmarked against a few simple cases with algebraic solutions such as the Bree problem [10], or a full plastic cyclic analysis using a non-linear commercial nite element code. It is our experience that the advantages of one of the alternative techniques (the rapid cycle solution) over full cyclic analysis are marginal. In this paper we will use the Abaqus version 6.4 code and cyclic elasticplastic analysis to obtain shakedown and ratcheting boundaries. Fig. 1 is the Bree [10] diagram, generalized in Ref. [11] and used in ASME IIINH [6]. It shows the different regions of structural behaviour that are possible in a cyclically loaded structure. The axes are normalised primary (pressure) stress, and secondary (thermal) stress range. The normalising stress is the material yield stress. There are four main regions of interest. Region E is elastic, where pressure plus thermal stress is always less than yield. Region S is shakedown. Region R is reversed plasticity, where yielding occurs on every cycle, but no incremental or ratcheting strain occurs. Region R indicates ratcheting, where nite strain growth occurs on every cycle. We seek to generate similar diagrams for other structures and loading. We consider cases, where primary stress is constant and secondary stress is cyclic, but in general any cyclic loading may be considered. Information is

summarized on ratcheting interaction diagrams similar to Fig. 1, using normalized axes. In this paper primary refers to loads and stresses which are dened in terms of pressure or load, secondary refers to loads and stresses which are thermal or displacement controlled. For a given structure with cyclic loading, we look for the lowest values of yield stresses for which (a) the structure shakes down, and (b) does not ratchet. This is a trial and error procedure, which can be made more efcient by techniques to estimate the shakedown and ratcheting boundaries in a ratcheting interaction diagram. If there is only one load combination and cycle of interest, then a ratcheting diagram is not necessary, and the plastic cyclic analysis described below is adequate to calculate shakedown and ratcheting reference stresses. However, it may help to know which region of the ratcheting diagram is applicable. The suggested procedure is to construct a trial or estimated ratcheting diagram, which is then conrmed or modied with detailed analysis. First we estimate the shakedown boundary. For steady primary loads and cyclic secondary loads, this could be assumed to be of the form of the shakedown region in the original Bree diagram, and in ASME IIINH. If the secondary stress is dominantly a membrane or uniform stress, then a second typical shakedown limit would be applicable (Fig. 2). This is easy to derive using a Tresca yield surface, and assuming the primary and secondary stress components are perpendicular. It is similar to an interaction diagram derived by Ponter and Cocks [12,13] for severe thermal shock. There is no reverse plasticity region, and no part of the boundary having the normalised secondary stress, qZconstant. This is consistent with a general theory by Goodall [14] which predicts that a shakedown surface having qZconstant is the boundary between shakedown and reverse plasticity, whereas if the shakedown surface does not have qZconstant, then it is the boundary between shakedown and ratcheting. For typical

Fig. 1. Bree diagram, showing elastic, shakedown, reverse plasticity and ratcheting regions. Axes show stress normalized by yield stress.

Fig. 2. Shakedown and ratcheting for cyclic membrane stress.

P. Carter / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 2733

29

cases, where secondary bending stress exists the suggested procedure is: Calculate the maximum elastic Mises stress (pe) and the limit load reference stress (p0) for the primary (loadcontrolled) load, and the maximum elastic Mises stress range (qe) for secondary loads. sy is the yield stress. Let pZpe/sy be the primary load parameter, and let qZqe/sy be the secondary load parameter. Also dene p 0 Zp0/sy as a primary load parameter having the value one at the limit load. The estimated shakedown boundary is dened by p 0 Cq/4Z1 if p 0 O0.5 and qZ2 if p 0 !0.5. For any combination of p 0 and q in or on the shakedown region, the estimated shakedown reference stress is the greater of p 0 Cq/4 and q/2. Secondly, we need to estimate the ratcheting boundary. There are two versions of the basic idea, and which is the best to use depends on the information available. We consider the effect of section thickness change on the parameters (p,q), and whether it affects ratcheting. From this we may derive an estimated ratcheting boundary based either on the sensitivity to thickness, or on a distinction between membrane (average) and bending thermal stress. The dependence of primary and secondary elastic stress on shell thickness is easily determined with a shell nite element model. For the Bree diagram in Fig. 1, the equations are simple. Let t be the normalised shell thickness with a value of one in the original case. In this case the primary or pressure stress is p0, and secondary or thermal stress is q0, Then pt Z p0 =t; qt Z q0 t (1)

(i) The maximum mechanical stress p(t)!p0 if tO1. That is, increasing the shell thickness by a uniform ratio reduces the maximum stress due to primary loading. (ii) The thermal or displacement-controlled stress within the elastic core is not increased by the shell thickness increase. These conditions are met in the Bree problem with Eq. (1). For more general shell problems the relationship between stress, shell thickness, curvature and temperature suggests that the assumption should be true for pressure and mechanical loading, linear throughwall thermal gradients and displacement-controlled loads. From the equations for p and q for the Bree problem it follows that moving along a trajectory dened by pqZ1 is equivalent to changing the wall thickness. Increasing the wall thickness implies pqZ1 with p decreasing and q increasing. Therefore if we select a point on the shakedown boundary and move along the contour pqZ1 with p decreasing and q increasing, then by the basic assumption, we will not move into a ratcheting region. This can be seen to be true for the points on the two shakedown boundaries pCq/4Z1 and qZ2. Along pCq/4Z1, moving along pqZ1 with p decreasing and q increasing is to move inside the shakedown region. On qZ2 moving along pqZ1 in the same way is to move into the reverse plasticity region. Consider the intersection of the two shakedown lines at pZ0.5, qZ2. Moving along pqZ1 with p decreasing and q increasing denes the boundary between reverse plasticity and ratcheting (P/R boundary). This procedure is shown in Fig. 3. This has three stress trajectories, each of which shows how stresses change as shell thickness is increased. With the assumption that none of these lines will cross the ratcheting boundary, it is clear how to select the point at the beginning of the trajectory, so that it denes the ratcheting boundary. We may apply this idea directly for the case of displacement-controlled secondary stress in a pipe elbow.

where p(t) and q(t) are the maximum thickness-dependent primary and secondary stress, respectively. The equation for q(t) is true for displacement-controlled bending stress, or for thermal stress, where the throughwall temperature differential is also proportional to t. The procedure is based on the following assumption: Increasing the shell thickness over the whole structure by a uniform ratio, with other factors unchanged, does not alter the structural behaviour from non-ratcheting to ratcheting. Generally, a structure which does not ratchet has an elastic core. The elastic core is sufcient to prevent a mechanism in the structure, which would imply ratcheting or incremental collapse. In the case of the Bree problem, the elastic core (if it exists) is that central region of the shell that remains elastic. The non-ratcheting assumption above would hold if increasing the shell thickness did not decrease the elastic core of the structure. This would happen if the following conditions were met.

Fig. 3. Three predictions of non-ratcheting contours based on elastic stress thickness dependence.

30

P. Carter / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 2733

For the case of a moving thermal shock, the displacementcontrolled analogy is more difcult to make, since thickening the shell changes the position of maximum bending relative to the thermal front. However, we know that a bending thermal stress with constant pressure is likely to give a Bree-type of behavior as in Fig. 1. If the secondary stress were membrane, the stress would not depend on shell thickness, and the result would be similar to Fig. 2. So for the moving thermal front we will construct an estimated ratcheting line based on a combination of secondary bending to secondary membrane stress. Consider a uniform section subject to displacementcontrolled bending and tension. Let t is shell thickness, where original thickness is 1. From the above arguments we may put secondary stress q(t)Zq0(aCbt), where a and b are the membrane and bending fractions of thermal stress q0. We know pZp0/t, where p0 is the pressure stress at original thickness. Eliminating t gives q/q0Z(aCbp0/p). This relation between p and q is one estimated ratcheting line. As before, the equation q/q0Z(aCbp/p0) applies to any (p0,q0), and the optimum values are likely to be p0Z0.5, q0Z2. In addition there will be another limit when the membrane component fails to shakedown. This line lies between (p,q)Z(0,2/a) and (p,q)Z(0.5,1/a). The predicted interaction diagram for the combination of a and b will be the inner or most conservative, of the cases of membrane effect alone, and using a ratcheting line predicted by q/q0Z(aCbp0/p). Returning to the use of the thickness stress sensitivity technique, assume we have found the relation between p and q using thickness variations with a shell nite element model. We may then infer a and b for this relation using a least squares t. The membrane ratcheting line as in Fig. 2 may then be calculated.

shakedown is feasible, but for cases that do not shakedown, convergence to the steady cyclic solution can be slow and difcult to detect. It is often difcult to distinguish between numerical noise and ratcheting for conventional cyclic analysis. Unless there is an ability to calculate the plastic cyclic solution directly, the distinction between reverse plasticity and ratcheting is often unclear in all but the simplest of structures. 3.1. Pressurised tube subject to thermal transient We consider a tube subject to constant pressure and a traveling thermal shock. The tube starts isothermally at K5.5 8C, and then a moving temperature front with ambient T, 5.5 8C, lm coefcient, 2500 W/m2/K, travels up the bore at 76 mm/s. The external ambient temperature is a constant K5.5 8C with a lm coefcient of 816 W/m2/K. The tube OD is 1295 mm and thickness is 50 mm. With typical properties of mild steel, this produces a maximum thermal stress of 10.5 MPa (Fig. 4). The membrane fraction a is 0.36, and the bending fraction b is 0.64. The elasticplastic cyclic analyses were performed with the temperature cycle from this transient. Thermal stress was varied by varying the expansion coefcient. The conventional shakedown plot in terms of secondary stress range is inconvenient for such transient thermal stresses. Obtaining the maximum stress range from the analysis is difcult. So the maximum thermal stress is used to characterize the problem. The estimated limits are now

3. Cyclic plastic analysis Conrmation of the shakedown boundary is relatively straightforward. Based on experience, shakedown does not require many cycles to occur, and it is easily identied by the absence of iterations, zero incremental displacements _ and increments of a variable such as 3p dt over the cycle, _ where 3p is plastic strain rate. Identication of ratcheting behaviour has been made easier with the the Abaqus direct cyclic technique [15]. Time-dependent cyclic displacements are represented by a Fourier series. Ratcheting is indicated by the non-convergence of the residual force associated with the constant term in the series. Positive identication of reverse plasticity is more difcult. For severe cyclic loading well beyond shakedown it is characterized by direct cyclic solutions which are very slow to converge and which do not show a clear divergence of the constant residual force term. Use of conventional elasticplastic analysis for cycles to detect

Fig. 4. Mesh and thermal stress contours for section of tube. Plotted on exaggerated displaced shape. Stress units ksi.

P. Carter / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 2733

31

the ratcheting limit calculated from a and b as described above. Then shakedown and ratcheting analyses were performed. First the shakedown point at (1.0,0.5) was found to be well inside the real limit, which was found to be close to (1.0,0.71). The shakedown limits were adusted for this. Fig. 5 shows the results with a number of other analysis points. The estimates and predictions are in good agreement. Also shown are the limits for shakedown and ratcheting reference stressZ0.5! yield stress. The inner (shakedown) limit is the more conservative, and would be used to calculate rupture life. The ratcheting limit would be used to calculate accelerated creep strain accumulation. 3.2. Pipe elbow under pressure and in-plane cyclic pipework loads We consider a pipe bend subject to pressure and displacement-controlled in-plane bending. Fig. 6 shows the nite element mesh using rst order reduced integration shell elements and the direction of displacement loading. Also shown is a typical distribution of ratcheting strain. The geometry is a 600 mm schedule 24 (9.5 mm thick) long radius (900 mm) elbow. Fig. 7 shows the estimated and calculated shakedown and ratcheting limits. The estimated ratcheting line was based on the effect of shell thickness on elastic stress at the position of highest stress in the model. The membrane fraction was found to be 0.8. The cyclic analysis results agree reasonably well for secondary stress range less than twice yield.

Fig. 5. Ratcheting and shakedown limits for pressurized tube subject to thermal shock.

based on the assumption that stress rangeZ2!maximum stress. The estimated shakedown and ratcheting limits were constructed based on the Bree shakedown limit, and on

Fig. 6. Pipe mesh showing typical ratcheting plastic strain distribution.

32

P. Carter / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 2733

reference stress is a conservative representation of this effect. At the boundary between the two regions in Fig. 7 there is a discontinuity. This is not necessarily physically realistic, but reects the different character of the two solutions. The use of the less conservative ratcheting reference stress outside the steady state limit would be appropriate for strain prediction. This would be best calculated from a contour passing through the minimum calculated ratcheting points.

4. Effect of through wall temperature variations on yield stress A further factor to be considered in applying the Bree interaction diagrams to real load cycles, is the effect of temperature on mechanical properties. To assume that the highest temperature in the cycle denes the properties to be used over the complete cycle is an apparently conservative assumption, which can be misleading. The assumption of a uniform yield stress, even though it is a minimum value, can underestimate ratcheting. As noted in Part 1, for the Bree problem with high thermal stresses and zero or very small primary stress, ratcheting can occur due to imbalances brought about by non-uniform yield stress. It can be shown that a variation of yield stress Dsy through the thickness affects the elastic core in a manner similar to an additional cyclic membrane thermal stress of the same magnitude, Dsy. This can produce ratcheting as described above.

Fig. 7. Shakedown and ratcheting of pipe elbow: effect of start-up/shutdown cycles.

For higher secondary stress, the structural behaviour of the elbow is signicantly different (less conservative) from the estimate based on the highest stress. 3.3. Analysis of start upshut down cycles For start upshut down cycles, there is a region within the shakedown boundary in which the contours of creep strain accumulation are unaffected by the secondary stress. In the ASME IIINH solution in Fig. 3, this is the elastic region E. This is a general feature of start upshut down cycles. An estimate of the steady state region is a straight line between the limit load and the initial yield point on the secondary stress axis. Conrmation for complex structures is possible by performing a creep steady state analysis, followed by an elastic secondary load step. The size of the secondary load to cause initial yielding is readily determined. Fig. 7 shows the limit of steady state behaviour for start up/shutdown cycles, and the shakedown reference stress of 50% of yield. This is a composite of steady state and shakedown reference stress solutions. The steady state region has creep contours independent of displacementcontrolled stress. Outside this region the more conservative shakedown reference stress is used, which is appropriate for the prediction of creep damage. The physical difference between the two regions is that outside the steady state region, the residual stress gets re-set every cycle, increasing deformation and damage rates rates. The ratcheting

5. Conclusions (i) The calculation of shakedown and ratcheting has been demonstrated for two reasonably complex cyclic problems. (ii) The use of estimated limits and the direct cyclic analysis technique is important for the efciency of the procedure. (iii) The results may be used to calculate creep strain accumulation and rupture for high temperature cyclic problems.

References
[1] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section I, ASME, New York; 2003. [2] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII Division 1, ASME, New York; 2003. [3] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IID, ASME, New York; 2003. [4] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII Division 2, ASME, New York; 2003. [5] BS 5500: British Standard Specication for Fusion Welded Pressure Vessels, British Standards Institute, London; 1996.

P. Carter / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 2733 [6] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III Division I Subsection NH, Appendix T, New York; 2003. [7] API Recommended Practice 579. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC; 2000. [8] Carter P. In: Owen DRJ, Onate E, Hinton E, editors. Stress analysis for cyclic loading, computational plasticity, fundamentals and applications. Barcelona: CIMNE; 1997. [9] Chen H, Ponter ARS. A method for the evaluation of a ratchet limit and the amplitude of plastic strain for bodies subjected to cyclic loading. Eur J Mech A/Solids 2001;20:55571. [10] Bree J. Elasticplastic behaviour of thin tubes subjected to high internal pressure and intermittent high heat uxes with applications to fast nuclear reactor fuel elements. J Strain Anal 1967;2(3):22638.

33

[11] ODonnell WJ, Porowoski JS. Biaxial model for bounding creep ratcheting, ORNL Report ORNL/Sub7322/2. Oak Ridge: ORNL; 1981. [12] Ponter ARS, Cocks ACF. The incremental strain growth of an elastic plastic body loaded in excess of the shakedown limit, Paper No 84WA/APM-10. ASME J Appl Mech 1984;. [13] Ponter ARS, Cocks ACF. The plastic behaviour of components subjected to constant primary stress and cyclic secondary stress. J Strain Anal 1985;20(1):714. [14] Goodall IW. On the use of Approximation in Inelastic Analysis, SMIRT6 Post Conference Seminar Inelastic Analysis and Life Prediction in High Temperature Environment, Paris 1981. [15] Abaqus Version 6.4 Users Manual, Abaqus, Inc., Rhode Island; 2003.